Download:
pdf |
pdfNATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
4201 WILSON BOULEVARD
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22230
March 21, 2006
TO:
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Office of Management and Budget
Docket Library
FROM:
Suzanne H. Plimpton
Reports Clearance Officer
National Science Foundation
SUBJECT:
Submission for OMB Review: 3145-0019, “Survey of Earned Doctorates”
(SED)”
Attached for review and approval is the electronic submission of the following collection:
•
3145-0019, “2006 Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED)”
The Federal Register notice requesting comments has been published. If you have any
questions, please feel free to call me at 703-292-7556.
Attachments
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION
Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's
Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement, and any
additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102,
725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503.
1.
Agency/Subagency originating request
3.
National Science
2.
0
0
1
9
a.
3
Type of information collection (check one)
4.
Type of review requested (check one)
a. [ X ]Regular
b. [ ] Emergency – Approval requested by:
c. [ ] Delegated
5.
Small Entities
a.
[
]
New collection
b.
[
]
Revision of a currently approved collection
c.
[X]
Extension of a currently approved collection
d.
[
]
Reinstatement, without change, of a previously
approved collection for which approval has expired
e.
[
]
Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved
collection for which approval has expired
f.
[
]
Existing collection in use without an OMB control number
1
4
5
-
b. [ ] NONE
Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a
Substantial number of small entities?
[ ] Yes [ X ] No
6.
For b-f, note item A2 of Support Statement instructions
7.
OMB control Number
Foundation
Requested Expiration data
a. [ X ] Three years from approval date
b. [ ]
Other - Specify:
Title (10-15 words maximum)
Survey of Earned Doctorates
8.
Agency form number(s) (if applicable):
9.
Keywords Education,
Colleges and Universities, Science and Technology
10. Abstract The Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) is an annual census survey of all (approximately 43,000)
individuals receiving research doctoral degrees from U.S. institutions. The results of the survey are widely used to
assess trends in Ph.D. production and plans for employment. This information is vital for educational and labor
force planners within the Federal Government and in academia and elsewhere.
11.
a.
b.
c.
Affected public (mark primary with "P" and all others that apply with "X")
[ P ] Individuals or households
d. [ ] Farms
[ X ] Business or other for-profit
e. [ X ] Federal Government
[ X ] Not-for-profit institutions
f. [ X ] State, local or Tribal Gov't.
13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden
a. Number of respondents
b.
Total annual responses
a. Total annualized capital/startup costs
39,364
b. Total annual costs (O&M)
N/A
c. Total annualized cost requested
33%
Total annual hours requested
2,580
d. Current OMB inventory
1,467
f.
Voluntary
Required to obtain or retain benefits
Mandatory
14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden (in thousands of dollars)
collected electronically
e. Difference (+/-)
a. [ P ]
b. [ ]
c. [ ]
42,787
1. Percentage of these responses
c.
12. Obligation to respond (Mark primary with "P" and all others
that apply with "X")
d. Current OMB inventory
e. Difference (+/-)
f.
Explanation of difference
1. Program change
2. Adjustment
+1,113
Explanation of difference
1. Program change
2. Adjustment
+1,113
15. Purpose of information collection (Mark primary with "P" and all others
that apply with "X")
a.
b.
c.
d.
[ ] Application for benefits
[ X ] Program evaluation
[ P ] General purpose statistics
[ ] Audit
e. [ X ] Program planning or management
f. [ X ] Research
g. [ ] Regulatory or compliance
1. [ ] On occasion
4. [ ] Quarterly
7. [ ] Biennially
2. [
5. [
8. [
] Weekly
] Semi-annually
] Other (describe)
3. [ ] Monthly
6. [ X ] Annually
18. Agency contact (person who can best answer questions regarding the
content of this submission)
17. Statistical methods
Does this information collection employ statistical methods?
[ X ] Yes
[ ] No
OMB-83-I
16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting (check all that apply)
a. [ ] Recordkeeping
b. [ ] Third party disclosure
c. [ X ] Reporting
Name:
Phone No:
Page 1 of 2
Susan Hill
703-292-7790
10/95
19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions
On behalf of this federal agency, I certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request
complies with 5 CFR 1320.9.
NOTE:
The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8 (b)(3), appear at the end
of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions
as set forth in the instructions.
The following is a summary of topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:
(a)
It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;
(b)
It avoids unnecessary duplication;
(c) It reduces burden on small entities;
(d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;
(e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;
(f)
It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;
(g)
It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8 (b)(3):
(h)
(i)
Why the information is being collected;
(ii)
Use of information;
(iii)
Burden estimate;
(iv)
Nature of response (voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory);
(vi)
Need to display currently valid OMB control number;
It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective
management and use of information to be collected (see note in Item 19 of the instructions);
(i)
It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and
(j)
It make appropriate use of information technology.
If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the
reason in Item 18 of the Support Statement
Signature of Senior Official or designee
Date
Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, NSF
Page 2 of 2
10/95
OMB-83-I SUPPORTING STATEMENT
FOR THE 2007-2009
SURVEY OF EARNED DOCTORATES
February 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section A: Justification........................................................................................................1
A.1. Necessity for Information Collection.....................................................................1
A.2. Uses of Information ...............................................................................................2
Current Uses of SED at the Federal Level .......................................................3
a. The National Science Foundation .................................................................3
b. The National Institutes of Health..................................................................4
c. The Department of Education .......................................................................5
d. The National Endowments for the Humanities.............................................5
e. The Department of Agriculture.....................................................................5
f. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration ...................................6
g. Other Federal Agencies and Congress..........................................................6
Academic Uses of the SED................................................................................6
A.3. Consideration of Using Improved Technology......................................................7
A.4. Efforts to Identify Duplication...............................................................................8
A.5. Effort to Minimize Burden on Small Business ......................................................9
A.6. Consequences of Less Frequent Data Collection...................................................9
A.7. Special Circumstances ...........................................................................................10
A.8. Federal Register Announcement and Consultations Outside the Agency .............11
A.9. Payment or Gifts to Respondents...........................................................................12
A.10. Assurance of Confidentiality .................................................................................12
A.11. Justification for Sensitive Questions......................................................................13
A.12. Estimate of Respondent Burden.............................................................................13
A.13. Cost Burden to Respondents ..................................................................................13
A.14. Cost to Federal Government ..................................................................................13
A.15. Program Change or Adjustments ...........................................................................14
A.16. Tabulation and Publication Plans and Project Schedules ......................................14
i
Project Schedule................................................................................................15
A.17. Display of OMB Expiration Date ..........................................................................15
A.18. Exception to the Certification Process ...................................................................15
Section B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ............................16
B.1. Universe and Sampling Procedures.........................................................................17
B.2. Survey Methodology ...............................................................................................17
B.3. Methods to Maximize Response .............................................................................18
B.4. Testing of Procedures...............................................................................................19
B.5. Contacts for Statistical Aspects of Data Collection .................................................24
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1:
Attachment 2:
Attachment 3:
Attachment 4:
Attachment 5:
Attachment 6:
Proposed 2007 Questionnaire and Actual 2004 Questionnaire
List of Methodological Research conducted on the SED
List of Persons who reviewed the SED
Authorizing Legislation of Sponsoring Agencies
Current Representatives from Sponsoring Agencies
Example of the Institutional Profile provided to each graduate dean and
products available
Attachment 7: Example of the Web Collection Pin/Password for Institutions
Attachment 8: Federal Register Announcement
Attachment 9: Responses to Federal Register Notice
Attachment 10: Qualitative Testing of the SED Questionnaire (2005)
Attachment 11: NSF Staff and Contractor Data Use Agreement for Individuals
ii
SECTION A: JUSTIFICATION
This request is for OMB clearance for three years for the Survey of Earned Doctorates Awarded
in the United States (SED). This request is for an extension of a currently approved data
collection. The SED has completed an extensive process of validation of existing items,
advice/testing of new items, with extensive testing and research on the proposed addition of a
salary question (described in section B.4). The goals for the SED revisions are: to reduce
respondent burden, to continue to improve both quality and efficiency, to reduce costs, and to
improve processes resulting in rapid release of these important data. The 2007 SED reflects the
changes suggested from this review process. The changes being requested here from the
preceding version are itemized in section B.4. Information about the reasons for these changes is
also noted in section B.4. The revised 2007 questionnaire and current 2004-6 questionnaire are
presented as Attachment 1. Selected reports that support the requested changes are listed in
Attachment 2 and are available upon request from Susan Hill ([email protected]).
A.1.
Necessity for Information Collection
The Survey of Earned Doctorates is sponsored by the National Science Foundation in
cooperation with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the U.S. Department of Education
(USED), the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Each
sponsoring agency obtains special tabulations from the survey each year for their unique need,
and also receives uniform data tabulations/reports that are provided to all sponsors. The
representatives of each of the sponsoring agencies and the list of persons who have been
consulted and/or have reviewed the SED 2007-2009 questionnaire are listed in Attachment 3.
The National Science Foundation has monitoring responsibility for the project, which is
currently conducted under contract by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC), affiliated
with the University of Chicago. A new procurement is going out later this year that will cover
the SED operations from 2007-12.
The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (as amended by Title 42, United States code
Section 1862, Attachment A) requires the NSF:
... to provide a central clearinghouse for the collection, interpretation, and analysis of data on
scientific and engineering resources and to provide a source of information for policy
formulation by other agencies of the Federal Government ....
Statutory authority for collection of information for fields other than science and engineering
comes from legislation for the other Federal sponsoring agencies. The following is a list of the
applicable legislation:
1.) NIH: Title I of the National Research Act of 1974 (PL 93 348)
1
2.) Department of Education: Section 406(b) of the General Education Provisions Act, as
(20 U.S.C. 122le-1)
3.) NEH: Section 956(k) of the Arts, Humanities, and Museums Amendments of 1990, as
enacted in Public Law 10 1 -512
4.) USDA: Title XIV of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1977 (PL 95-113) as amended,
and Title V of the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (PL 013-382) as
amended, Sec. 354.
5.) NASA: Title 42 of The Public Health and Welfare and Chapter 26 of the National
Space Program.
Attachment 4 provides the cited legislation for each sponsoring agency; these agencies are
subject to change pending funding.
A.2. Uses of Information
The Survey of Earned Doctorates has been conducted continuously since 1958 and is jointly
sponsored by six Federal agencies in order to avoid duplication. It is an accurate, timely source
of information on one of our Nation's most precious resources - highly educated individuals.
There is little burden on the respondents and the resulting information is used extensively by
many Federal agencies for program evaluation, policy formulation, and dissemination of results.
The SED is the only data source that provides comprehensive information on the education and
early career commitments of persons who have recently received doctorates. The resulting
information is a valuable resource for other government agencies, academic researchers and
policymakers, as well.
The results of the Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) each academic year become part of the
Doctorate Records File (DRF), a virtually complete database for over 1.5 million doctorate
recipients from 1920 to 2004. The purpose of the SED is to compile data on all recipients of
earned research doctorates awarded by U.S. universities.
The six sponsoring agencies have made extensive use of the Survey of Earned Doctorates.
Detailed tables, tabulations, and the computer files are available to representatives of the
agencies that sponsor the Survey of Earned Doctorates for use in program planning/evaluation,
policy development, and dissemination. The heads of the agencies use the data in their reports
and speeches, as well as in national forum discussions of educational policy.
Data base services from the SED are available to other organizations and special tabulations are
provided at cost. Statistical data from the SED are widely used by other Federal agencies,
Congress, state agencies, universities, professional societies, and individuals doing research in
science policy, graduate education, economics, and human resource planning.
2
The uses made of the Survey of Earned Doctorates reflect the fact that it is the most
comprehensive, accurate, and timely source of data on doctorate degree awardees in the United
States.
Current Uses of the SED at the Federal Level
The use of SED data and reports is widespread among Sponsoring Federal agencies and other
Federal organizations. The data are used for policy development, in carrying out program
responsibilities of the agencies, and in the administration of agency programs. The data are
disseminated extensively throughout the agencies. Some of the more important recent uses,
organized by user agency, are listed below. The participating Federal agencies are subject to
change, pending funding availability; the current liaisons for each sponsoring agency are listed in
Attachment 5.
a. The National Science Foundation
The National Science Foundation has been a sponsor of the SED since 1958. The uses made of
the data on science and engineering (S&E) doctorates are many:
•
The Survey of Earned Doctorates is used as the universe frame for selecting the sample
of doctoral scientists to be included in the NSF’s Survey of Doctorate Recipients (SDR),
a longitudinal survey of doctorate recipients in science, engineering, and health fields.
•
The survey serves as a measure of program effectiveness; the Graduate Fellowship
Program uses the information on those who complete the Ph.D. to evaluate the
effectiveness of the program and its design requirements. Many programs within the
NSF, especially those dealing with women and minorities, use data from the SED for
program planning. While these programs focus on U.S. citizens, data on foreign citizens
studying here for their Ph.D. are also useful for international comparisons and for
quantifying the attraction of the U.S. graduate education around the world.
•
Several reports are published on science and engineering doctorates by the NSF for
internal and external use. The first report to be released each year is available publicly in
November, seven months after survey closeout. Additional reports follow which provide
more detailed data or more analysis of the results from the Survey of Earned Doctorates.
Special tabulations of data from the survey constitute a key resource in meeting policy and
program information needs of the Foundation. Examples of uses within the Foundation include:
•
data on doctorates awarded to minorities and women for presentation to the National
Science Board for their use in examining participation of these groups.
•
data on foreign scholars provided to an interagency committee studying foreign access to
U.S. science and engineering at American colleges and universities.
3
•
baccalaureate institutions of science and engineering doctorate recipients supplied to the
NSF’s Division of Undergraduate Education for use in a study of institutions'
contribution to the highly trained labor force.
•
data supplied by the NSF to outside users. At the national level, within recent years,
major data users have included the White House Office of Scientific and Technology
Policy, the National Academy of Sciences, and others.
•
published results in widely distributed NSF publications. Data are included in two of the
Foundation's Congressionally-mandated biennial reports, Science and Engineering
Indicators, and Women, Minorities and Persons with Disabilities in Science and
Engineering.
•
a wide range of topics related to non-U.S. doctorate recipients addressed in Science
Indicators report, and in selected data tables that are available electronically on the
Science Resources Statistics (SRS) Web Site (www.nsf.gov/statistics/doctorates).
•
Aggregated data on selected variables are available for each institution through the
WebCASPAR database, available to the public (http://webcaspar.nsf.gov)
b. The National Institutes of Health
The SED has been used extensively for reports mandated by Congress in the National Research
Act of 1974 and funded through NIH. The committee evaluations of Biomedical and Behavioral
Training Needs made considerable use of SED data; the data were also used in the committee’s
two follow-up studies of NIH predoctoral trainees and postdoctoral fellows. Variables such as
time-to-Ph.D. and postdoctoral study plans have been used in these evaluations to compare NIH
trainees and fellows with control groups. The doctoral data have also been used to estimate
Ph.D. completion rates and to evaluate the NIH Minority Access to Research Careers program.
In addition, time series data by race are provided to the Division of Program Analysis for use in a
program review of minority participation. A table rank ordering undergraduate institutions by the
percentage of graduates who received Ph.D.’s in the biological sciences ten years later was also
provided to the Office of Program Planning and Evaluation.
The Division of Research Resources conducted an analysis of SED respondents for use in
evaluating the success of NIH's Minority Biomedical Research Support program (MBRS).
Several tables were generated for NIH's State of Field Study on Nursing. These tables show the
Ph.D. fields of persons with baccalaureates in nursing as well as baccalaureate fields of nursing
Ph.D.’s.
By allowing comparisons and sustained tracking of selected doctoral candidates, the SED
provides critical benchmark information for the NIH assessments of selected GPRA Target status
measures of the value of pre- and post-doctoral NIH training programs. Such information will,
as a consequence, be of certain value in completing the forthcoming OMB’s Program
Assessment (or PART) on Training Programs.
4
c. The Department of Education
The U.S. Department of Education has sponsored the Survey of Earned Doctorates since 1958.
The Department’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Postsecondary Education
Statistics Division, funds the survey and makes extensive use of a range of SED data. Reports
have been published on a time-series analysis of doctorates in the field of education, as well as in
other fields.
NCES has also used data on the postgraduate plans of new doctorates. Trend data are compiled
each year and displayed in tables in the Center’s publication The Condition of Education. NCES
has also published a report containing tables from the doctorate records file comparing education
doctorates to doctorates in other fields, by selected characteristics.
Data from the SED are also used for evaluation by the Department of Education’s programs,
such as the Office of Student Financial Aid, the individual program offices, and by the Office of
Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development.
d. The National Endowment for the Humanities
The National Endowment for the Humanities, a sponsor since 1973, uses the SED in the
Congressionally-mandated State of the Humanities report. Directors of NEH also use
information from the SED in reports and speeches. A Humanities Deskbook, using SED data,
has been compiled by the NEH Office of Planning and Budget and is updated periodically for
use throughout the agency and other interested organizations. In addition, institutional listings
are prepared to estimate eligibility for programs within the agency. Several professional
associations that cover humanities fields use the data produced by the SED at their conferences.
e. The Department of Agriculture
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), a sponsor since 1988, has developed a list
of discipline areas in which it has particular concerns, analogous to the subsets developed by the
National Science Foundation and the other sponsors, and has requested trend tabulations on
doctorate recipients in these fields. Data collected in the Survey of Earned Doctorates are used to
evaluate how widespread these programs and fields are in the United States. Data are also used
in the evaluation and planning of 1890 Land Grant and Tribal College programs. A considerable
and expanding number of tabulations from the SED are also available on their newly developed
Food and Agricultural Education Information System (FAEIS) and other Websites.
f. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
As a sponsor since 1995 of the SED, the Education Division of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) has developed a program for the utilization of data from the SED
in its planning and information dissemination activities. The data have been especially useful in
5
the 10 field offices which work with colleges and universities on science issues. SED data have
also been useful in providing information on the progress of women and minorities in science
and engineering.
g. Other Federal Agencies and Congress
Other Federal agencies have utilized the SED in several ways - through requests for special
tabulations and tables, data requests from NSF, and licensing agreements. Congressional staff
have called NSF for information on several topics relevant to legislation development (such as
debt levels of science doctorates at graduation) and national security interests (such as nuclear
engineering doctorates awarded to foreign citizens). The Department of Energy is a prime
agency in terms of the amount of tabulations they request each year from SED data.
Academic Uses of the SED
The nation’s Ph.D.-granting institutions not only contribute to the SED data set but also utilize
the data for many purposes. Each year since 1997, the sponsors have provided to the dean of
each graduate school profiles of their graduates’ demographic characteristics, debt status,
postgraduation plans, and employment and other data, compared with national and peerinstitution data (see Attachment 6).
Graduate and baccalaureate institutions use the data in program planning, comparison with other
institutions or with national figures, and in the development of affirmative action plans. SED
data on the number of Ph.D.s awarded to racial/ethnic minorities are used extensively by
institutions as the only reliable source of the supply of persons with particular qualifications for
academic positions. Site visits have confirmed the usefulness of the data to institutions. In the
past few years, we have seen the increasing use of data by Graduate Deans to address issues of
changes in the composition of the graduate schools and the time it takes to complete the
doctorate, etc., and they have relied on the Survey of Earned Doctorates as the "ready made" data
base of their graduates.
An analysis of users of the data show that academic institutions are the primary users of the data
outside of the Federal sponsors. Over the past three years, over 100 requests for data have been
fulfilled. While the universities in this country carry out the Survey of Earned Doctorates with
very little burden, it is clear that they get something back from the survey in terms of use of the
data for their own purposes; this is a symbiotic data collection effort.
In addition, academic researchers can apply to use selected microdata from the SED under the
SRS Licensing program, if publicly available data do not address the specific needs of their
study. These are legal documents that assure that the confidential data will be used and secured
according to the license agreement.
6
A.3. Consideration of Using Improved Technology
Planning for the development of an electronic questionnaire administration of the SED was
begun in late 1999 and has been refined, implemented, and expanded since that time. The
purposes of instituting an electronic, Web-based option were to ease the burden on students by
offering alternative completion modes and to help assure continued high response rates.
The population for this survey, graduating doctoral students, is virtually all computer literate and
familiar with the world wide web. Offering a paperless survey version which can be submitted
electronically is not only appealing to many students but is also very practical for respondents
who are often relocating at the close of their studies and are not near the graduate offices for
submission of their completed forms. The objective of ensuring high response rates is facilitated
by requesting students’ e-mail addresses and following up electronically with them for missing
critical items or survey forms.
The phase-in of the SED electronic procedures is viewed as an ongoing test of collection
procedures. This evolving test consists of three parts: a Web survey instrument to parallel the
paper version; follow-up for missing questionnaires and items via e-mail; and a web institution
interface which is password protected for each school (see Attachment 7). The Web version of
the instrument was carefully developed and tested to assure that mode effects between it and the
paper version were minimal and non-biasing. Students accessed the Web version by entering a
PIN/password which was either distributed by the school or in a letter or e-mail sent to the
student. Prompting for missing surveys or critical items was accomplished by the same
mechanism.
The Web Institution Interface is now available to all participating institutions. This electronic
Interface allows Institutional Contacts to enter their own password-protected site to monitor
completion rates for their graduates, to link to various SED reports, and to print forms from PDF
document files. The Interface also allows Institutional Contacts to compare their list of
graduates, and their completion status, with the SED contractor-maintained database.
In general, this electronic collection system continues to demonstrate the gradual pace of
adoption which can be expected of graduates and institutions. In the 2004 SED, 1,492 of the
38,271 individual completions were done via the Web. This small number included electronic
prompting of non-respondents, which was a small but important component of the completion
rate. This rate will increase slowly as more Graduate Schools move to an electronic collection.
In the SED, unlike many surveys, the main work of the survey distribution, collection, and
submission of forms is done by the institutions. The SED work is, however, but one of many
duties performed by the Institutional Contacts, who have varying degrees of task familiarity and
computer literacy. The SED also must fit in with the graduate schools’ procedures for
completing the doctoral processing. The work of maintaining the overall cooperation of the
schools while phasing in new electronic systems remains a continuing challenge, as the response
rate usually drops when the school goes to a Web collection.
7
A.4. Efforts to Identify Duplication
The National Science Foundation has reviewed other governmental surveys through direct
contacts with other agencies. At the present time, no survey gathers identical or similar
information. In addition, the National Science Foundation actively maintains contacts with
professional societies and groups, such as the Council of Graduate Schools, within both the
higher education and data collection communities, so that information about any surveys similar
to the Survey of Earned Doctorates would be immediately known. In fact, the survey carries the
endorsement of several scholarly groups interested in aspects of this information.
SED survey content is also coordinated with NSF’s Survey of Doctorate Recipients (SDR) and
with the SESTAT data on scientists and engineers. The Survey of Doctorate Recipients is
designed to provide demographic and career history information about individuals with doctoral
degrees. The results of the SDR are vital for educational planners within the Federal
Government and in academia. The SDR results are also used by employers in all sectors
(education, industry, and the government) to understand trends in employment and salaries in
S&E fields for doctorate holders and to evaluate the effectiveness of equal opportunity efforts.
NSF also finds the results important for internal planning, since most NSF grants and fellowships
go to individuals with doctoral degrees.
The data base system known as the Scientists and Engineers Statistical Data System (SESTAT)
combines data from the SDR, the National Survey of College Graduates, and the National
Survey of Recent College Graduates. The SESTAT system is designed to provide a
comprehensive picture of the number and characteristics of individuals with training and/or
employment in science and engineering in the United States. The SED survey content is
coordinated with the SESTAT surveys to avoid unnecessary duplication of items and to assure
relevant uniform approaches on similar items such as race and ethnicity.
The sample frame used to identify SDR respondents is the SED’s Doctorate Records File.
Locating information obtained in the SED survey is necessary for contacting new Ph.D.’s who
are added yearly to the SDR sample. The coordination of content and procedures is, therefore,
critical to the success of both the SED and SDR surveys.
Differences between the Survey of Earned Doctorates and the Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System (IPEDS), which collects some information on doctoral degrees, are
outlined below. The IPEDS Completions survey, conducted by the National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES) of the Department of Education, collects aggregate data from
institutions on numbers of degrees at each level by discipline and gender. It provides no data on
individuals, only data on aggregate institutional doctorate recipients (race/ethnicity and gender).
The Survey of Earned Doctorates obtains information from the individual research doctorate
recipient on over twodozen variables - information not collected through the IPEDS survey. As
mentioned earlier, NCES uses the Survey of Earned Doctorates extensively to present data that
are not available from IPEDS.
8
There are three data items collected on both the SED and IPEDS that may appear, on the surface,
to be duplicative: field of study, gender, and race/ethnicity. However, important purposes are
served by including these variables in both databases:
•
In the SED, these variables are frequently used in analyses that link these variables with
other key variables (such as the length of time spent pursuing the degree and the amount
of debt accumulated during the graduate education) which cannot not be collected from
the institutions that provide information to IPEDS. These three variables are also used to
identify individuals in "rare subgroups" for oversampling in the SDR (described above).
Without these questions, the SDR would need to be greatly expanded to meet the needs
for the Congressionally mandated report, Women, Minorities and Persons with
Disabilities in Science and Engineering, for education and labor market data.
•
It is also not a feasible option to exclude collection of the information about doctoral
degree recipients from IPEDS, because inclusion of field of degree, sex, and
race/ethnicity permits comparative analyses of trends in degree production at different
degree levels. SED data cannot be substituted for the IPEDS in such comparisons,
because of the inevitable differences between an institutional survey and a demographic
survey. For example, individuals' self-identification on these variables may differ from
those maintained by the institutions.
•
Including these three questions on both surveys also provides important validity checks
of both surveys at the aggregate level.
A.5. Efforts to Minimize Burden on Small Business
Not applicable. The SED does not collect information from small businesses.
A.6. Consequences of Less Frequent Data Collection
If the SED were conducted less frequently, national estimates of the characteristics of U.S.
doctoral degree recipients would be seriously degraded. The survey is also an important source
for monitoring changes in academic fields and participation in disciplines by demographic
groups of interest (including U.S. and non U.S. citizens on both permanent and temporary visas).
These data provide an annual barometer of the market conditions encountered by new doctoral
degree recipients and are therefore an integral component in policy implementation and program
design.
Less frequent data collection would also result in a more complicated administration of the
survey in the Graduate Deans' offices. The Survey collects data from each person receiving a
doctorate at the time they complete the requirements for their degree. Staff at the Graduate
Deans' offices insert the Survey of Earned Doctorates into the package of materials for doctorate
recipients. Any less frequent collection of the Survey of Earned Doctorates would yield far lower
response rates because the Graduate Deans' offices would be uncertain about the distribution of
9
questionnaires to prospective doctoral graduates, a process which now occurs continuously
throughout the survey year. Discussion with the Council of Graduate Schools and several
universities confirms the extreme difficulty graduate schools would have in operating the survey
on a stop and start basis. Stability of the survey form and of the survey collection process are
imperative for the usefulness of the data to the Federal agencies and for the ease of collection of
the universities. A continuation of the current survey methodology serves the best interests of all
involved.
If the SED were conducted less frequently, there would also be significant repercussions to the
success of the Survey of Doctorate Recipients (SDR). The Doctorate Records File is the sample
frame used to identify SDR respondents. Locating information obtained in the SED survey is
necessary for contacting the new Ph.D.s whom are added to the SDR sample. The coordination
of timing, content and procedures of these two studies is, therefore, critical to the success of both
the SED and SDR surveys.
A.7. Special Circumstances
The SED does not involve any special circumstances that require extraordinary burden on
respondents or that deviate from valid statistical practice. Specifically, the SED does not require
respondents to:
•
report information to the NSF more than quarterly;
•
prepare a written response in fewer than 30 days after receipt;
•
submit more than an original and two copies of any document;
•
retain records for more than three years;
•
submit proprietary trade secrets or other confidential information without procedures to
protect confidentiality to the extent permitted by law.
In addition, the SED:
•
is designed to produce valid and reliable results that can be generalized to the universe of
the study;
•
does not require the use of a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and
approved by OMB;
•
includes a pledge of confidentiality that is supported by authority established in statue of
regulation (the Privacy Act), is supported by disclosure and data security policies, and
does not impede sharing of data with other sponsoring agencies for confidential use.
10
A.8. Federal Register Announcement and Consultations Outside the Agency
The Federal Register announcement for the SED appeared on December 19, 2005 (see
Attachment 8). Public comments have been received by NSF from 24 persons in response to the
announcement, as of the close-out date of January 19, 2006. These all, with one exception, were
the same e-mail (distributed at the National Communication Association meeting) that propose
breaking apart the Communication fields and placing them in 3 separate categories on the SED
Field of Study list. (see Attachment 9 for the list and e-mail (23 responses), and the other e-mail
sent). In addition, SRS directly received 2 e-mails from individuals in the Association for
Education in Journalism and Mass Communication who opposed the National Communication
Association proposal for the Field of Study listing. (see attachment 9)
Consultations Outside the Agency
In the many years of operation of the Survey of Earned Doctorates, the six Federal sponsors and
the contractors have consistently invited others to comment on the SED. The comments come
from many and varied quarters, especially from the SED advisory committee meetings, the
Council of Graduate Schools, and other governmental and academic institutions. Comments and
suggestions regarding the Survey of Earned Doctorates and the manner in which it is conducted
have been received from individual respondents, university faculty advisors, Graduate Deans'
offices, and professional researchers by telephone, mail, and in person contacts. University
representatives have been sought out for consultation at venues such as professional conferences
and meetings. These consultations have helped to determine if there are problems in the conduct
of the survey or in the interpretation of certain items. These problems are discussed with
graduate deans for their conceptual validity and applicability to all fields of study, and the need
for such information is weighed against respondent burden. The sponsors work closely with the
Council of Graduate Schools and their input was received on the questionnaire for the SED 2007.
Formal visits have been conducted by National Science Foundation and National Opinion
Research Center staff for the purpose of consulting with graduate deans and campus
administrators. The majority of institutions visited include those with poor response rates,
primarily to resolve the survey collection problems at those institutions. However, the site visits
also allow for the discussion of the uses of the Survey of Earned Doctorates by the Federal
sponsors and by the universities themselves.
Other Consultations
The SED has also been informed by numerous other contacts between NSF and the user
community. For example, routine information requests provide insight into the interests of the
general public. In addition, there has also been consultation with members of the respondent
population for the survey.
At the request of NSF, NORC organized a Technical Review Panel in July 2004 to discuss the
possibility of adding a salary question to the SED. Labor economists, researchers, and graduate
school administrators discussed the logistics of adding a salary question and the uses for the data
with NORC and the federal sponsors. In May 2005, NSF gave approval for a set of focus
11
groups to examine the impact of adding a question on salary on students, institution contacts, and
graduate school deans. The conclusion of the focus groups was that adding a salary question
would not negatively impact the survey’s response rate, and the data would be informative for
individual students as well as institutions. NSF then requested NORC to conduct a set of
cognitive interviews to explore the most appropriate wording and placement of the question with
the targeted population of recent doctoral graduates or doctoral students nearing graduation.
These interviews took place in July 2005. Based on the recommendations of these focus groups
and cognitive interviews, an experiment with salary questions will be conducted in the 2007
round, and the resulting question will be added to the 2008 questionnaire form (see Attachment
10).
See Attachment 3 for a list of persons who had input and who participated in the review of the
revised Survey of Earned Doctorates form for 2007-2009.
A.9. Payment or Gifts to Respondents
No incentives in the form of payment or gifts to the doctoral graduates are used in the SED.
Respondents may access previous Summary Reports of the study via a Web site address
provided in each questionnaire.
A.10. Assurance of Confidentiality
The SED will be collected in conformance with the Privacy Act of 1974, including the section of
the Privacy Act requiring notification of the respondent concerning the uses to be made of the
data and the voluntary nature of his/her responses. The Survey of Earned Doctorates contains an
explicit statement that the information collected will be protected under the Privacy Act of 1974.
The statement indicates that the data will be used for statistical purposes only and also cites the
specific circumstances under which identifying data may be released. Further, the SED is
collected in conformance with the strict confidentiality requirement found in the NSF Act as
Amended.
Specific procedures for protecting both hard copy and electronic data are used by NORC (see
Attachment 11). Data files with personal identifiers are provided to two Federal Sponsors (NSF
& NIH) and their contractors only. As indicated explicitly in the confidentiality statement, the
respondent’s institution may request data for respondents for that institution only with a written
agreement to use such data for statistical and program evaluation purposes only. No one outside
of these groups can obtain data files with direct identifiers such as phone numbers and addresses.
Qualifying researchers can obtain microdata on selected variables (but no direct identifiers) only
by executing a License Agreement with NSF through their employer.
12
A.11. Justification for Sensitive Questions
The SED recognizes the growing sensitivity of requesting respondents’ Social Security numbers
to an increasing segment of the population. The SED is allowed to collect respondent Social
Security numbers under the NSF Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.) and in accordance with
the Privacy Act of 1974. However, the SED will collect only the last 4 digits of the Social
Security number to be used to ascertain the correct identity of the survey respondent in survey
operation and evaluation purposes.
A.12. Estimate of Respondent Burden
The SED is a census of all individuals receiving a research doctorate in the United States. In
2007, this is expected to include approximately 42,787 graduates. A response rate of 92 percent
is anticipated. As noted above, the SED has had recent response rates of approximately 91-92
percent each year. The resulting number of completed responses is expected to be approximately
39,364 annually. The time to complete the questionnaire is estimated at 19 minutes, based on the
results of cognitive interviews and staff testing with the proposed SED 2007 form. Therefore, the
entire information burden for the respondents is estimated to be 12,465 hours.
The cost to respondents for this data collection is estimated to be $349,020 (based on the
estimated 12,465 response burden hours times $28.00 per hour). The $28.00 estimate is derived
from the 2003 SDR data that indicate that the median income for individuals with science and
engineering doctoral degrees who are 35 years of age or younger was $60,000. ($60,000
/52weeks/40hours = $28.84). To adjust for salaries of doctorates not in the hard sciences, the
hourly rate was adjusted down to an average of $28.00 an hour.
A.13. Cost Burden to Respondents
There is no cost to the SED respondents other than the burden hour cost noted in A.12.
Respondents need not purchase, operate, or maintain capital equipment, software, or storage
facilities.
A.14. Cost to the Federal Government
The cost to the Federal Government for this annual data collection is approximately $2 million a
year. This amount was based on the negotiated contract cost for the 2003 SED ($1.98 million).
13
A.15. Program Changes or Adjustments
The only program changes are changes to the survey questions, detailed in section B.4. These
changes do not affect overall respondent burden, and the time required for completion is still 19
minutes. Only the increasing number of research doctorate awards since the last OMB clearance
submission caused a slightly higher annual burden on respondents. However, NSF is currently
designing a test to determine the optimal form and potential impact of adding a question on
projected salary for the 2/3rds of the respondents who have definite plans after graduation.
This test will be described in a generic OMB clearance package this spring (Field Test of
Possible SED Salary Questions). The SED must assume that some form of a salary question will
be on the 2008 SED, and will address that program change with OMB next spring through a
revision of the SED 2007-2009 collection.
A.16. Tabulation and Publication Plans and Project Schedule
The results of the SED are disseminated in a number of ways. To release the data, an NSF
InfoBrief is published. Then the NSF Detailed Statistical Tables report will be released
(containing a set of approximately 10 detailed statistical tables from the survey). These tables
will be descriptive in nature and will provide extensive information on the education and
employment plans of S&E doctoral graduates by field of study, granting institution, degree,
future occupational and postdoctoral training plans, and demographic characteristics.
The six Federal agencies participating in the SED sponsor the compilation of survey results on
all fields of study. An interagency report is prepared and published by NORC as the Summary
Report (provided free of charge to responding institutions) and is available via the Web, the
address of which is noted in the SED questionnaire.
The SED data will also be used in the development of key NSF reports, including the
Congressionally mandated reports Science and Engineering Indicators and Women, Minorities,
and Persons with Disabilities in Sciences and Engineering. All of these publications, plus
additional detailed tables, will become available on NSF’s Science Resources Statistics (SRS)
Web site.
It is also planned to include SDR variables taken from the SED data in the SESTAT (Science
and Engineering Statistical Data System), which is resident on the Web. The SESTAT system,
described in section A.4, can be used to produce tabulations from the component surveys,
providing a rich resource to those within and outside the government. As noted above, microdata
will also be disseminated to Federal co-sponsors and collaborating researchers (with legal
licenses) in order that specialized studies can be conducted. These, in turn, are expected to result
in reports and other publications further disseminating the data. Finally, it is anticipated that
substantive analyses of the SED data will be presented at appropriate professional meetings, such
as the annual meetings of the Association for Institutional Research, the Council of Graduate
Schools, the American Education Research Association, the American Statistical Association,
the American Economics Association, the American Sociological Association, etc.
14
The schedule for the SED results in data that are released very quickly. The 2007 survey form
covers the period from July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007. The forms will be mailed to the graduate
schools in early May 2006, for continuous distribution to individuals as they complete the
requirements for their doctorate. Returned survey forms are edited and coded until survey closeout, which for the 2007 academic year is May 2008. After the survey close out, data variables
are constructed, edited, evaluated, and reviewed for trend consistency in June/July. In August,
the file is further evaluated by an outside party (a separate contractor) and quality control checks
made in August. Data are tabulated in September and prepared for publication by October.
Aggregate data are made available to the public in November via a release by NSF on the World
Wide Web.
Project Schedule
The 2007 survey schedule follows. The 2008 and 2009 survey schedules are expected to be
similar except lagged by a year and two years respectively.
Phase
OMB clearance approval
Mailing of new forms to graduate deans
Forms distributed to graduates
Data collection close-out
Preparation of data file
Production of tabulations
Release of data by NSF
Summary Report to printer
Time
April 15, 2006
May 2006
July 2006 – March 2007
May 15, 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 15, 2008
A.17. Display of OMB Expiration Date
The OMB Expiration Date will be displayed, as indicated.
A.18. Exception to the Certification Statement
The 2007-9 SED will comply with the certification statement on form OMB 83 1.
15
SECTION B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods
The Survey of Earned Doctorates questionnaire is distributed to new doctorate recipients by the
Graduate Deans of the approximately 430 doctorate granting institutions in the United States.
The forms, either hard copy or electronic, are filled out at the time the individuals complete all
requirements for their doctoral degrees and are returned to NSF's contractor by the Graduate
Dean. Because doctorates complete the requirements for graduation throughout the year, the
questionnaire distribution and completion process is continuous.
Experience shows that the process is highly effective. The distribution of the form by the
university itself, the clear nature of the questionnaire, and the cooperation of the Graduate Deans
all combine to keep survey response rates around 92 percent.
A high rate of response is essential for the survey to fulfill its role as a key part of the universe
frame for longitudinal sample surveys, such as the Survey of Doctorate Recipients, and as the
only reliable source of information on very small groups (racial/ethnic minorities, women, and
persons with disabilities) in specialized fields of study at the Ph.D. level.
The feasibility of conducting the Survey of Earned Doctorates on a sample basis, and the utility
of the resulting data, have been considered and found to be unacceptable. First, it is highly
unlikely that the 430 graduate offices that distribute the form voluntarily could be expected to
effectively carry out a sampling scheme such as handing out the form to every fifth doctoral
candidate. In fact, one of the reasons many institutions participate in the survey is to receive
complete information about all of their doctorate recipients.
A second sampling option -- a mailing to doctorate recipients AFTER graduation -- would likely
have a much lower response rate because of difficulties in obtaining accurate addresses of
doctorate recipients, particularly foreign citizens. Such a technique would impose on the
universities the additional burden of providing current addresses of new graduates, a somewhat
ineffective process because experience with mailing surveys to new doctorates shows many
addresses are outdated almost immediately after graduation.
A third alternative, the sending of the questionnaire to doctorate recipients at a selected subset of
institutions, would result in only a marginal decrease in respondent burden because the largest
universities, all of which would need to be included in such a scheme, grant a disproportionate
number of doctoral degrees. For example, the 50 largest institutions annually grant 51 percent of
all doctoral degrees. Application of these sampling techniques would unacceptably reduce both
the utility of the data and the overall accuracy of the collected data. Matrix or item sampling -- a
widely used technique in achievement testing -- would not be feasible because the characteristic
information is needed for each doctorate recipient for use in selecting the sample for the follow
up SDR. It would reduce the utility of the information to request, for example, sex, or race, or
field of degree information for some doctorate recipients and not for others. These characteristics
are not evenly distributed across the doctorate population, and the extensive uses made of the
data base rely on the completeness and accuracy of the information on doctorate recipients.
16
Therefore, sampling doctorates would decrease the utility of the data while increasing burden on
the Graduate Schools which administer the survey.
When the hard copy survey forms are received at NORC they are entered directly into NORC's
Computer Assisted Data Entry (CADE) program. This system permits edits (for completeness,
consistency, valid ranges, etc.) during data entry. Surveys received via the Web site do not need
data entry but do receive edit checks. Errors which can clearly be remedied are corrected
immediately; any questionnaire failing the edit for critical items will have a follow up letter or email generated for the respondent. This system also permits monitoring the frequency
distribution of variables on a continuous basis, so that emerging problems, such as high item
non-response rates, can be identified early in the data collection phase and appropriate corrective
measures implemented, if necessary.
The accuracy of the data from the Survey of Earned Doctorates has been one of its strongest
points. An ongoing evaluation of the accuracy of coding, editing, and data entry processes is
conducted. It consistently indicates that the error rate is very low (less than one percent).
Additional quality control checks on the merger of paper and electronic forms as well as the
merger of missing information into the master data base are also ongoing.
The survey forms are constantly compared with the universities’ commencement programs to
make sure that only those persons with earned research doctorates are included. Universities are
also asked to provide addresses of any non-respondents. If by survey close-out an individual has
not responded, public information from the commencement programs is used to construct a
skeletal record on that individual. If a survey form is later received from a previous nonrespondent, the skeletal record is replaced by the information provided by the respondent into the
correct year’s data set.
The NSF project officer will be pleased to provide any of the documents referred to in this
supporting statement.
B.1. Universe and Sampling Procedures
The SED is a census of all students receiving a research doctorate between July 1 and June 30 of
the following year. Because it is a census, no sampling is involved. All institutions identified in
IPEDS as granting doctoral degrees are asked to participate IF they confer “research doctorates”.
If so, they are asked to distribute survey forms, or cooperate in the electronic distribution of
PIN/passwords, to their research doctoral recipients at the time of graduation.
B.2. Survey Methodology
Because there is no sampling involved in the SED, there has traditionally been no weighting
involved. Basic information about non-responding individuals is obtained, where possible, from
public records at their graduating institutions, graduation lists, etc. Both unit and item
nonresponse are handled by including categories of "unknown" for all variables in tabulated
17
results. The statistical experts associated with this survey are Colm O’Muircheartaigh, Vice
President of Statistics and Methodology at NORC (312-759-4017) and Rachel Harter, Senior
Statistician on the project at NORC (312) 759-4058). At NSF, Susan Hill, Project Officer for
this survey (703-292-7790) and Ron Fecso, Chief Mathematical Statistician, (SRS) (703-2927769), will provide statistical oversight.
B.3. Methods to Maximize Response
The SED has enjoyed an extremely high response rate during its existence, with an average of
92% completions over the past 30 years. It owes this high rate, in part, to the use of the data by
the Graduate Deans who go to extraordinary lengths to encourage participation on the part of
their graduates. Each Graduate Dean receives a profile of their graduates, compared with other
institutions in their Carnegie class, soon after the data are released each year. It is also due to
extensive university outreach efforts on the part of the survey contractor, NORC, and National
Science Foundation staff and to the importance the universities themselves place on the data.
Throughout the data collection period, schools are constantly monitored for completion rates.
Data on each commencement date are compared to data from the previous round in order to flag
fluctuations in expected returns. Schools with late returns or reduced completion rates are
individually contacted. Site visits, primarily to institutions with low response rates, by NSF staff
are also critical to maintaining a high response rate to this survey. NORC’s electronic
monitoring systems are particularly important to these efforts, as each institution’s graduation
dates or SED submission dates can vary from monthly to annual.
In addition to the broad efforts to maintain high completion rates, targeted efforts to prompt for
missing surveys and critical items are also key. NORC works with Institutional Contacts and
with dissertation advisors and also utilizes Web-based locating sites to contact students by mail
and e-mail for missing surveys or items. A Missing Information Roster is sent to Institutional
Contacts who can sometimes provide basic items, in addition to addresses. A series of Missing
Information Letters, requesting either the missing survey or certain critical items, and containing
PIN/passwords for web access plus hard copy questionnaires are sent to non-responding
students. All receipted data are merged and checked to avoid duplicate requests going out to the
various sources. The results of these varied efforts significantly increase the number of
completions as well as reduce the number of missing critical items, thereby improving the
quality of the SED data.
The response rates of institutions and to questionnaire items are evaluated annually. For
example, the evaluation of the response rate for 2004 indicated that over half of the non-response
was due to 26 institutions. Institutions with poor response rates were targeted for special letters
or site visits by NSF or NORC staff and, to a large extent, these efforts have been very successful
in raising the response rates at institutions.
18
B.4. Testing of Procedures
The SED has undergone an extensive period of testing of the items in the questionnaire, and of
obtaining advice on, and testing of, selected revised items. The changes made to the SED 2007
survey version are a result of many activities which helped inform changes to instruments and
procedures (see Attachment 2 for a list of the methodological studies). These included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
extensive reviews of item-by-item frequencies
coordination of items common to the SDR and SESTAT instruments (see section A.4)
review of all respondent comments for concerns over confidentiality or item
improvements
detailed review of emerging and declining fields of study and alignment with the CIP
(Classification of Instructional Programs)
specific analysis of the items changed in the 2004 questionnaire form
in-depth analysis of confidentiality issues
consultation with data processing managers on issues of paper and electronic data
handling and mergers
improvements in the coding and editing processes to ensure faster data entry resulting in
more timely follow-up with non-respondents
improvements in quality control processes resulting in earlier release of the data
conduct of cognitive interviews, noted above, with doctoral students from various
disciplines
review of “other, please specify” information in consideration of expanding or changing
answer options.
The draft questionnaire was reviewed by SED Sponsors in November of 2005, and the final
questionnaire was reviewed by the Federal sponsors in December and approved. (See
Attachment 3 for the list of persons who were consulted or who reviewed the questionnaire.) The
list below details changes made to the SED 2007 questionnaire from the 2004 version and the
rationales for those changes. Still under consideration is a possible format change to the Field of
Studies list that appears on page seven of the questionnaire. Also, as mentioned before, NSF will
conduct a field experiment on proposed versions of a salary question; this documents indicates
where that question will appear in the SED 2008 survey form.
19
CHANGES to the SED 2007-9 QUESTIONNAIRE from SED 2004:
Cover Cover: Type of research doctorate degree (Ph.D., …) The word research was added
before doctorate on the cover page respondent information section.
Rationale: This addition clarifies the type of doctorate that is included in the SED, and
should lower the incidence of non-research doctorates completing the survey.
The dates which the questionnaire will cover were updated to July 1, 2006 to June 30,
2007.
Confidentiality Statement: The sentence “The last four digits of your Social Security
Number are also solicited under the NSF Act of 1950, as amended; provision of it is
voluntary” was changed.
Rationale: The survey now only asks for the last four digits of the respondent’s Social
Security Number. The confidentiality statement was updated to reflect this change.
PART A – EDUCATION
SED04
Ques#
SED07
Ques #
A5
A5. Sources of Support: The term “stipend” was removed from option b. The
option “Spouse’s, partner’s, or family earnings” was changed to “Spouse’s,
partner’s, or family’s earnings.”
Rationale: Cognitive interviews found that “Stipend” is a general term used in
most universities, and was not specifically tied to grants. “Family” was changed
to “family’s” to be grammatically consistent with the other terms in the response
option.
A7
A7. Post-secondary education debt: Two categories “60,001 to 70,000”, and
“$70,001 and up” were added. “$50,000 and up” was changed from “$50,001 to
$60,000.”
Rationale: A review of the responses to this question found a ceiling effect at the
‘50,000 and up” category. Two more options above $50,000 should keep pace
with growing debt levels.
A8.
A8. Education History: The wording in part c. was changed from “Month/year
of degree award” to “Month/year degree granted.”
Rationale: The wording obtains better data for collecting time-to-degree
information and is now consistent with the front cover and question A9.
20
A9
A9. Additional post-secondary degrees: “Field Number” and “Month/Year
granted” added to the list of requested items.
Rationale: This additional data should provide a more complete picture of the
additional degrees earned.
A11
A11. Year first entering graduate school: Month first entered graduate school
was added to the question.
Rationale: More explicit questioning, by including the month first started, should
make the calculation of time to degree more accurate.
A12
A12. Years taking courses for doctorate: This question was combined with A13
(Years working on dissertation), and formatted to have each item asked as a
different part of one question.
Rationale: This format revision will clarify that each part is exclusive of the
other.
A13. Years spent not working on degree: This question was added.
Rationale: This explicit question was added to capture the amount of time, or
“gap years”, when a respondent was not working toward their degree. The
question is based on a similar item in the 1987 SED that asked about time spent
not working on a degree between the BA and the PhD. By referring to this time
off between graduate school entry and PhD, this question should greatly add to
the context of the time to degree measure.
A15
A15. Medical or dental degree: The question now asks specifically about an MD
or DDS instead of a professional medical degree.
Rationale: The 2004 data showed that there were many respondents who
included a medical degree, foreign and domestic, in A9, but answered “No” to
A15. The new wording should make it more obvious to those with an MD or
DDS that they should answer “Yes.” NIH is specifically interested in these two
types of professional doctorates.
PART B – POSTGRADUATION PLANS
B3
B3. Postgraduate plan status: The term “postdoc” replaced the term
“postdoctoral” in response option 1, and the phrase was re-ordered to read
“postdoc or other work.” The response option “Other degree program (e.g., MD,
DDS, JD, MBA, etc.)” was added, and the example “(e.g., family commitments,
etc.)” was added to response option “Do not plan to work or study.”
21
Rationale: The “Other degree program” option was added for respondents who
do not fit the employment/postdoc “employment” model for the remaining
questions in the section. 2004 data indicates these respondents chose “further
work or study” in this question, and therefore were guided through the rest of the
section. The new category should reduce the possibility of frustrating respondents
with questions that do not apply to them. Additionally, adding “family
commitments” to “do not plan to work or study” should direct respondents who
would normally chose “other- specify” to choose “do not plan to work or study”,
which is the more appropriate category.
B4
B4. Immediate postgraduate plans: The term “postdoctoral” was replaced with
the term “postdoc” in all headings and response options, and the wording of the
first heading now reads “Postdoc or further training”. For category five
“Employment”, the instructions now read “(other than postdoc or further
training)”.
Rationale: Emphasizing the term “postdoc” in several areas should reduce the
number of true postdocs who choose employment for this question. The word
“postdoc” is used instead of “postdoctoral” to be consistent with the question
which defines postdoc.
B5
B5. Postgraduate source of support: The term “postdoc” replaces the term
“postdoctoral” in the question stem.
Rationale: The wording was changed to be consistent with the rest of the
questionnaire.
B6
B6. Type of employer: The question stem was changed to read “What type of
principal employer will you be working for (or training with) in the next year?”
The coding changed from an alpha list to a numerical list.
Rationale: The new question wording should be easier to understand for
respondents, and the word “principal” should clarify that the question is referring
to the primary job if there is more than one. The coding update will make the
question consistent with the other “Mark One” questions.
****** A proposed question on salary expected, for those with definite plans, would go here.
B8
B8. Work activities: The instructions were moved directly over the responses.
Rationale: The placement of the instructions should reduce the instances where
respondents choose more than one option per column.
22
PART C – BACKGROUND INFORMATION
C3
C3. Dependents: The phrase “(children or adults)” was added to the question
stem, and the instructions were changed to “Write in number” right above the
box. The box for no dependents was lined up directly above the other boxes.
Rationale: The cognitive interviews found that respondents were defining
dependents to mean children only. Specifically mentioning adults should clarify
that all financial dependents should be included. Additionally, the new
instructions should help reduce the instances of respondents checking a box when
they should write in a number.
C4
C4. Parents’ educational attainment: The list of professional degrees was
updated.
Rationale: The list of degrees is now in line with the most common professional
degrees earned.
C12
C12. Hispanic or Latino: The parentheses around “Latino” were removed.
Rationale: The question is now more closely aligned with the U.S. Census
version of this question.
C15
C15. Social Security Number: This question will ask only for the last four digits
of the SSN, instead of the full nine digit number.
Rationale: Cognitive interviews, focus groups, and respondent comments found
that this question was highly sensitive, and many respondents were very
uncomfortable providing this information. This question also had a high level of
item non-response. The research showed that asking for only the last four digits
would ease respondent discomfort. However, it will still provide enough
information for the purposes of the survey. The SED will use the last 4 digits to
make sure there are no duplicate forms in the collection and to ensure that the
correct person is located in the SDR sample, if applicable.
C16
E-mail and phone contact information: Cell phone number was also asked for.
Rationale: Added to reflect the increased use of the cell phone; it will aid in
location of new Ph.D.’s, a very mobile population.
C18
Signature and Date: This question was dropped from the survey.
Rationale: Signature is not collected in the web SED and is not collected in most
other Federal surveys; therefore it is dropped to increase consistency between the
two modes and other surveys.
23
B.5. Contacts for Statistical Aspects of Data Collection
National Opinion Research Center (Tom Hoffer, Project Director) is the contractor that will
conduct the 2007 survey and perform some of the analyses. As noted above, little statistical
estimation work (see B.2) has been necessary for this survey in the past, because it is an annual
census. Statistical experts at NORC associated with the Doctoral Data Project (Colm
O’Muircheartaigh and Rachel Harter, noted in B.2, will be asked to evaluate the analyses done at
NORC). Ron Fecso, Chief Statistician at SRS/NSF, will be asked to evaluate analyses done at
NORC as well as those done at NSF.
24
ATTACHMENT 1: PROPOSED 2007 QUESTIONNAIRE (Unformatted)
AND ACTUAL 2004 QUESTIONNAIRE
NOTE: Changes in the SED 2007 from the SED 2004 are highlighted in yellow.
25
COVER PAGE
Please print your name in full:
First Name
Middle Name
Last Name
Cross reference: Birth name or former name legally changed
Name of Doctoral Institution
City or Branch
Type of Research Doctorate Degree (e.g., Ph.D., Ed.D., D.M.A., etc.)
Suffix (e.g., Jr.)
Date Degree Granted
(mm/yyyy)
Survey of Earned Doctorates
July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2007
Conducted by
The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago
for
The National Science Foundation
The National Institutes of Health
The U.S. Department of Education
The National Endowment for the Humanities
The U.S. Department of Agriculture
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
This information is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of
1950, as amended. ALL INFORMATION YOU PROVIDE WILL BE TREATED AS
CONFIDENTIAL and used only for research or statistical purposes by your doctoral
institution, the survey sponsors, their contractors, and collaborating researchers for the
purpose of analyzing data, preparing scientific reports and articles, and selecting samples for
a limited number of carefully defined follow-up studies. The last four digits of your Social
Security Number are also solicited under the NSF Act of 1950, as amended; provision of it
is voluntary. It will be kept confidential. It is used for quality control, to assure that we
identify the correct persons, especially when data are used for statistical purposes in Federal
program evaluation. Any information publicly released (such as statistical summaries) will
be in a form that does not personally identify you. Your response is voluntary and failure to
provide some or all of the requested information will not in any way adversely affect you.
The time needed to complete this form varies according to individual circumstances, but the
average time is estimated to be 19 minutes. If you have comments regarding this time
estimate, you may write to the National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington,
VA 22230, Attention: NSF Reports Clearance Officer. A Federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
OMB No.: 3145-0019
Approval Expires XX/XX/2009
26
PAGE 2
INSTRUCTIONS
Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Directions are provided for each
question.
• If you have not already done so, please print your name on the front cover.
• Please print all responses; you may use either a pen or pencil.
• When answering questions that require marking a box, please use an "X."
PART A - Education
A1.
What is the title of your dissertation?
Please mark (X) this box if the title below refers to a performance, project report, or a
musical or literary composition required instead of a dissertation.
Title:
A2.
Please write the name of the primary field of your dissertation research.
Name of Field
Using the list on page 7, choose the code that best describes the primary field of your
dissertation research.
Number of Field
If your dissertation research was interdisciplinary, list the name and number of your
secondary field.
Name of Field
Number of Field
If there were more than two fields, please continue on the back cover of the questionnaire
(p. 8).
A3.
Please name the department (or interdisciplinary committee, center, institute, etc.) of the
university that supervised your doctoral studies.
Department/Committee/Center/Institute/Program
A4.
If you received full or partial tuition remission (waiver) for your doctoral studies, was it:
0 I did not receive any tuition remission
1 for less than 1/3 of tuition
2 between 1/3 and 2/3 of tuition
3 more than 2/3 of tuition but less than full
4 full tuition remission
27
A5.
Which of the following were sources of financial support during graduate school?
Mark ALL that apply
a. Fellowship, scholarship
b. Grant
c. Teaching assistantship
d. Research assistantship
e. Other assistantship
f. Traineeship
g. Internship, clinical residency
h. Loans (from any source)
i. Personal savings
j. Personal earnings during graduate school (other than sources listed above)
k. Spouse's, partner's, or family’s earnings or savings
l. Employer reimbursement/assistance
m. Foreign (non-U.S.) support
n. Other - Specify
A6.
Which TWO sources listed in A5 provided the most support?
Enter letters of primary and secondary sources
1 Primary source of support
2 Secondary source of support
Mark (X) if no secondary source
A7.
When you receive your doctoral degree, how much money will you owe that is directly
related to your undergraduate and graduate education?
Mark (X) one in each column
Undergraduate
Graduate
0 None
0 None
1 $10,000 or less
1 $10,000 or less
2 $10,001 - $20,000
2 $10,001 - $20,000
3 $20,001 - $30,000
3 $20,001 - $30,000
4 $30,001 - $40,000
4 $30,001 - $40,000
5 $40,001 - $50,000
5 $40,001 - $50,000
6 $50,001 - $60,000
6 $50,001 - $60,000
7 $60,001 - $70,000
7 $60,001 - $70,000
8 $70,001 or more
8 $70,001 or more
28
PAGE 3
A8.
The next few questions ask about the degrees you have received. Starting with this
doctorate degree, please provide the following information for the most recent master’s
degree and your first bachelor’s degree.
a. Have you received a degree of this type? . .
b. Month/year that you started your degree. . .
c. Month/year degree granted.. . . . . . . . . . . .
This research
doctorate degree
Yes X No
Month
Year
Month
Year
d. Primary field of study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
e. Field number from list on p. 7 . . . . . . . . . .
f. Institution name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
g. Branch or city. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
h. State or province . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i. Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A9.
Most recent
master’s degree
(e.g. MS, MA,
MBA) or
equivalent
Yes
No
Month
Year
Month
Year
First bachelor's
degree
(e.g. BA, BS,
AB) or equivalent
Yes
No
Month
Year
Month
Year
USA
Excluding those above, have you attained any additional postsecondary degrees? …
Yes No
If yes, please list the additional degree(s), granting institution(s), and years.
Degree Type
Degree Field
Field Number, p. 7
Month/Year Granted
Institution
Branch or City
State or Country
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
Degree Type
Degree Field
Field Number, p. 7
Month/Year Granted
Institution
Branch or City
State or Country
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
If necessary, please continue this list on the back cover (p.8).
29
A10.
Was a master’s degree a prerequisite for admission to your doctoral program?
Yes No
A11.
In what month and year did you first enter graduate school in any program or capacity, in
any university?
Month ______ Year __________
A12.
How many years were you:
a. taking courses or preparing for exams for this doctoral degree (including a master's
degree, if that was part of your doctoral program)?
Years __________
Round to whole years
b. working on your dissertation after coursework and exams (non-course related preparation
or research, writing, and defense)?
Years __________
Round to whole years
A13. Was there any time from the year you entered your doctoral program and the award of
your doctorate that you were not working on your degree (that is, not taking courses or
working on your dissertation)?
Yes No
If yes, please provide the number of years ______
Round to whole years.
30
PAGE 4
A14.
Did you earn college credit from a community or two-year college?
1 Yes
2 No
A15.
Are you earning, or have you earned, an MD or a DDS?
1 Yes
2 No
PART B - Postgraduation Plans
B1.
In what country or state do you intend to live after graduation (within the next year)?
0 in U.S.
State
__________
1 not in U.S.
Country __________
B2.
Do you intend to take a "postdoc" position?
(A "postdoc" is a temporary position primarily for gaining additional education and training
in research, usually awarded in academe, industry, or government.)
1 Yes
2 No
B3.
What is the status of your postgraduate plans (in the next year)?
Mark (X) one
0 Returning to, or continuing in, predoctoral employment
1 Have signed contract or made definite commitment for a “postdoc” or other work
GO TO B4
2 Negotiating with one or more specific organizations
3 Seeking position but have no specific prospects
4 Other full-time degree program (e.g., MD, DDS, JD, MBA, etc.)
5 Do not plan to work or study (e.g., family commitments, etc.)
6 Other - Specify
SKIP TO C1
31
B4.
What best describes your (within the next year) postgraduate plans?
Mark (X) one
“POSTDOC” OR FURTHER TRAINING
0 “Postdoc” fellowship
1 “Postdoc” research associateship
2 Traineeship
3 Intern, clinical residency
4 Other - Specify
GO TO B5
EMPLOYMENT
5 Employment (other than “postdoc or further training”)
6 Military service
7 Other - Specify
SKIP TO B6
B5.
What will be the main source of financial support for your “postdoc” or further training
within the next year?
Mark (X) one
0 U.S. government
1 Industry/business
2 College or university
3 Private foundation
4 Nonprofit, other than private foundation or college
5 Foreign government
6 Other - Specify
7 Unknown
32
B6.
What type of principal employer will you be working for (or training with) in the next year?
Mark (X) one
EDUCATION
1. U.S. 4-year college or university other than medical school
2. U.S. medical school (including university-affiliated hospital or medical
center)
3. U.S. university-affiliated research institute
4. U.S. community or two-year college
5. U.S. preschool, elementary, middle, secondary school or school system
6. Foreign educational institution
GOVERNMENT (other than education institution)
7. Foreign government
8. U.S. federal government
9. U.S. state government
10. U.S. local government
PRIVATE SECTOR (other than education institution)
11. Not for profit organization
12. Industry or business (for profit)
OTHER
13. Self-employed
14. Other - Specify
33
PAGE 5
B7.
Please name the organization and geographic location where you will work or study.
Name
_______________
State (if U.S.)
_______________
OR
Country (if not U.S.) _______________
******** A salary question being tested now will be placed here in the SED AY2008**********
B8.
What will be your primary and secondary work activities?
Mark (X) one in each column
a. Primary
b. Secondary
Research and development
1
1
Teaching
2
2
Management or administration
3
3
Professional services to individuals
4
4
Other - Specify
5
5
Mark (X) if no secondary work activities.
PART C - Background Information
C1.
Are you –
1 Male
2 Female
C2.
What is your marital status?
Mark (X) one
1 Married
2 Living in a marriage-like relationship
3 Widowed
4 Separated
5 Divorced
6 Never married
34
C3. Not including yourself or your spouse/partner, how many dependents (children or adults) do
you have – that is, how many others receive at least one half of their financial support from you?
Mark (x) box if none
5 years of age or younger
6 to 18 years
19 years or older
Write in Number
C4.
What is the highest educational attainment of your mother and father (or guardians)?
Mark (X) one for each parent
a. Mother
b. Father
Less than high/secondary school graduate
1
1
High/secondary school graduate
2
2
Some college
3
3
Bachelor's degree
4
4
Master's degree
5
5
(e.g., MA, MS, MBA, MSW, etc.)
Professional degree
6
6
(e.g., MD, DDS, JD, D.Min, Psy.D., etc.)
Research doctoral degree
7
7
Not applicable
8
8
C5.
What is your place of birth?
State (if U.S.)
__________
OR
Country (if not U.S.) __________
C6.
What is your date of birth?
Month _________
Day _________
35
Year 19
C7.
What is your citizenship status?
Mark (X) one
U.S. CITIZEN
0 Since birth
1 Naturalized
SKIP TO C9
NON-U.S. CITIZEN
2 With a Permanent U.S. Resident Visa ("Green Card")
3 With a Temporary U.S. Visa
GO TO C8
PAGE 6
C8.
(IF A NON-U.S. CITIZEN) Of which country are you a citizen?
(Specify country of present citizenship)
C9.
In what state or country was the high school/secondary school that you last
attended?
State (if U.S.)
__________
OR
Country (if not U.S.) __________
C10.
Are you a person with a disability?
1 Yes
GO TO C11
2 No
SKIP TO C12
C11.
Which of the following categories describes your disability(ies)?
Mark (X) one or more
a. Blind/Visually Impaired
b. Deaf/Hard of Hearing
c. Physical/Orthopedic Disability
d. Learning/Cognitive Disability
e. Vocal/Speech Disability
f. Other - Specify
C12.
Are you Hispanic or Latino?
1 Yes
GO TO C13
2 No
SKIP TO C14
C13.
Which of the following best describes your Hispanic origin or descent?
Mark (X) one
1 Mexican or Chicano
2 Puerto Rican
3 Cuban
4 Other Hispanic - Specify
C14.
What is your racial background? Mark (X) one or more
a. American Indian or Alaska Native
Specify tribal affiliation(s)
b. Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
c. Asian
d. Black or African-American
e. White
C15. Please fill in the last four digits of your Social Security Number.
XXX – XX - ___ ___ ___ ___
C16.
In case we need to clarify some of the information you have provided, please list an
E-mail address and telephone number where you can be reached.
E-mail address
Daytime or cell telephone
C17.
Please provide your address and the name and address of a person who is likely to
know where you can be reached.
Your Current Address:
Street Address
City
State
Country
Zip or Postal Code
Current Address of a person who will know where you can be reached:
__________________________________
Name
__________________________________________
Street Address
City
State
Country
Zip or Postal Code
The results of this survey will be published in a Summary Report; the Summary
Reports on earlier surveys are available at
http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/issues/docdata.htm
Please use the back cover to make any additional comments you may have about
this survey.
Thank you for completing the questionnaire. Please return this questionnaire to
your GRADUATE SCHOOL for forwarding to Survey of Earned Doctorates,
NORC at the University of Chicago, 1 N. State Street, Floor 16, Chicago, IL
60602. If you have questions or concerns about the survey, you may contact us by
e-mail at [email protected] or phone at 1-800-248-8649.
Please print your name in full:
First Name
Middle Name
Last Name
Suffix (e.g., Jr.)
Cross reference: Birth name or former name legally changed
Name of Doctoral Institution
City or Branch
Type of Doctoral Degree (e.g., Ph.D., Ed.D., D.B.A.)
Date Degree Granted (mm/yyyy)
Survey of Earned Doctorates
July 1, 2005, to June 30, 2006
Conducted by
The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago
for
The National Science Foundation
The National Institutes of Health
The U.S. Department of Education
The National Endowment for the Humanities
The U.S. Department of Agriculture
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
This information is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. ALL
INFORMATION YOU PROVIDE WILL BE TREATED AS CONFIDENTIAL and used only for research or statistical
purposes by your doctoral institution, the survey sponsors, their contractors, and collaborating researchers for the
purpose of analyzing data, preparing scientific reports and articles, and selecting samples for a limited number of
carefully defined follow-up studies. Your partial Social Security Number is also solicited under the NSF Act of 1950,
as amended; provision of it is voluntary. It will be kept confidential. It is used for quality control, to assure that we
identify the correct persons, especially when data are used for statistical purposes in Federal program evaluation. Any
information publicly released (such as statistical summaries) will be in a form that does not personally identify you.
Your response is voluntary and failure to provide some or all of the requested information will not in any way adversely
affect you.
The time needed to complete this form varies according to individual circumstances, but the average time is estimated
to be 19 minutes. If you have comments regarding this time estimate, you may write to the National Science
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230, Attention: NSF Reports Clearance Officer. A Federal agency
may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
OMB No.: 3145-0019
Approval Expires 07/31/06
Page 57
INSTRUCTIONS
Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Directions are provided for each question.
•
•
•
If you have not already done so, please print your name on the front cover.
Please print all responses; you may use either a pen or pencil.
When answering questions that require marking a box, please use an "X."
A5.
PART A - Education
Which of the following were sources of financial support
during graduate school?
Mark ALL that apply
A1.
What is the title of your dissertation?
a.
Fellowship, scholarship
b.
Grant, stipend
c.
Teaching assistantship
d.
Research assistantship
e.
Other assistantship
f.
Traineeship
g.
Internship, clinical residency
h.
Loans (from any source)
i.
Personal savings
j.
Personal earnings during graduate school
(other than sources listed above)
Using the list on page 7, choose the code that best describes
the primary field of your dissertation research.
k.
Spouse's, partner's, or family earnings or savings
l.
Employer reimbursement/assistance
Number of Field
m.
Foreign (non-U.S.) support
n.
Other - Specify
Please mark (X) this box if the title below refers to a
performance, project report, or a musical or literary
composition required instead of a dissertation.
Title
A2.
Please write the name of the primary field of your dissertation
research.
Name of Field
If your dissertation research was interdisciplinary, list the
name and number of your secondary field.
Name of Field
A6.
Number of Field
Enter letters of primary and secondary sources
If there were more than two fields, please continue on the back
cover of the questionnaire (p. 8).
A3.
A7.
If you received full or partial tuition remission (waiver) for
your doctoral studies, was it:
0
I did not receive any tuition remission
1
for less than 1/3 of tuition
2
between 1/3 and 2/3 of tuition
3
more than 2/3 of tuition but less than full
4
full tuition remission
1
Primary source of support
2
Secondary source of support
Mark (X) if no secondary source
Please name the department (or interdisciplinary committee,
center, institute, etc.) of the university that supervised your
doctoral studies.
Department/Committee/Center/Institute/Program
A4.
Which TWO sources listed in A5 provided the most support?
2
When you receive your doctoral degree, how much money will
you owe that is directly related to your undergraduate and
graduate education?
Mark (X) one in each column
Undergraduate
Graduate
0
None
0
None
1
$10,000 or less
1
$10,000 or less
2
$10,001 - $20,000
2
$10,001 - $20,000
3
$20,001 - $30,000
3
$20,001 - $30,000
4
$30,001 - $40,000
4
$30,001 - $40,000
5
$40,001 - $50,000
5
$40,001 - $50,000
6
$50,001 or more
6
$50,001 or more
Page 58
A8.
The next few questions ask about the degrees you have received. Starting with this doctorate degree, please provide the following
information for the most recent master’s degree and your first bachelor’s degree.
This research
doctorate degree
a. Have you received a degree of this type? . . . . Yes
X
No
Most recent master’s
degree (e.g. MS, MA,
MBA) or equivalent
Yes
No
First bachelor's degree
(e.g. BA, BS, AB)
or equivalent
Yes
b. Month/year that you started your degree. . . Month
Month
Month
Year
Year
Year
c. Month/year of degree award . . . . . . . . . . . Month
Month
Month
Year
Year
Year
No
d. Primary field of study . . . . . . . . .
e. Field number from list on p. 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
f. Institution name . . . . . . . . . . . . .
g. Branch or city. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
h. State or province . . . . . . . . . . . .
i. Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A9.
USA
Excluding those above, have you attained any
additional postsecondary degrees? . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes
A10. Was a master’s degree a prerequisite for
admission to your doctoral program? . . . . . . . . . . Yes
No
No
A11. In what year did you first enter graduate school
in any program or capacity, in any university? . . . Year
A12. How many years were you taking courses or
preparing for exams for this doctoral degree
(including a master's degree, if that was a
part of your doctoral program)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . Years
Round to whole years
A13. After coursework and exams, how many
years did you work on your dissertation
(non-course related preparation or
research, writing, and defense)? . . . . . . . . . . . . Years
Round to whole years
3
If yes, please list the additional degree(s), granting
institution(s), and years.
Degree Type
______________________________
Degree Field
______________________________
Year Granted
______________________________
Institution
______________________________
Branch or City
______________________________
State or Country
______________________________
Degree Type
______________________________
Degree Field
______________________________
Year Granted
______________________________
Institution
______________________________
Branch or City
______________________________
State or Country
______________________________
If necessary, please continue this list on the back cover (p.8).
Page 59
A14. Did you earn college credit from a community or
two-year college?
1
Yes
2
B5.
No
A15. Are you earning, or have you earned, a professional medical
or dental degree (e.g. MD, DDS), in addition to the doctorate?
1
Yes
2
No
PART B - Postgraduation Plans
B1.
B2.
In what country or state do you intend to live after graduation
(within the next year)?
0
in U.S.
State
1
not in U.S.
Country
U.S. Government
1
Industry/Business
2
College or university
3
Private foundation
4
Nonprofit, other than private foundation or college
5
Other - Specify
6
Unknown
For what type of employer will you be working or in training
within the next year? Mark (X) one
EDUCATION
U.S. 4-year college or university other than medical school
b.
U.S. medical school (including university-affiliated hospital
or medical center)
c.
U.S. university-affiliated research institute
d.
U.S. community college or technical institute
e.
U.S. preschool, elementary, middle, secondary school or
school system
What is the status of your postgraduate plans
(in the next year)? Mark (X) one
f.
Foreign educational institution
0
Returning to, or continuing in,
predoctoral employment
g.
Foreign government
1
Have signed contract or made definite
commitment for other work or study
h.
U.S. federal government
i.
U.S. state government
2
Negotiating with one or more specific
organizations
j.
U.S. local government
Seeking position but have no specific
prospects
k.
Not for profit organization
l.
Industry or business (for profit)
Do you intend to take a "postdoc" position?
(A "postdoc" is a temporary position primarily for gaining
additional education and training in research, usually
awarded in academe, industry, or government.)
3
B4.
0
a.
1
B3.
B6.
What will be the main source of financial support for your
postdoctoral study/research within the next year?
Mark (X) one
Yes
2
No
4
Do not plan to work or study
5
Other - Specify
GOVERNMENT (other than education institution)
GO
TO B4
PRIVATE SECTOR (other than education institution)
SKIP
TO C1
OTHER
What best describes your (within the next year) postgraduate
plans? Mark (X) one
B7.
m.
Self-employed
n.
Other - Specify
For this position, will you receive a 9 or 12 month salary?
FURTHER TRAINING OR STUDY
0
9 month
0
Postdoctoral fellowship
1
12 month
1
Postdoctoral research associateship
2
Don’t Know
2
Traineeship
3
Intern, clinical residency
4
Other - Specify
GO
TO B5
B8.
Before deductions, what will be your basic annual salary for
this job? Do not include bonuses, overtime or additional
compensation for summertime teaching or research. If you
are not salaried, please estimate your earned income
excluding business expenses. Mark (X) one
EMPLOYMENT
0
Less than $30,000
4
$60,001 - $70,000
5
Employment (other than 0, 1, 2, 3, 4)
1
$30,001 - $40,000
5
$70,001 - $80,000
6
Military service
2
$40,001 - $50,000
6
Above $80,001
7
Other - Specify
3
$50,001 - $60,000
7
Don’t Know
SKIP
TO B6
4
Page 60
B9.
Please name the organization and geographic location
where you will work or study.
C4.
What is the highest educational attainment of your mother
and father (or guardians)?
Mark (X) one for each parent
Name
a. Mother
State (if U.S.)
OR
Country (if not U.S.)
B10. What will be your primary and secondary work activities?
Mark (X) one in each column
a. Primary
b. Secondary
Research and development
1
1
Teaching
2
2
Management or administration
3
3
Professional services to individuals
4
4
Other - Specify
5
5
C5.
b. Father
Less than high/secondary school graduate
1
1
High/secondary school graduate
2
2
Some college
3
3
Bachelor's degree
4
4
Master's degree
(e.g., MA, MS, MBA, MSW, etc.)
5
5
Professional degree
(e.g., JD, LLB, D.Min, MD, DDS, etc.)
6
6
Doctoral degree
7
7
Not applicable
8
8
What is your place of birth?
State (if U.S.)
OR
Mark (X) if no secondary work activities.
Country (if not U.S.)
C6.
PART C - Background Information
What is your date of birth?
Month
C1.
Day
1
Are you 1
Male
2
Female
Year
C7.
9
What is your citizenship status?
Mark (X) one
C2.
C3.
U.S. CITIZEN
What is your marital status?
Mark (X) one
0
Since birth
1
Married
1
Naturalized
2
Living in a marriage-like relationship
3
Widowed
2
With a Permanent U.S. Resident Visa ("Green Card")
4
Separated
3
With a Temporary U.S. Visa
5
Divorced
6
Never married
SKIP
TO C9
NON-U.S. CITIZEN
C8.
Not including yourself or your spouse/partner, how many
dependents do you have - that is, how many others receive at
least one half of their financial support from you?
GO
TO C8
(IF A NON-U.S. CITIZEN) Of which country are you a citizen?
(Specify country of present citizenship)
Mark (X) box if none
Number
5 years of age or younger
6 to 18 years
19 years or older
5
Page 61
C9.
In what state or country was the high school/secondary school
that you last attended?
C15. Please fill in your partial U.S. Social Security Number.
X
State (if U.S.)
Country (if not U.S.)
Are you a person with a disability?
1
Yes
GO TO C11
2
No
SKIP TO C12
X
-
X
X
-
We request only the last four digits of your SSN to assure additional
protection of your data. All personal information is kept strictly
confidential and is not used outside the National Science
Foundation’s Survey of Earned Doctorates project under any
condition. We ask for this information in order to assure that no
duplicate records are in the historical file. Also, NSF conducts a
voluntary, longitudinal survey of a sample of doctorate recipients.
Partial SSN’s and personal contact information are used to obtain
these sample graduates’ mailing addresses two or more years after
completion of their doctoral programs. Further information on the
purpose and use of this survey and on the privacy safeguards is
available at: http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/issues/docdata.htm
OR
C10.
X
C11. Which of the following categories describes your
disability(ies)?
Mark (X) one or more
C16. In case we need to clarify some of the information you have
provided, please list an E-mail address (if applicable), and
telephone number where you can be reached.
a.
Blind/Visually Impaired
b.
Deaf/Hard of Hearing
c.
Physical/Orthopedic Disability
E-mail address
d.
Learning/Cognitive Disability
Daytime telephone
e.
Vocal/Speech Disability
f.
Other - Specify
C17. Please provide your address and the name and address of a
person who is likely to know where you can be reached.
Current Address
C12. Are you Hispanic (or Latino)?
1
Yes
GO TO C13
2
No
SKIP TO C14
Street Address
City
First Name
Mark (X) one
Mexican or Chicano
2
Puerto Rican
3
Cuban
4
Other Hispanic - Specify
Last Name
Street Address
City
State
Country Zip or Postal Code
Phone Number (including area or country code)
C14. What is your racial background? Mark (X) one or more
a.
Country Zip or Postal Code
Contact Person
C13. Which of the following best describes your Hispanic origin or
descent?
1
State
American Indian or Alaska Native
E-mail Address
Specify tribal affiliation(s)
b.
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
c.
Asian
d.
Black or African-American
e.
White
The results of this survey will be published in a Summary Report;
the Summary Reports on earlier surveys are available at
http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/issues/docdata.htm
Please use the back cover to make any additional comments you
may have about this survey.
Thank you for completing the questionnaire. Please return this
questionnaire to your GRADUATE SCHOOL for forwarding to
Survey of Earned Doctorates, NORC at the University of Chicago,
1 N. State Street, Floor 16, Chicago, IL 60602. If you have
questions or concerns about the survey, you may contact us by email at [email protected] or phone at 1-800-248-8649.
6
Page 62
FIELD OF STUDY
INSTRUCTIONS: The following field listing is to be used in responding to items A2 and A8. Please choose the code that
best describes the name of your field.
AGRICULTURAL
SCIENCES/NATURAL
RESOURCES
000 Agri. Economics
005 Agricultural Animal
Breeding
010 Animal Nutrition
014 Poultry Science
019 Animal Sci., Other
020 Agronomy & Crop
Science
025 Agric. & Hort.
Plant Breeding
030 Plant Pathology/
Phytopathology
039 Plant Sciences,
Other
043 Food Science
044 Food Science and
Technology, Other
046 Soil Chemistry/
Microbiology
049 Soil Sciences, Other
050 Horticulture Science
055 Fishing and Fisheries
Sciences/Mgt.
066 Forest Sciences
and Biology
070 Forest/Resources
Mgt.
072 Wood Science &
Pulp/Paper Tech.
074 Natural Resources/
Conservation
079 Forestry & Related
Science, Other
080 Wildlife/Range
Management
081 Environmental
Science
098 Agriculture, General
099 Agricultural Sci.,
Other
BIOLOGICAL/
BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES
100 Biochemistry
(see 539)
103 Biomedical Sciences
105 Biophysics (see 565)
107 Biotechnology
110 Bacteriology
115 Plant Genetics
120 Plant Pathology/
Phytopathology
125 Plant Physiology
129 Botany/Plant Biology
130 Anatomy
133 Biometrics &
Biostatistics
136 Cell/Cellular Biology
and Histology
139 Ecology
142 Developmental
Biology/Embryology
145 Endocrinology
148 Entomology
151 Immunology
154 Molecular Biology
157 Microbiology
160 Neuroscience
163 Nutrition Sciences
166 Parasitology
169 Toxicology
170 Genetics, Human &
Animal
175 Pathology, Human &
Animal
180 Pharmacology,
Human & Animal
185
189
198
199
Physiology, Human &
Animal
Zoology, Other
Biology/Biological
Sciences, General
Biology/Biomed Sci,
Other
HEALTH SCIENCES
200 Speech-Lang.
Pathology & Audiology
210 Environmental Health
211 Environmental
Toxicology
212 Health Systems/
Service Administration
215 Public Health
220 Epidemiology
222 Kinesiology/Exercise
Sci
230 Nursing Science
240 Pharmacy
245 Rehabilitation/
Therapeutic Services
250 Veterinary Medicine
298 Health Sciences,
General
299 Health Sciences,
Other
ENGINEERING
300 Aerospace,
Aeronautical &
Astronautical
303 Agricultural
306 Bioengineering &
Biomedical
309 Ceramic Sciences
312 Chemical
315 Civil
318 Communications
321 Computer
324 Electrical, Electronics
and Communications
327 Engineering
Mechanics
330 Engineering Physics
333 Engineering Science
336 Environmental Health
Engineering
339 Industrial &
Manufacturing
342 Materials Science
345 Mechanical
348 Metallurgical
351 Mining & Mineral
357 Nuclear
360 Ocean
363 Operations Research
(See also 465, 930)
366 Petroleum
369 Polymer & Plastics
372 Systems
398 Engineering,
General
399 Engineering, Other
COMPUTER &
INFORMATION SCIENCES
400 Computer Science
410 Information Science
& Systems
419 Computer &
Information Science,
Other
MATHEMATICS
420 Applied Mathematics
425 Algebra
430 Analysis & Functional
Analysis
435
440
445
450
455
460
465
498
499
Geometry/Geom.
Anal.
Logic
Number Theory
Statistics
(See also 690)
Topology/Found.
Computing Theory
& Practice
Operations Research
(See also 363, 930)
Math/Stat, General
Math/Stat, Other
Ocean/Marine Sciences
585 Hydrology & Water
Resources
590 Oceanography,
Chemical and
Physical
595 Marine Sciences
599 Ocean/Marine, Other
PSYCHOLOGY
600 Clinical
603 Cognitive &
Psycholinguistics
606 Comparative
609 Counseling
612 Developmental &
Child
613 Human Devlpmt. &
Family Studies
615 Experimental
618 Educational
(See also 822)
620 Family Psychology
621 Industrial &
Organizational
(See also 935)
624 Personality
627 Physiological/
Psychobiology
633 Psychometrics and
Quantitative
Psychology
636 School (See also 825)
639 Social
648 Psychology, General
649 Psychology, Other
PHYSICAL SCIENCES
Astronomy
500 Astronomy
505 Astrophysics
Atmospheric Sci. &
Meteorology
510 Atmospheric
Chemistry and
Climatology
512 Atmospheric Physics
and Dynamics
514 Meteorology
518 Atmospheric Science/
Meteorology, General
519 Atmospheric Science/
Meteorology, Other
Chemistry
520 Analytical
522 Inorganic
526 Organic
528 Medicinal/
Pharmaceutical
530 Physical
532 Polymer
534 Theoretical
538 Chemistry, General
539 Chemistry, Other
(See also 100)
SOCIAL SCIENCES
650 Anthropology
652 Area Studies
658 Criminology
662 Demography/
Population Studies
666 Economics
668 Econometrics
670 Geography
674 International
Relations/Affairs
678 Political Science &
Government
682 Public Policy Analysis
686 Sociology
690 Statistics
(See also 450)
694 Urban Affairs/Studies
698 Social Sciences,
General
699 Social Sciences,
Other
Geological & Earth
Sciences
540 Geology
542 Geochemistry
544 Geophysics &
Seismology
546 Paleontology
548 Mineralogy &
Petrology
550 Stratigraphy &
Sedimentation
552 Geomorphology &
Glacial Geology
558 Geological and Earth
Sciences, General
559 Geological and Earth
Sciences, Other
HUMANITIES
History
700 History, American
703 History, Asian
705 History, European
706 History, African
707 History, Latin
American
710 History/Philosophy of
Science & Technolog
718 History, General
719 History, Other
Physics
560 Acoustics
561 Atomic/Molec/Chem
564 Particle (Elem)
565 Biophysics (see 105)
568 Nuclear Physics
569 Optics/Phototonics
570 Plasma/Fusion
572 Polymer
574 Condensed
Matter/Low Temp
576 Applied Physics
578 Physics, General
579 Physics, Other
Letters
720 Classics
723 Comparative
Literature
724 Folklore
729 Linguistics
7
732
733
734
736
738
739
Literature, American
Literature, English
English Language
Speech & Rhetorical
Studies
Letters, General
Letters, Other
Foreign Languages &
Literature
740 French
743 German
746 Italian
749 Spanish
752 Russian
755 Slavic (other than
Russian)
758 Chinese
762 Japanese
768 Arabic
769 Other Languages &
Literature
Other Humanities
770 American/U.S. Studies
773 Archeology
776 Art History/Criticism/
Conservation
780 Music
785 Philosophy
790 Religion/Religious
Studies
(See also 984)
795 Drama/Theater Arts
798 Humanities, General
799 Humanities, Other
EDUCATION
800 Curriculum &
Instruction
805 Educ. Administration
& Supervision
807 Educ. Leadership
810 Educ./Instructional
Media Design
815 Educ. Statistics/
Research Methods
820 Educ. Assessment/
Testing/Measure
822 Educ. Psychology
(See also 618)
825 School Psychology
(See also 636)
830 Social/Philosophical
Foundations of Educ.
835 Special Educ.
840 Counseling Educ./
Counseling & Guidanc
845 Higher Educ./
Evaluation &
Research
Teacher Education
850 Pre-elementary/Early
Childhood
852 Elementary
856 Secondary
858 Adult & Continuing
Teaching Fields
860 Agricultural Education
861 Art Education
862 Business Education
864 English Education
866 Foreign Languages
Education
868 Health Education
870 Family & Consumer
Sci./Home Economics
874 Math. Education
876
878
880
882
884
885
887
889
Music Education
Nursing Education
Physical Education &
Coaching
Reading Education
Science Education
Social Science
Education
Trade & Ind. Educ.
Teach Educ. & Prof
Dev.
Other Education
898 Education, General
899 Education, Other
PROFESSIONAL FIELDS
Business
Mgmt./Administrative
Services
900 Accounting
905 Banking/Financial
Support Services
910 Business Admin. &
Management
915 Business/Managerial
Economics
916 International
Business/Trade/
Commerce
917 Mgmt. Information
Systems/Business
Data
920 Marketing
Management &
Research
921 Human Resources
Development
930 Operations Research
(See also 363, 465)
935 Organiz. Behavior
(See also 621)
938 Business Mgmt./
Administration Serv.,
General
939 Business Mgmt./
Administration Serv.,
Other
Communications
940 Communications
Research
947 Mass Communication/
Media Studies
957 Communication
Theory
958 Communications,
General
959 Communications,
Other
Other Professional Fields
960 Architec. Environ.
Design
964 Family/Consumer
Sci./Human Sci.,
General
968 Law
972 Library Science
974 Parks/Sports/Rec./
Leisure/Fitness
976 Public Administration
980 Social Work
984 Theo./Religious
Education
(See also 790)
989 Prof. Fields, Other
Other Fields
999 Other Fields
Page 63
To the Doctorate Recipient:
Congratulations on earning a doctoral degree! This is an important accomplishment for you. Your accomplishment is
also significant for both this nation and others, as the new knowledge generated by research doctorates enhances the
quality of life in this country and throughout the world. Because of the importance of persons earning research
doctorates, several Federal agencies—listed on the cover—sponsor this Survey of Earned Doctorates.
The basic purpose of this survey is to gather objective data about doctoral graduates. These data are important in
improving graduate education both at your home institution and beyond. Often, decisions made by governmental and
private agencies to develop new programs, or to support present ones, are based in part on the data developed from
this survey. If you have any comments about the survey, please provide them in the space below.
On behalf of the sponsoring Federal agencies, I thank you for your participation in this survey.
Best wishes,
Dr. Lynda T. Carlson
National Science Foundation
Additions to Questions
A2 (continued)
A9 (continued)
Name of Field
Number of Field
Name of Field
Degree Type
________________
Degree Type
________________
Degree Field
________________
Degree Field
________________
Year Granted
________________
Year Granted
________________
Institution
________________
Institution
________________
Branch or City
________________
Branch or City ________________
State or Country
________________
State or Country________________
Number of Field
Comments about the Survey
Please return this questionnaire to your GRADUATE SCHOOL for forwarding to Survey of Earned Doctorates, NORC at the University of Chicago,
1 N. State Street, Floor 16, Chicago, IL 60602. If you have questions or concerns about the survey, you may contact us by e-mail at
[email protected] or phone at 1-800-248-8649.
OFFICE USE ONLY
Case ID
Instit. Code:
Grad Date:
Main Disp.:
PROCESSING
Receipt
Initials
Editing
Date
Initials
Date
Initials
Ver. Adjust
Initials
CADE
Date
Initials
Date
Initials
Retrieval
8
Date
Updates
Date
Page 64
ATTACHMENT 2: LIST OF METHODOLOGICAL RESEARCH
CONDUCTED ON THE SED
Methodological Research Concerning the Survey of Earned Doctorates
Note: Reports available upon request from Susan Hill ([email protected]).
Summary of Respondent Comments on the Survey of Earned Doctorates: 2001- 2004:
qualitative analysis of respondent verbatim comments spanning 1999 - 2001 survey forms.
(Lashley, Hess, and Reyes, 2006)
Survey of Earned Doctorates: Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire: Key
findings and recommendations from 6 Focus Groups and 17 cognitive interviews
conducted on the SED, with Special Emphasis on potential methods to ask for salary. The
purpose was to inform the questionnaire revisions for the SED 2007-2009, including a
salary question and a truncated social security question. (Hess, Hoffer, Lee, 2005)
The Salary Panel Meeting for the Survey of Earned Doctorates: A NORC report on
the rationale, limitations, and next steps should NSF decide to add a question on expected
salary on the Survey of Earned Doctorates. Includes recommendations from the 8
panelists from government, academe, and professional associations. (Hess, Hoffer, 2004)
Survey of Earned Doctorates: Testing a Web Collection Process in Institutions: a
report on the initial beta-test of the process of incorporating a web-based survey for the
Survey of Earned Doctorates and the development of an electronic institutional interface;
describes the challenges of incorporating into the procedures used for the collection of the
SED by a variety of Graduate Schools. (Simko, Hess, 2003)
Evaluation of the SED Educational History Question: an analysis of the effect of
question changes regarding the capture of educational history information in the Survey of
Earned Doctorates. (Hoffer, Hess, Sederstrom, Selfa, Welch, Bullock, 2002)
Survey of Earned Doctorates: Cognitive Interviews on the SED Web Questionnaire:
discussion of results of cognitive interviews on the 2002 SED Web questionnaire. (Simko,
Hess, Ahsan, and Hoffer, 2002)
Results from Cognitive Interviews of NSF Earned Doctorates Web Survey: discussion
of results of cognitive interviews on the 2002 SED web and paper versions. (Althheimer
and Dillman, 2002)
Working Focus Group Report of Institutional Contacts for the Survey of Earned
Doctorates: results of a technical experts group meeting. (Friedman, Hess, and Hoffer,
2002)
Summary of Respondent Comments: Survey of Earned Doctorates, 1999- 2001:
qualitative analysis of respondent verbatim comments spanning 1999 - 2001 survey forms.
(Alfred-Liro, Hill, Reyes, and Hess, 2003)
Analysis of the Potential Undercoverage in the SDR from Double Doctorates: a report
showing that .05 percent of doctorates eligible for the SDR sample are excluded from the
SED universe because they earned a S&E doctorate after earning a non-S&E doctorate,
which does not create an undercoverage problem for the SDR. (Harris/Bouzouth/Hill,
2002)
Analysis of Data from the SED and the SDR Concerning Disabilities: a report on the
comparison of somewhat different methods of measuring disability in the SED and the
SDR showing that disability on-set is primarily with age in the SDR. (Hill/Green, 2001)
SED 2000 Web Survey Instrument Development and Beta Test: Final Results Report:
report on initial development of setting up a SED Web questionnaire, devising a system of
access to the instrument, capturing the data from a small group of respondents, and folding
in these data to the annual SED data base. (Hoffer, Nichols, et al., 2001)
Development/Testing of New Locating Method for Survey of Earned Doctorates
Nonrespondents Using Dissertation Abstracts-On Line: measurement of the efficiency
of using the Dissertation abstracts electronic system for locating new doctorates who had
not received a Survey of Earned Doctorates form from their university (Green, 2001)
Summary of Respondent Comments: Survey of Earned Doctorates, 1999: qualitative
analysis of respondent verbatim comments written on 1999 survey forms. (Alfred-Liro and
Hill, 2001)
Citizenship and Race/Ethnicity of Ph.D. Degree Recipients: A Comparison of Data
from the University of California and Survey of Earned Doctorates: discussion of
results of a validation study of race/ethnicity and citizenship data, comparing University of
California administrative records and Survey of Earned Doctorates data. (Sui, et al., 2000)
Report on Cognitive Research for the 2000 SED Questionnaire Development Task:
discussion of results of cognitive interviews on proposed SED 2001 item revisions and
additions with 13 doctoral candidates. (Dugoni, Lee and Baldwin, NORC, 1999)
A Qualitative Pre-Test of the Revised Survey of Earned Doctorates, Using Three
Focus Groups: presented the results of three focus groups testing the revised Survey of
Earned Doctorates form. Results were cumulative because modifications were made to the
questionnaire after each focus group was held. (Policy Research Methods Inc., 1996)
Advisory Committee on the Content of the Survey of Earned Doctorates:
recommendations of a large panel representing users of the Survey of Earned Doctorates
concerning the content of the survey (NRC, 1996)
Technical Panel Review of the Content of the Survey of Earned Doctorates: outside
panel recommendations for changes to the survey form and content. (NRC, 1993 and 1995)
Analysis of the Stay Rates of Foreign Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities:
data from the Survey of Earned Doctorates were matched with Social Security data to
provide new information on this topic as well as information on the accuracy of the
postgraduation plans section and the Social Security Numbers provided by foreign citizens
when they completed the Survey of Earned Doctorates. (Finn, ORISE, 1995 and 1997)
Review of the Format of the Survey of Earned Doctorates: Professor Don Dillman
made recommendations for changes to the questionnaire format at the request of the NSF
(Dillman, 1995)
Validation Study of the Survey of Earned Doctorates: a major report attempting to
validate most sections of the survey, but focusing on assessing the validity of questions on
Sources of Support and Postgraduation Plans. Also described the results of “think-aloud”
interviews conducted with a sample of doctorate recipients. (NRC, 1994)
Investigation of the Computerized Administration of the Survey of Earned
Doctorates: examined the possible impact on the graduate school and students of having
an electronically-administered Survey of Earned Doctorates. (Sun-Guen Baek, Graduate
Division, U. of California at Berkeley, 1994)
Federal Agency Sponsors Focus Group on the Content and Use of the SED: described
the focus group meeting of the Federal agency sponsors at Airle House to discuss the
issues, content, and uses of the questions in the Survey of Earned Doctorates.
(NRC, 1994)
Validation of the Sources of Support Question on the Survey of Earned Doctorates by
Comparison with University Records: a detailed validation of a problem question on the
SED, the sources of financial support, via a comparison with the individual records of
graduates of the University of California at Berkeley. (Nerad, U. of California at Berkeley,
1993)
Comparison of the Data on Mathematics Doctorates Collected by the Survey of
Earned Doctorates and the American Mathematical Society: detailed comparison of
the results of two collections of data on mathematics doctorate awards by institution.
Conducted by IPA to NSF. (Maxwell, Hill, and Thurgood, 1993)
Evaluation Reports, Quality Profiles for the Survey of Earned Doctorates: description
of the methodology, coverage, survey response, and item response for each year of the
Survey of Earned Doctorates from 1991 to 1996. (NRC), 1997 to 2001 (NORC)
Coder Perceptions of the Survey of Earned Doctorates Questionnaire: summarized the
perceptions of the coders of the over 40,000 questionnaires for the Survey of Earned
Doctorates for indications of respondent confusion, error patterns, and the effects of
formatting. (NRC, 1992) (NRC, 1996)
Focus Group Report on the Survey of Earned Doctorates Questionnaire: summarized
the findings of focus group interviews to obtain respondents’ perceptions to questionnaire
items and format. (Wienman and Hill. 1991)
Analysis of Nonresponse in the Survey of Earned Doctorates: examined the trend
response rates for the survey since 1958 and highlighted the nonresponse problems in
terms of both institutional practices and nonrespondent profiles. (Hill, Susan 1989)
ATTACHMENT 3: LIST OF PERSONS WHO REVIEWED THE SED
Persons who have been consulted and who have reviewed the
questionnaire for the OMB clearance of the SED 2007-2009:
NORC:
Mary Hess, Survey Director
Thomas Hoffer, DDP Director
Karen Grigorian, SDR Survey Director
Lance Selfa, Computer Analyst
Vince Welch, Research Analyst
Kim Williams, Survey Analyst
Lisa Lee, Methodologist
Dan Loew, Cognitive Interviewer
Jamie Friedman, Institutional Liaison with the Graduate Schools
Mary Ann Latter, Institutional Liaison with the Graduate Schools
Syed Ahsan, Web Survey Manager
Kristy Webber, Locating Manager
Sharnia Bullock, CADE Manager
SRI, International:
Delores Thurgood, SED specialist
Federal Sponsors:
Nancy Schantz Borkow, NCES/USED
Linda Zimbler, NCES/USED
Roz Korb, NCES/USED
Ella Smith, USDA
Jeffrey Gilmore, USDA
Walter Schaffer, NIH
Bill McGarvey, NIH
Walter Goldschmidts, NIH
Frank Shaw, NEH
Jeff Thomas, NEH
Malcom Phelps, NASA
Frank Owens, NASA
NSF Division of Science Resources Statistics:
Susan Hill, COTR and NSF liaison for the SED
Nancy Leach, HRS Program Director
Lynda Carlson, Division Director
Mary Frase, Deputy Division Director
Ron Fecso, Chief Statistician
Cleo Redline, Senior Survey Statistician
Jeri Mulrow, Senior Mathematical Statistician
Kelly Kang, NSCG and NSRCG survey manager
John Tsapogas, SDR survey manager
Julia Oliver, GSS survey manager
Nirmala Kannankutty, SESTAT overview manager
Lawrence Burton, Indicators education project manager
Joan Burrelli, Indicators education author
Maurya Green, Science Survey Associate
Rolf Lehming, SEI Program Director
Alan Rapoport, SEI Senior Analyst
John Jankowski, RDS Program Director
Mark Regets, SEI Analyst
Fran Featherston, Survey Statistician
Emilda Rivers, Mathematical Statistician
NSF Staff outside SRS
Jim Lightbourne, Graduate Education Task Force
Roosevelt Johnson, EHR Program Director
Wyn Jennings, EHR Program Director
Margaret Tolbert, Office of the NSF Director
Carter Kimsey, BIO Program Officer
Melissa Lane, GEO Division Webmaster
Linda Parker, ENG Directorate
Other Persons outside NSF:
Peter Syverson, Vice President of Research, Council of Graduate Schools (retired)
Heath Brown, Research and Policy Analysis, Council of Graduate Schools
Paul Tate, Dean in Residence at the Council of Graduate Schools
Debra Stewart, President of the Council of Graduate Schools
Council of Graduate Schools -- December 2005 Booth at Conference (50 university
representatives)
Jennifer Loh, American Association of Medical Schools
Lori Homer, Center for Research and Innovation in Graduate Education, U. of Washington
Judi Sui, Graduate School, U. of California at Berkeley
Fred Hall, Dean of Graduate Studies, McMaster University, Canada
Valerie Peters, Project Manager, Center for Education Statistics, STATCanada
Don Dillman, consultant to NSF for statistical and format questions on surveys in SRS
Jon Krosnick, Advisory Committee for SBE/Subcommittee for SRS
ATTACHMENT 4: AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION OF
SPONSORING AGENCIES
THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
SECTION I
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION ACT OF 1950
FUNCTIONS (42 U.S.C. §1862)
§ 1862. Functions
(a) Initiation and support of studies and programs; scholarships; current register of scientific and
engineering personnel
The Foundation is authorized and directed—
(1) to initiate and support basic scientific research and programs to strengthen scientific
research potential and science education programs at all levels in the mathematical, physical,
medical, biological, social, and other sciences, and to initiate and support research fundamental
to the engineering process and programs to strengthen engineering research potential and
engineering education programs at all levels in the various fields of engineering, by making
contracts or other arrangements (including grants, loans, and other forms of assistance) to
support such scientific, engineering, and educational activities and to appraise the impact of
research upon industrial development and upon the general welfare;
(2) to award, as provided in section 1869 of this title, scholarships and graduate fellowships for
study and research in the sciences or in engineering;
(3) to foster the interchange of scientific and engineering information among scientists and
engineers in the United States and foreign countries;
(4) to foster and support the development and use of computer and other scientific and
engineering methods and technologies, primarily for research and education in the sciences and
engineering;
(5) to evaluate the status and needs of the various sciences and fields of engineering as
evidenced by programs, projects, and studies undertaken by agencies of the Federal Government,
by individuals, and by public and private research groups, employing by grant or contract such
consulting services as it may deem necessary for the purpose of such evaluations; and to take
into consideration the results of such evaluations in correlating the research and educational
programs undertaken or supported by the Foundation with programs, projects, and studies
undertaken by agencies of the Federal Government, by individuals, and by public and private
research groups;
(6) to provide a central clearinghouse for the collection, interpretation, and analysis of data on
scientific and engineering resources and to provide a source of information for policy
formulation by other agencies of the Federal Government;
(7) to initiate and maintain a program for the determination of the total amount of money for
scientific and engineering research, including money allocated for the construction of the
facilities wherein such research is conducted, received by each educational institution and
appropriate nonprofit organization in the United States, by grant, contract, or other arrangement
from agencies of the Federal Government, and to report annually thereon to the President and the
Congress; and
(8)
to take a leading role in fostering and supporting research and education activities to
improve the security of networked information systems.
BIENNIAL REPORT (42 U.S.C. §1885d)
§ 1885d. Biennial reports
(a) By January 30, 1982, and biennially thereafter, the Director shall simultaneously transmit a
report to the Congress, the Attorney General, the Director of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, the Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the
Director of the Office of Personnel Management, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of
Education, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
(b) The report required by subsection (a) of this section shall contain—
(1)
an accounting and comparison, by sex, race, and ethnic group and by discipline, of the
participation of women and men in scientific and engineering positions, including—
(A) the number of individuals in permanent and temporary and in full-time and parttime scientific and engineering positions by appropriate level or similar category;
(B) the average salary of individuals in such scientific and engineering positions;
(C) )the number and type of promotional opportunities realized by individuals in
such scientific and engineering positions;
(D) the number of individuals serving as principal investigators in federally
conducted or federally supported research and development; and
(E) the unemployment rate of individuals seeking scientific and engineering
positions;
(2) an assessment, including quantitative and other data, of the proportion of women and
minorities studying scientific and engineering fields, including mathematics and computer skills,
at all educational levels; and
(2)
such other data, analyses, and evaluations as the Director, acting on the advice of the
Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering, determines appropriate
to carry out the Foundation’s functions as well as the policies and programs of sections
1885 to 1885d of this title.
THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
CHAPTER 6A--PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
SUBCHAPTER III--NATIONAL RESEARCH INSTITUTES
Part A--National Institutes of Health
Sec. 282. Director of National Institutes of Health
(a) Appointment
The National Institutes of Health shall be headed by the Director of the National Institutes of
Health (hereafter in this subchapter referred to as the “Director of NIH”) who shall be appointed
by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Director of NIH shall
perform functions as provided under subsection (b) of this section and as the Secretary may
otherwise prescribe.
(b) Duties and authority
In carrying out the purposes of section 241 of this title, the Secretary, acting through the
Director of NIH-(1) shall be responsible for the overall direction of the National Institutes of Health and for
the establishment and implementation of general policies respecting the management and
operation of programs and activities within the National Institutes of Health;
(2) shall coordinate and oversee the operation of the national research institutes and
administrative entities within the National Institutes of Health;
(3) shall assure that research at or supported by the National Institutes of Health is subject to
review in accordance with section 289a of this title;
(4) for the national research institutes and administrative entities within the National
Institutes of Health-(A) may acquire, construct, improve, repair, operate, and maintain, at the site of such
institutes and entities, laboratories, and other research facilities, other facilities, equipment, and
other real or personal property, and
(B) may acquire, without regard to section 34 of title 40, by lease or otherwise through
the Administrator of General Services, buildings or parts of buildings in the District of Columbia
or communities located adjacent to the District of Columbia for use for a period not to exceed ten
years;
(5) may secure resources for research conducted by or through the National Institutes of
Health;
(6) may, without regard to the provisions of title 5 governing appointments in the
competitive service, and without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of
chapter 53 of such title relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates, establish such
technical and scientific peer review groups and scientific program advisory committees as are
needed to carry out the requirements of this subchapter and appoint and pay the members of such
groups, except that officers and employees of the United States shall not receive additional
compensation for service as members of such groups;
(7) may secure for the National Institutes of Health consultation services and advice of
persons from the United States or abroad;
(8) may use, with their consent, the services, equipment, personnel, information, and
facilities of other Federal, State, or local public agencies, with or without reimbursement
therefore;
(9) may, for purposes of study, admit and treat at facilities of the National Institutes of
Health individuals not otherwise eligible for such treatment;
(10) may accept voluntary and uncompensated services;
(11) may perform such other administrative functions as the Secretary determines are
needed to effectively carry out this subchapter;
(12) after consultation with the Director of the Office of Research on Women's Health, shall
ensure that resources of the National Institutes of Health are sufficiently allocated for projects of
research on women's health that are identified under section 287d(b) of this title;
(13) may conduct and support research training-(A) for which fellowship support is not provided under section 288 of this title; and
(B) which does not consist of residency training of physicians or other health
professionals; and
(14) may appoint physicians, dentists, and other health care professionals, subject to the
provisions of title 5 relating to appointments and classifications in the competitive service, and
may compensate such professionals subject to the provisions of chapter 74 of title 38.
The Federal Advisory Committee Act shall not apply to the duration of a peer review group
appointed under paragraph (6). The members of such a group shall be individuals who by virtue
of their training or experience are eminently qualified to perform the review functions of such
group. Not more than one-fourth of the members of any such group shall be officers or
employees of the United States.
(c) Availability of substances and organisms for research
The Director of NIH may make available to individuals and entities, for biomedical and
behavioral research, substances and living organisms. Such substances and organisms shall be
made available under such terms and conditions (including payment for them) as the Secretary
determines appropriate.
(d) Services of experts or consultants; number; payment of expenses, conditions, recovery
(1) The Director of NIH may obtain (in accordance with section 3109 of title 5, but without
regard to the limitation in such section on the period of service) the services of not more than 220
experts or consultants, with scientific or other professional qualifications, for the National
Institutes of Health.
(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), experts and consultants whose services are
obtained under paragraph (1) shall be paid or reimbursed, in accordance with title 5, for their
travel to and from their place of service and for other expenses associated with their assignment.
(B) Expenses specified in subparagraph (A) shall not be allowed in connection with the
assignment of an expert or consultant whose services are obtained under paragraph (1) unless the
expert or consultant has agreed in writing to complete the entire period of the assignment or one
year of the assignment, whichever is shorter, unless separated or reassigned for reasons which
are beyond the control of the expert or consultant and which are acceptable to the Secretary. If
the expert or consultant violates the agreement, the money spent by the United States for such
expenses is recoverable from the expert or consultant as a debt due the United States. The
Secretary may waive in whole or in part a right of recovery under this subparagraph.
(e) Dissemination of research information
The Director of NIH shall-(1) advise the agencies of the National Institutes of Health on medical applications of
research;
(2) coordinate, review, and facilitate the systematic identification and evaluation of,
clinically relevant information from research conducted by or through the national research
institutes;
(3) promote the effective transfer of the information described in paragraph (2) to the health
care community and to entities that require such information;
(4) monitor the effectiveness of the activities described in paragraph (3); and
(5) ensure that, after January 1, 1994, all new or revised health education and promotion
materials developed or funded by the National Institutes of Health and intended for the general
public are in a form that does not exceed a level of functional literacy, as defined in the National
Literacy Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-73).
(f) Associate Director for Prevention; functions
There shall be in the National Institutes of Health an Associate Director for Prevention. The
Director of NIH shall delegate to the Associate Director for Prevention the functions of the
Director relating to the promotion of the disease prevention research programs of the national
research institutes and the coordination of such programs among the national research institutes
and between the national research institutes and other public and private entities, including
elementary, secondary, and post-secondary schools. The Associate Director shall-(1) annually review the efficacy of existing policies and techniques used by the national
research institutes to disseminate the results of disease prevention and behavioral research
programs; and
(2) recommend, coordinate, and oversee the modification or reconstruction of such policies
and techniques to ensure maximum dissemination, using advanced technologies to the maximum
extent practicable, of research results to such entities.
(g) Enhancing competitiveness of certain entities in obtaining research funds
(1)(A) In the case of entities described in subparagraph (B), the Director of NIH, acting
through the Director of the National Center for Research Resources, shall establish a program to
enhance the competitiveness of such entities in obtaining funds from the national research
institutes for conducting biomedical and behavioral research.
(B) The entities referred to in subparagraph (A) are entities that conduct biomedical and
behavioral research and are located in a State in which the aggregate success rate for applications
to the national research institutes for assistance for such research by the entities in the State has
historically constituted a low success rate of obtaining such funds, relative to such aggregate rate
for such entities in other States.
(C) With respect to enhancing competitiveness for purposes of subparagraph (A), the Director
of NIH, in carrying out the program established under such subparagraph, may-(i) provide technical assistance to the entities involved, including technical assistance in the
preparation of applications for obtaining funds from the national research institutes;
(ii) assist the entities in developing a plan for biomedical or behavioral research proposals;
and
(iii) assist the entities in implementing such plan.
(2) The Director of NIH shall establish a program of supporting projects of biomedical or
behavioral research whose principal researchers are individuals who have not previously served
as the principal researchers of such projects supported by the Director.
(h) Increased participation of women and disadvantaged individuals in biomedical and
behavioral research
The Secretary, acting through the Director of NIH and the Directors of the agencies of the
National Institutes of Health, shall, in conducting and supporting programs for research, research
training, recruitment, and other activities, provide for an increase in the number of women and
individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds (including racial and ethnic minorities) in the fields
of biomedical and behavioral research.
(i) Discretionary fund; uses; report to Congressional committees; authorization of appropriations
(1) There is established a fund, consisting of amounts appropriated under paragraph (3) and
made available for the fund, for use by the Director of NIH to carry out the activities authorized
in this chapter for the National Institutes of Health. The purposes for which such fund may be
expended include-(A) providing for research on matters that have not received significant funding relative to
other matters, responding to new issues and scientific emergencies, and acting on research
opportunities of high priority;
(B) supporting research that is not exclusively within the authority of any single agency of
such Institutes; and
(C) purchasing or renting equipment and quarters for activities of such Institutes.
(2) Not later than February 10 of each fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives, and to the Committee on Labor and
Human Resources of the Senate, a report describing the activities undertaken and expenditures
made under this section during the preceding fiscal year. The report may contain such comments
of the Secretary regarding this section as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
(3) For the purpose of carrying out this subsection, there are authorized to be appropriated
$25,000,000 for fiscal year 1994, and such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years
1995 and 1996.
(j) Data bank of information on clinical trials for drugs for serious or life-threatening diseases
and conditions
(1)(A) The Secretary, acting through the Director of NIH, shall establish, maintain, and
operate a data bank of information on clinical trials for drugs for serious or life-threatening
diseases and conditions (in this subsection referred to as the “data bank”). The activities of the
data bank shall be integrated and coordinated with related activities of other agencies of the
Department of Health and Human Services, and to the extent practicable, coordinated with other
data banks containing similar information.
(B) The Secretary shall establish the data bank after consultation with the Commissioner of
Food and Drugs, the directors of the appropriate agencies of the National Institutes of Health
(including the National Library of Medicine), and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention.
(2) In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary shall collect, catalog, store, and disseminate
the information described in such paragraph. The Secretary shall disseminate such information
through information systems, which shall include toll-free telephone communications, available
to individuals with serious or life-threatening diseases and conditions, to other members of the
public, to health care providers, and to researchers.
(3) The data bank shall include the following:
(A) A registry of clinical trials (whether federally or privately funded) of experimental
treatments for serious or life-threatening diseases and conditions under regulations promulgated
pursuant to section 355(i) of title 21, which provides a description of the purpose of each
experimental drug, either with the consent of the protocol sponsor, or when a trial to test
effectiveness begins. Information provided shall consist of eligibility criteria for participation in
the clinical trials, a description of the location of trial sites, and a point of contact for those
wanting to enroll in the trial, and shall be in a form that can be readily understood by members of
the public. Such information shall be forwarded to the data bank by the sponsor of the trial not
later than 21 days after the approval of the protocol.
(B) Information pertaining to experimental treatments for serious or life-threatening
diseases and conditions that may be available-(i) under a treatment investigational new drug application that has been submitted to the
Secretary under section 360bbb(c) of title 21; or
(ii) as a Group C cancer drug (as defined by the National Cancer Institute).
The data bank may also include information pertaining to the results of clinical trials of such
treatments, with the consent of the sponsor, including information concerning potential toxicities
or adverse effects associated with the use or administration of such experimental treatments.
(4) The data bank shall not include information relating to an investigation if the sponsor has
provided a detailed certification to the Secretary that disclosure of such information would
substantially interfere with the timely enrollment of subjects in the investigation, unless the
Secretary, after the receipt of the certification, provides the sponsor with a detailed written
determination that such disclosure would not substantially interfere with such enrollment.
(5) For the purpose of carrying out this subsection, there are authorized to be appropriated
such sums as may be necessary. Fees collected under section 379h of title 21 shall not be used in
carrying out this subsection.
(k) Day care for children of employees
(1) The Director of NIH may establish a program to provide day care services for the
employees of the National Institutes of Health similar to those services provided by other Federal
agencies (including the availability of day care service on a 24-hour-a-day basis).
(2) Any day care provider at the National Institutes of Health shall establish a sliding scale of
fees that takes into consideration the income and needs of the employee.
(3) For purposes regarding the provision of day care services, the Director of NIH may enter
into rental or lease purchase agreements.
(l) Interagency research on trauma
The Director of NIH shall carry out the program established in part F of subchapter X of this
chapter (relating to interagency research on trauma).
(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title IV, Sec. 402, as added Pub. L. 99-158, Sec. 2, Nov. 20, 1985, 99 Stat.
823; amended Pub. L. 100-607, title I, Sec. 111, Nov. 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 3052; Pub. L. 102-321,
title I, Sec. 163(b)(3), July 10, 1992, 106 Stat. 376; Pub. L. 103-43, title I, Sec. 141(b), title II,
Secs. 201, 202, 206, 208, 210(b), (c), title III, Sec. 303(b), June 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 139, 144,
148-150, 153; Pub. L. 105-115, title I, Sec. 113(a), Nov. 21, 1997, 111 Stat. 2310; Pub. L. 105362, title VI, Sec. 601(a)(1)(A), Nov. 10, 1998, 112 Stat. 3285; Pub. L. 105-392, title IV, Sec.
409, Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3589.)
References in Text
The provisions of title 5 governing appointments in the competitive service, referred to in
subsec. (b)(6), (14), are classified generally to section 3301 et seq. of Title 5, Government
Organization and Employees.
The General Schedule, referred to in subsec. (b)(6), is set out under section 5332 of Title 5,
Government Organization and Employees.
The provisions of title 5 relating to classifications, referred to in subsec. (b)(14), are classified
generally to chapter 51 (Sec. 5101 et seq.) and to subchapter III (Sec. 5331 et seq.) of chapter 53
of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
The Federal Advisory Committee Act, referred to in subsec. (b), is Pub. L. 92-463, Oct. 6,
1972, 86 Stat. 770, as amended, which is set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government
Organization and Employees.
The provisions of title 5 relating to reimbursement for travel expenses, referred to in subsec.
(d)(2)(A), are classified generally to section 5701 et seq. of Title 5, Government Organization
and Employees.
The National Literacy Act of 1991, referred to in subsec. (e)(5), is Pub. L. 102-73, July 25,
1991, 105 Stat. 333, as amended, which was repealed by Pub. L. 105-220, title II, Sec. 251(a)(2),
Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1079. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.
Amendments
1998--Subsec. (b)(13), (14). Pub. L. 105-392 added pars. (13) and (14).
Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 105-362 inserted ``and'' at end of par. (1), substituted a period for “; and”
at end of par. (2), and struck out par. (3) which read as follows: “annually prepare and submit to
the Director of NIH a report concerning the prevention and dissemination activities undertaken
by the Associate Director, including-“(A) a summary of the Associate Director's review of existing dissemination policies and
techniques together with a detailed statement concerning any modification or restructuring, or
recommendations for modification or restructuring, of such policies and techniques; and
“(B) a detailed statement of the expenditures made for the prevention and dissemination
activities reported on and the personnel used in connection with such activities.”
1997--Subsecs. (j) to (l). Pub. L. 105-115 added subsec. (j) and redesignated former subsecs.
(j) and (k) as (k) and (l), respectively.
1993--Subsec. (b)(12). Pub. L. 103-43, Sec. 141(b), added par. (12).
Subsec. (e)(5). Pub. L. 103-43, Sec. 210(b), added par. (5).
Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 103-43, Sec. 201, substituted “other public and private entities, including
elementary, secondary, and post-secondary schools. The Associate Director shall—” and pars.
(1) to (3) for “other public and private entities. The Associate Director shall annually report to
the Director of NIH on the prevention activities undertaken by the Associate Director. The report
shall include a detailed statement of the expenditures made for the activities reported on and the
personnel used in connection with such activities”.
Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 103-43, Sec. 202, added subsec. (g).
Subsec. (h). Pub. L. 103-43, Sec. 206, added subsec. (h).
Subsec. (i). Pub. L. 103-43, Sec. 208, added subsec. (i).
Subsec. (j). Pub. L. 103-43, Sec. 210(c), added subsec. (j).
Subsec. (k). Pub. L. 103-43, Sec. 303(b), added subsec. (k).
1992--Subsec. (d)(1). Pub. L. 102-321 substituted “220” for “two hundred”.
1988--Subsec. (b)(6). Pub. L. 100-607 inserted “and scientific program advisory committees”
after “peer review groups”.
Change of Name
Committee on Energy and Commerce of House of Representatives treated as referring to
Committee on Commerce of House of Representatives by section 1(a) of Pub. L. 104-14, set out
as a note preceding section 21 of Title 2, The Congress.
Effective Date of 1997 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 105-115 effective 90 days after Nov. 21, 1997, except as otherwise
provided, see section 501 of Pub. L. 105-115, set out as a note under section 321 of Title 21,
Food and Drugs.
Effective Date of 1992 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 102-321 effective Oct. 1, 1992, with provision for programs providing
financial assistance, see section 801(c), (d) of Pub. L. 102-321, set out as a note under section
236 of this title.
Collaboration and Report
Section 113(b) of Pub. L. 105-115 provided that:
“(1) In general. —The Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Director of the National
Institutes of Health, and the Commissioner of Food and Drugs shall collaborate to determine the
feasibility of including device investigations within the scope of the data bank under section
402(j) of the Public Health Service Act [subsec. (j) of this section].
“(2) Report.-- Not later than two years after the date of enactment of this section [Nov. 21,
1997], the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall prepare and submit to the Committee
on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Commerce of the House of
Representatives a report-“(A) of the public health need, if any, for inclusion of device investigations within the scope
of the data bank under section 402(j) of the Public Health Service Act;
“(B) on the adverse impact, if any, on device innovation and research in the United States if
information relating to such device investigations is required to be publicly disclosed; and
“(C) on such other issues relating to such section 402(j) as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate.''
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome; Experts and Research Representatives on Advisory Committees
and Boards
Section 902(c) of Pub. L. 103-43 provided that: “The Secretary of Health and Human
Services, acting through the Director of the National Institutes of Health, shall ensure that
appropriate individuals with expertise in chronic fatigue syndrome or neuromuscular diseases
and representative of a variety of disciplines and fields within the research community are
appointed to appropriate National Institutes of Health advisory committees and boards.”
Third-Party Payments Regarding Certain Clinical Trials and Certain Life-Threatening Illnesses
Section 1901(a) of Pub. L. 103-43 provided that: “The Secretary of Health and Human
Services, acting through the Director of the National Institutes of Health, shall conduct a study
for the purpose of-“(1) determining the policies of third-party payors regarding the payment of the costs of
appropriate health services that are provided incident to the participation of individuals as
subjects in clinical trials conducted in the development of drugs with respect to acquired immune
deficiency syndrome, cancer, and other life-threatening illnesses; and
“(2) developing recommendations regarding such policies.”
Personnel Study of Recruitment, Retention and Turnover
Section 1905 of Pub. L. 103-43 directed Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting
through Director of National Institutes of Health, to conduct a study to review the retention,
recruitment, vacancy and turnover rates of support staff, including firefighters, law enforcement,
procurement officers, technicians, nurses and clerical employees, to ensure that National
Institutes of Health is adequately supporting conduct of efficient, effective and high quality
research for the American public, and to submit a report to Congress on results of such study not
later than 1 year after June 10, 1993.
Chronic Pain Conditions
Section 1907 of Pub. L. 103-43 directed Director of the National Institutes of Health to submit
to Congress, not later than 2 years after June 10, 1993, a report and study on the incidence in the
United States of cases of chronic pain, including chronic pain resulting from back injuries, reflex
sympathetic dystrophy syndrome, temporomandibular joint disorder, post-herpetic neuropathy,
painful diabetic neuropathy, phantom pain, and post-stroke pain, and the effect of such cases on
the costs of health care in the United States.
Support for Bioengineering Research
Section 1912 of Pub. L. 103-43 directed Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting
through Director of the National Institutes of Health, to conduct a study for the purpose of
determining the sources and amounts of public and private funding devoted to basic research in
bioengineering, including biomaterials sciences, cellular bioprocessing, tissue and rehabilitation
engineering, evaluating whether that commitment is sufficient to maintain the innovative edge
that the United States has in these technologies, evaluating the role of the National Institutes of
Health or any other Federal agency to achieve a greater commitment to innovation in
bioengineering, and evaluating the need for better coordination and collaboration among Federal
agencies and between the public and private sectors, and, not later than 1 year after June 10,
1993, to prepare and submit to Committee on Labor and Human Resources of Senate, and
Committee on Energy and Commerce of House of Representatives, a report containing the
findings of the study together with recommendations concerning the enactment of legislation to
implement the results of such study.
Master Plan for Physical Infrastructure for Research
Section 2002 of Pub. L. 103-43 directed Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting
through Director of the National Institutes of Health, not later than June 1, 1994, to present to
Congress a master plan to provide for replacement or refurbishment of less than adequate
buildings, utility equipment and distribution systems (including the resources that provide
electrical and other utilities, chilled water, air handling, and other services that the Secretary,
acting through the Director, deemed necessary), roads, walkways, parking areas, and grounds
that underpin the laboratory and clinical facilities of the National Institutes of Health, and
provided that the plan could make recommendations for the undertaking of new projects that are
consistent with the objectives of this section, such as encircling the National Institutes of Health
Federal enclave with an adequate chilled water conduit.
Section Referred to in Other Sections
This section is referred to in sections 283, 284, 285g-4, 289a of this title; title 21 section
360bbb.
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
PUBLIC LAW 107–279—NOV. 5, 2002
EDUCATION SCIENCES REFORM
116 STAT. 1940 PUBLIC LAW 107–279—NOV. 5, 2002
Public Law 107–279
107th Congress
The following sections of the legislation address the circumstances making the collection of
information on the Survey of Earned Doctorates necessary:
SEC. 112. FUNCTIONS.
From funds appropriated under section 194, the Institute, directly or through grants, contracts, or
cooperative agreements, shall—
(1) conduct and support scientifically valid research activities, including basic research and
applied research, statistics activities, scientifically valid education evaluation, development, and
wide dissemination;
(2) widely disseminate the findings and results of scientifically valid research in education;
(3) promote the use, development, and application of knowledge gained from scientifically valid
research activities;
(4) strengthen the national capacity to conduct, develop, and widely disseminate scientifically
valid research in education;
(5) promote the coordination, development, and dissemination of scientifically valid research in
education within the Department and the Federal Government; and
(6) promote the use and application of research and development to improve practice in the
classroom.
______________________________
.116 STAT. 1947 PUBLIC LAW 107–279—NOV. 5, 2002
(2) To ensure the methodology applied in conducting research, development, evaluation, and
statistical analysis is consistent with the standards for such activities under this title.
(3) To coordinate education research and related activities carried out by the Institute with such
research and activities carried out by other agencies within the Department and the
Federal Government.
(4) To advise the Secretary on research, evaluation, and statistics activities relevant to the
activities of the Department.
(5) To establish necessary procedures for technical and scientific peer review of the activities of
the Institute, consistent with section 116(b)(3).
(6) To ensure that all participants in research conducted or supported by the Institute are afforded
their privacy rights and other relevant protections as research subjects, in accordance with
section 183 of this title, section 552a of title 5, United States Code, and sections 444 and 445 of
the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g, 1232h).
(7) To ensure that activities conducted or supported by the Institute are objective, secular,
neutral, and nonideological and are free of partisan political influence and racial, cultural,
gender, or regional bias.
(8) To undertake initiatives and programs to increase the participation of researchers and
institutions that have been historically underutilized in Federal education research activities of
the Institute, including historically Black colleges or universities or other institutions of higher
education with large numbers of minority students.
(9) To coordinate with the Secretary to promote and provide for the coordination of research and
development activities and technical assistance activities between the Institute and
comprehensive centers.
(10) To solicit and consider the recommendations of education stakeholders, in order to ensure
that there is broad and regular public and professional input from the educational field in the
planning and carrying out of the Institute’s activities.
(11) To coordinate the wide dissemination of information on scientifically valid research.
(12) To carry out and support other activities consistent with the priorities and mission of the
Institute.
______________________________
116 STAT. 1958 PUBLIC LAW 107–279—NOV. 5, 2002
(2) to report education information and statistics in a timely manner; and
(3) to collect, analyze, and report education information and statistics in a manner that—
(A) is objective, secular, neutral, and nonideological and is free of partisan political influence
and racial, cultural, gender, or regional bias; and
(B) is relevant and useful to practitioners, researchers, policymakers, and the public.
SEC. 152. COMMISSIONER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS.
The Statistics Center shall be headed by a Commissioner for Education Statistics (in this part
referred to as the “Statistics Commissioner”) who shall be highly qualified and have substantial
knowledge of statistical methodologies and activities undertaken
by the Statistics Center.
SEC. 153. DUTIES.
(a) GENERAL DUTIES.—The Statistics Center shall collect, report, analyze, and disseminate
statistical data related to education in the United States and in other nations, including—
(1) collecting, acquiring, compiling (where appropriate, on a State-by-State basis), and
disseminating full and complete statistics (disaggregated by the population characteristics
described in paragraph (3)) on the condition and progress of education, at the preschool,
elementary, secondary, postsecondary, and adult levels in the United States
______________________________
116 STAT. 1959 PUBLIC LAW 107–279—NOV. 5, 2002
(i) the relationship between victims and perpetrators;
(ii) demographic characteristics of the victims and perpetrators; and
(iii) the type of weapons used in incidents, as classified in the Uniform Crime Reports of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation;
(I) the financing and management of education, including data on revenues and expenditures;
(J) the social and economic status of children, including their academic achievement;
(K) the existence and use of educational technology and access to the Internet by students and
teachers in elementary schools and secondary schools;
(L) access to, and opportunity for, early childhood education;
(M) the availability of, and access to, before-school and after-school programs (including such
programs during school recesses);
(N) student participation in and completion of secondary and postsecondary vocational and
technical education programs by specific program area; and
(O) the existence and use of school libraries;
(2) conducting and publishing reports on the meaning and significance of the statistics described
in paragraph (1);
(3) collecting, analyzing, cross-tabulating, and reporting, to the extent feasible, information by
gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, limited English proficiency, mobility, disability,
urban, rural, suburban districts, and other population characteristics, when such disaggregated
information will facilitate educational and policy decisionmaking;
______________________________
PART E—GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 181. INTERAGENCY DATA SOURCES AND FORMATS.
The Secretary, in consultation with the Director, shall ensure that the Department and the
Institute use common sources of data in standardized formats.
SEC. 182. PROHIBITIONS.
(a) NATIONAL DATABASE.—Nothing in this title may be construed to authorize the
establishment of a nationwide database of individually identifiable information on individuals
involved in studies or other collections of data under this title.
(b) FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS.— Nothing in this title may
be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, direct,
or control the curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of State or local resources of a
State, local educational agency, or school, or to mandate a State, or any subdivision thereof, to
spend any funds or incur any costs not provided for under this title.
(c) ENDORSEMENT OF CURRICULUM.—Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal
law, no funds provided under this title to the Institute, including any office, board, committee, or
center of
20 USC 9572.
20 USC 9571.
Deadline.
______________________________
SEC. 184. AVAILABILITY OF DATA.
Subject to section 183, data collected by the Institute, including any office, board, committee, or
center of the Institute, in carrying out the priorities and mission of the Institute, shall be made
available to the public, including through use of the Internet.
THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES
SUBCHAPTER I - NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES
Sec.
951. Declaration of findings and purposes.
952. Definitions.
953. National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
(a) Establishment; composition.
(b) Purpose.
(c) Prohibition against Federal supervision over policy determination, personnel, or
curriculum, or administration or operation of any school or other non-Federal body.
The following section of the legislation addresses the circumstances making the collection of
information on the Survey of Earned Doctorates necessary:
The Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts shall, in ongoing consultation with
State and local agencies, relevant organizations, and relevant Federal agencies, continue to
develop and implement a practical system of national information and data collection and public
dissemination on the arts, artists and arts groups, and their audiences. Such system shall include
artistic and financial trends in the various artistic fields, trends in audience participation, and
trends in arts education on national, regional, and State levels. Such system shall also include
information regarding the availability of the arts to various audience segments, including rural
communities. Such system shall be used, along with a summary of the data submitted with State
plans under subsection (g) of this section, to prepare a periodic report on the state of the arts in
the Nation. The state of the arts report shall include a description of the availability of the
Endowment's programs to emerging, rural, and culturally diverse artists, arts organizations, and
communities and of the participation by such artists, organizations, and communities in such
programs. The state of the arts report shall be submitted to the President and the Congress, and
provided to the States, not later than October 1, 1992, and quadrennially thereafter.
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Sec. 3121. Responsibilities of Secretary and Department of Agriculture
-STATUTEThe Department of Agriculture is designated as the lead agency of the Federal Government
for agricultural research (except with respect to the biomedical aspects of human nutrition
concerned with diagnosis or treatment of disease), extension, and teaching in the food and
agricultural sciences, and the Secretary, in carrying out the Secretary's responsibilities, shall (1) establish jointly with the Secretary of Health and Human Services procedures for
coordination with respect to nutrition research in areas of mutual interest;
(2) keep informed of developments in, and the Nation's need for, research, extension,
teaching, and manpower development in the food and agricultural sciences and represent such
need in deliberations within the Department of Agriculture, elsewhere within the executive
branch of the United States Government, and with the several States and their designated landgrant colleges and universities, other colleges and universities, agricultural and related industries,
and other interested institutions and groups;
(3) coordinate all agricultural research, extension, and teaching activity conducted or
financed by the Department of Agriculture and, to the maximum extent practicable, by other
agencies of the executive branch of the United States Government;
(4) take the initiative in establishing coordination of State-Federal cooperative agricultural
research, extension, and teaching programs, funded in whole or in part by the Department of
Agriculture in each State, through the administrative heads of land-grant colleges and
universities and the State directors of agricultural experiment stations and cooperative extension
and other appropriate program administrators;
(5) consult the Advisory Board and appropriate advisory committees of the Department of
Agriculture in the formulation of basic policies, goals, strategies, and priorities for programs of
agricultural research, extension, and teaching;
(6) report (as a part of the Department of Agriculture's annual budget submissions) to the
House Committee on Agriculture, the House Committee on Appropriations, the Senate
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, and the Senate Committee on Appropriations
actions taken or proposed to support the recommendations of the Advisory Board;
(7) establish appropriate review procedures to assure that agricultural research projects are
timely and properly reported and published and that there is no unnecessary duplication of effort
or overlapping between agricultural research units;
(8) establish Federal or cooperative multidisciplinary research teams on major agricultural
research problems with clearly defined leadership, budget responsibility, and research programs;
(9) in order to promote the coordination of agricultural research of the Department of
Agriculture, conduct a continuing inventory of ongoing and completed research projects being
conducted within or funded by the Department;
(10) coordinate all agricultural research, extension, and teaching activities conducted or
financed by the Department of Agriculture with the periodic renewable resource assessment and
program provided for in sections 1601 and 1602 of title 16 and the appraisal and program
provided for in sections 2004 and 2005 of title 16;
(11) coordinate the efforts of States, State cooperative institutions, State extension services,
the Advisory Board, and other appropriate institutions in assessing the current status of, and
developing a plan for, the effective transfer of new technologies, including biotechnology, to the
farming community, with particular emphasis on addressing the unique problems of small- and
medium-sized farms in gaining information about those technologies; and
(12) establish appropriate controls with respect to the development and use of the
application of biotechnology to agriculture.
THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
SUBCHAPTER I - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 2451. Congressional declaration of policy and purpose.
(a) Devotion of space activities to peaceful purposes for benefit of all mankind.
(b) Aeronautical and space activities for welfare and security of United States; control
by civilian agency; exceptions.
(c) Commercial use of space.
(d) Objectives of aeronautical and space activities.
(e) Ground propulsion systems research and development.
(f) Bioengineering research, development, and demonstration programs.
(g) Purpose of chapter.
The following section of the legislation addresses the circumstances making the collection of
information on the Survey of Earned Doctorates necessary:
SPACE SETTLEMENTS
Section 217 of Pub. L. 100-685 provided that:
“(a) The Congress declares that the extension of human life beyond Earth's atmosphere,
leading ultimately to the establishment of space settlements, will fulfill the purposes of
advancing science, exploration, and development and will enhance the general welfare.
“(b) In pursuit of the establishment of an International Space Year in 1992 pursuant to Public
Law 99-170 (Dec. 5, 1985, 99 Stat.1012), the United States shall exercise leadership and
mobilize the international community in furtherance of increasing mankind's knowledge and
exploration of the solar system.
“(c) Once every 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act (Nov. 17, 1988), the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall submit a report to the President and to the
Congress which “(1) provides a review of all activities undertaken under this section including an analysis of
the focused research and development activities on the Space Station, Moon, and other outposts
that are necessary to accomplish a manned mission to Mars;
“(2) analyzes ways in which current science and technology can be applied in the
establishment of space settlements;
“(3) identifies scientific and technological capacity for establishing space settlements,
including a description of what steps must be taken to develop such capacity;
“(4) examines alternative space settlement locations and architectures;
“(5) examines the status of technologies necessary for extraterrestrial resource development
and use and energy production;
“(6) reviews the ways in which the existence of space settlements would enhance science,
exploration, and development;
“(7) reviews mechanisms and institutional options which could foster a broad-based plan for
international cooperation in establishing space settlements;
“(8) analyzes the economics of financing space settlements, especially with respect to
private sector and international participation;
“(9) discusses sociological factors involved in space settlement such as psychology,
political science, and legal issues; and
“(10) addresses such other topics as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
considers appropriate.”
ATTACHMENT 5: CURRENT REPRESENTATIVES FROM SPONSORING
AGENCIES
Federal Sponsors of the Survey of Earned Doctorates (1/2006)
(subject to change during clearance period)
National Science Foundation
Susan Hill, Director, Doctorate Data Project
National Science Foundation/SBE/SRS
4210 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 965
Arlington, VA 22230
(703) 292-7790 Fax (703) 292-9092
email: [email protected]
National Center for Education Statistics/USED
Nancy Borkow/Michelle Coon (x7357)
National Center for Education Statistics
U.S. Department of Education
1990 K St. N.W., Room 8114
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 502-7311 Fax (202)502-7460
e-mail: [email protected]
National Institutes of Health
Bill McGarvey /Walter Goldschmidts/ Wally Schaffer
National Institutes of Health
6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3518
Bethesda, Maryland 20892-7911
(301) 435-2691 Fax (301) 480-0146
e-mail: [email protected]
National Endowment for the Humanities
Frank Shaw/ Jeff Thomas
Office of Strategic Planning
National Endowment for the Humanities
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW-Room 403
Washington, D.C. 20506
(202) 606-8428 Fax (202) 606-8619
e-mail: [email protected]
[email protected]
United States Department of Agriculture
Ella Smith/Jeff Gilmore
Higher Education Programs
U.S. Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Avenue, SW
Room 3107- Waterfront Building
Washington D.C., 20250-2251
(202) 720-3842 Fax (202) 720-2030
e-mail: [email protected]
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Malcom Phelps/Frank Owens
Education Division
NASA Headquarters, Code FE
Washington, D.C. 20546
(202) 358-1110 Fax (202) 358-3048
e-mail: [email protected]
ATTACHMENT 6: EXAMPLE OF INSTITUTION PROFILE PROVIDED TO
EACH GRADUATE DEAN And PRODUCTS AVAILABLE
Institution Profile
All
Number
Percent
Science and
Non-science and
engineering
engineering
Number Percent Number Percent
Post-Graduation Plans
Post-graduation status (Immediate status following award of degree)
24
67
Continuing pre-doctoral employment
145
Signed contract
326
53
251
Negotiating for specific position
23
4
19
Seeking position
109
18
56
Other
8
1
3
17
63
5
14
1
78
75
4
53
5
36
35
2
25
2
Post-graduation plans (Type of employment immediately following doctorate)
Postdoctoral fellowship
60
10
58
15
Postdoctoral research associateship
80
13
76
19
Postdoctoral traineeship
5
1
5
1
Other study
15
2
13
3
Employment (other than postdoc)
428
71
230
59
Military service
6
1
4
1
Other plans
8
1
4
1
2
4
0
2
198
2
4
1
2
0
1
93
1
2
Post-graduation employment (Excluding postdoctoral fellowships, associateships, traineeships)
Academic
229
54
95
41
134
Government
18
4
16
4
2
Industry
118
28
105
45
13
Other
60
14
15
6
45
All
Science and
Engineering
Median time to degree (Number of years since receiving bachelor's degree)
Median total time to degree
10 years
8.3
Median registered time to degree
7.4 years
6.9
69
1
7
23
Non-science and
engineering
13.9
8.5
"Science/Engineering" includes physical science/math, engineering, life sciences, and social sciences.
"Non-Science/Engineering" includes humanities, education and other professional fields
Source: NSF/NIH/USED/NEH/USDA/NASA, Survey of Earned Doctorates.
Institution Profile from the Survey of Earned Doctorates
Results for Unknown Uiversity
Section I. A comparison of research doctorates at your institution
with research doctorates from Research I institutions, and all doctorate institutions
All Research I
All
Your Institution
Institutions
Institutions
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
100
27,292
100
41,140
100
656
Total of research doctorate
recipients
Demographics
Sex
Male
367
56
16,257
60
23,460
57
Female
287
44
10,913
40
17,493
43
Unknown
2
0
122
0
187
<1
Citizenship
U.S.
449
69
17,879
68
27,622
71
Permanent visa
37
6
1,584
6
2,300
6
Temporary visa
167
26
6,721
26
9,068
23
Race/Ethnicity (Excludes temporary visas)
American Indian/Alaska Native
5
1
114
1
219
1
Asian/Pacific Islander
36
8
1,821
9
2,518
8
Black
13
3
962
5
1,729
6
Hispanic
17
4
744
4
1,246
4
White
395
84
15,481
80
23,725
80
Other
2
0
175
1
254
1
Graduate Study
Ph.D. field
Physical sciences/Math
85
13
4,680
17
6,324
15
Engineering
79
12
4,119
15
5,337
13
Life Sciences
175
27
5,892
22
8,126
20
Social Sciences
79
12
4,245
16
7,036
17
Humanities
107
16
4,085
15
5,468
13
Education
97
5
2,930
11
6,557
16
Professional/Other
34
5
1,341
5
2,292
6
Debt level (U.S. citizens only)
None
210
50
7,496
43
11,457
43
$15,000 or less
120
28
4,750
28
6,784
26
More than $15,000
94
22
5,015
29
8,291
31
Name of University
Your Institution
Number Percent
Research I
Institutions
Number Percent
Post-Graduation Plans
Post-graduation status (Immediate status following award of degree)
Continuing pre-doctoral
145
24
4,554
employment
Signed contract
326
53
12,984
Negotiating for specific position
23
4
1,741
Seeking position
109
18
5,498
Other
8
1
329
All
Institutions
Number Percent
18
8,492
23
52
7
22
1
17,483
2,482
8,183
498
47
7
22
1
5,435
3,818
15
10
322
1,098
25,350
1
3
69
229
409
1
1
Post-graduation plans (Type of employment immediately following doctorate)
Postdoctoral fellowship
60
10
3,868
16
Postdoctoral research
80
13
2,979
12
associateship
Postdoctoral traineeship
5
1
190
1
Other study
15
2
735
3
Employment (other than
428
71
16,571
67
postdoc)
Military service
6
1
131
1
Other plans
8
1
267
1
Post-graduation employment (Excluding postdoctoral fellowships, associateships, traineeships)
54
8,374
52
12,430
50
Academic
229
Government
18
4
1,127
7
1,875
8
Industry
118
28
5,180
32
7,217
29
Other
60
14
1,500
9
3,303
13
Primary work activity (Excluding postdoctoral fellowships, associateships, traineeships)
38
6,299
39
8,130
Research and development
158
Teaching
156
37
6,125
38
9,544
Administration
51
12
1,212
8
2,710
Professional services
43
10
1,885
12
3,455
Other
12
3
571
4
855
33
39
11
14
3
Secondary work activity (Excluding postdoctoral fellowships, associateships, traineeships)
41
5,538
42
8,200
Research and development
143
Teaching
87
25
3,205
24
5,018
Administration
57
12
2,179
16
3,448
40
24
17
Your Institution
Percent
Number
Postdoctoral study support
U.S. government **
College or university
Private foundation
Non-profit other
Other
Unknown
51
54
11
3
21
17
51
54
11
3
21
17
Research I
All
Institutions
Institutions
Number Percent Number Percent
2,563
2,559
656
215
603
1,024
34
34
9
3
8
13
Median time to degree (Number of years since receiving bachelor's degree)
Median total time to degree
10 years
9.7 years
Median registered time to degree
7.4 years
7.3 years
3,320
3,458
919
318
878
1,491
32
33
9
3
8
14
10.4 years
7.3 years
Section II. A comparison of science and engineering doctorates
with doctorates in other fields at
All
Total of research doctorate
recipients
Demographics
Citizenship
U.S. citizen
Permanent visa
Temporary visa
Graduate Study
Debt level (U.S. citizens only)
None
$15,000 or less
More than $15,000
Science and
Non-science and
engineering
engineering
Number
Percent Number Percent Number Percent
656
100
418
64
238
36
449
37
167
69
6
26
264
26
126
63
6
30
185
11
41
78
5
17
210
120
94
50
28
22
124
80
49
49
32
19
86
40
45
50
23
19
25
23
36
11
55
71
202
48
14
18
51
12
99
68
19
21
46
31
9
10
Primary source of support during graduate school
Own resources
154
Teaching assistantships
139
Research assistantships
221
Fellowships/grants
69
Other sources
30
5
20
5
10
5
** Research assistantships funded by the federal government are counted as university support.
"Science/Engineering" includes physical science/math, engineering, life sciences, and social sciences.
"Non-Science/Engineering" includes humanities, education and other professional fields.
Source: NSF/NIH/USED/NEH/USDA/NASA, Survey of Earned Doctorates,
ATTACHMENT 7: EXAMPLE OF WEB COLLECTION PIN/PASSWORD FOR
INSTITUTIONS
2006 Survey of Earned Doctorates
Institution Interface
Prototype University
The Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) Institution Interface is a secure, easy-to-use
website designed for Institution Contacts and Deans involved with the SED. The
Institution Interface will help you to more easily implement the SED at your institution
and track your institution's progress!
The Institution Interface allows you to:
Review your institution's current list of doctorate recipients
View the status of the SED questionnaire for every doctorate recipient
Download useful study materials, including the SED questionnaire
EASY ACCESS!
To access the SED Institution Interface, open the following link in your web
browser:
http://client.norc.uchicago.edu/4800/
SECURE!
You will be prompted for a UserID and Password to access this server. Your easyto-remember User ID and Password are:
USERID:
PASSWORD:
sed4inst
4phdgrad (Case sensitive!)
NOTE: If you are prompted for a ‘Domain,’ leave that field BLANK.
THE SED AT YOUR INSTITUTION!
To access detailed data about your institution's doctorate recipients, follow these 4
steps:
1. Click on the "Individual Institution Rosters" link in the navigation bar at
the top of the screen.
2. Select your institution name from the drop-down list.
3. Enter your INSTITUTION PASSWORD: 4KLN8T
4. Click the "Submit" button.
ATTACHMENT 8: FEDERAL REGISTER ANNOUNCEMENTS
75228
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 / Notices
academic R&D funds. The survey has
provided continuity of statistics on R&D
expenditures by source of funds and by
science & engineering (S&E) field, with
separate data requested on current fund
expenditures for research equipment by
S&E field. Further breakdowns are
collected on passed through funds to
subrecipients and received as a
subrecipient, and on R&D expenditures
by field by science and engineering from
specific Federal Government agency
Doctorategranting burden hours
Total number of institutions
FY
FY
FY
FY
1999
2000
2001
2002
480
700
625
625
....................................................................................................
....................................................................................................
....................................................................................................
....................................................................................................
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation.
[FR Doc. 05–24192 Filed 12–16–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–M
provided with an abundance of
guidance and help menus on the Web,
in addition to printing and responding
via paper copy if necessary. Each record
is pre-loaded with the institutions 2
previous year’s data and a complete
program for editing and trend checking.
Response to this voluntary survey in FY
2004 was 94.0 percent. Burden
estimates are as follows: 1
sources. Information on R&D for nonS&E fields is also requested. Data are
published in NSF’s annual publication
series Academic Science and
Engineering R&D Expenditures and are
available electronically on the World
Wide Web.
The survey is a fully automated web
data collection effort and is handled
primarily by the administrators at the
Institutional Research Offices. To
minimize burden, institutions are
Masters-granting burden
hours
Bachelors degree burden
hours
FFRDC’s burden hours
13.0
12.0
11.9
14.9
7.5
10.5
9.0
12.2
9.4
9.2
12.1
4.5
20.8
21.0
30.2
28.7
Written comments on this notice
must be received by January 31, 2006 to
be assured consideration. Comments
received after that date will be
considered to the extent practicable.
Send comments to address below.
DATES:
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR
COMMENTS: For further information
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Notice of Intent to Extend an
Information Collection
National Science Foundation.
Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–
13 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), and as part
of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent burden, the
National Science Foundation (NSF) is
inviting the general public or other
Federal agencies to comment on this
proposed continuing information
collection. The National Science
Foundation (NSF) will publish periodic
summaries of proposed projects.
Comments: Comments are invited on
(a) whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the
information shall have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate
of the burden of the proposed collection
of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents, including through the use
of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
or
for a copy of the collection instruments
and instructions, contact Ms. Suzanne
H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer,
National Science Foundation, 4201
Wilson Boulevard, Suite 295, Arlington,
Virginia 22230; telephone (703) 292–
7556; or send e-mail to
[email protected]. Individuals who use
a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–
800–877–8339 between 8 a.m. and 8
p.m., Eastern time, Monday through
Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title of Collection: Survey of Earned
Doctorates.
OMB Approval Number: 3145–0019.
Expriation Date of Approval: June 30,
2006.
Type of Request: Intent to seek
approval to extend an information
collection for three years.
1. Abstract: The National Science
Foundation Act of 1950, as
subsequently amended, includes a
statutory charge to ‘‘* * * provide a
central clearinghouse for the collection,
interpretation, and analysis of data on
scientific and engineering resources,
and to provide a source of information
for policy formulation by other agencies
of the Federal Government.’’ The Survey
of Earned Doctorates is part of an
integrated survey system that meets the
human resources part of this mission.
The Survey of Earned Doctorates
(SED) has been conducted continuously
since 1958 and is jointly sponsored by
six Federal agencies in order to avoid
duplication. It is an accurate, timely
source of information on our Nation’s
most precious resource—highly
educated individuals. Data are obtained
via paper questionnaire or Web option
from each person earning a research
doctorate at the time they receive the
degree. Data are collected on their field
of specialty, educational background,
sources of support in graduate school,
debt level, postgraduation plans for
employment, and demographic
characteristics. For the 2007 SED, minor
changes to questions, based on focus
group and cognitive testing will be
incorporated into the questionnaire.
Also for 2007, a field test of potential
questions about salary after graduation
will be conducted with less than 9
institutions. Based on the field test
results, the intention is to add a salary
question in 2008.
The Federal government, universities,
researchers, and others use the
information extensively. The National
Science Foundation, as the lead agency,
publishes statistics from the survey in
many reports, but primarily in the
annual publication series, ‘‘Science and
Engineering Doctorates.’’ The National
Opinion Research Corporation at the
University of Chicago dissemination a
free interagency report entitled
‘‘Doctorate Recipients from U.S.
Universities: Summary Report.’’ These
reports are available in print and
electronically on the World Wide Web.
1 Average burden hours for institutions
responding to burden item.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Dec 16, 2005
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM
19DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 / Notices
The survey will be collected in
conformance with the Privacy Act of
1974. Responses from individuals are
voluntary. NSF will ensure that all
information collected will be kept
strictly confidential and will be used for
research or statistical purposes,
analyzing data, and preparing scientific
reports and articles.
2. Expected Respondents: A total
response rate of 90.8% of the total
42,155 persons who earned a research
doctorate was obtained in the 2004 SED.
This level of response rate has been
consistent for several years. The
respondents will be individuals and the
estimated number of respondents
annually is 38,275 (based on 2004 data).
3. Estimate of Burden: The
Foundation estimates that, on average,
19 minutes per respondent will be
required to complete the survey, for a
total of 12,121 hours for all respondents
(based on the 2004 SED numbers). Also,
for the approximately 3,000 respondents
in the field test on a salary question,
there would be approximately another
50 hours of response time. The total
respondent burden is therefore
estimated at 12,171 hours for the 2007
SED. This is slightly higher than the last
annual estimate approved by OMB due
primarily to an increased number of
respondents since the last clearance
request.
Dated: December 14, 2005.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation.
[FR Doc. 05–24213 Filed 12–16–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–M
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–52939; File No. SR–NASD–
2005–137]
Self-Regulatory Organizations;
National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Modify Pricing for
NASD Members Using the Nasdaq
Market Center and Nasdaq’s Brut
Facility
December 9, 2005.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2
notice is hereby given that on November
22, 2005, the National Association of
Securities Dealers, Inc. (‘‘NASD’’),
through its subsidiary, The Nasdaq
1 15
2 17
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
CFR 240.19b–4.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:59 Dec 16, 2005
Stock Market, Inc. (‘‘Nasdaq’’), filed
with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the
proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items
have been prepared by Nasdaq. Nasdaq
has designated this proposal as one
establishing or changing a due, fee, or
other charge imposed by the selfregulatory organization under Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) 3 of the Act and Rule 19b–
4(f)(2) thereunder,4 which renders the
proposal effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Terms of the Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change
Nasdaq proposes to modify the
pricing for NASD members using the
Nasdaq Market Center and Nasdaq’s
Brut Facility (‘‘Brut’’). Nasdaq states that
it will implement the proposed rule
change for a pilot period running from
December 1, 2005 through December 31,
2005.
The text of the proposed rule change
is below. Proposed new language is in
italics; proposed deletions are in
[brackets].
*
*
*
*
*
7010. System Services
(a)–(h) No change.
(i) Nasdaq Market Center and Brut
Facility Order Execution
(1)–(4) No Change.
(5) There shall be no charges or
credits for order entry, execution,
routing, or cancellation by members
accessing the Nasdaq Market Center or
Nasdaq’s Brut Facility to buy or sell
exchange-listed securities subject to the
Consolidated Quotations Service and
Consolidated Tape Association plans,
other than:
(A) The charges in Rule 7010(i)(1) for
Exchange-Traded Funds,
(B) Charges described in Rule 7010(d),
(C) A fee of $0.0004 per share
executed for orders delivered by
Nasdaq’s Brut Facility to an exchange
using the exchange’s proprietary order
delivery system if such orders do not
attempt to execute in Nasdaq’s Brut
Facility or the Nasdaq Market Center
prior to routing to the exchange, [and]
(D) a fee of $0.009 per share executed
for any limit order delivered by
Nasdaq’s Brut Facility to the New York
Stock Exchange (‘‘NYSE’’) using the
NYSE’s proprietary order delivery
system if such an order is not an on3 15
4 17
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2).
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
75229
close order, is not executed in the
opening, and remains at the NYSE for
more than 5 minutes[.], and
(E) for a pilot period beginning
December 1, 2005 and ending December
31, 2005, a credit of $0.0005 per share
executed to a member providing
liquidity for a transaction in the
following stocks: Advanced Micro
Devices Inc. (AMD); Apache Corp.
(APA); AT&T Corp. (T); Avaya, Inc.
(AV); Baker Hughes, Inc. (BHI); BJ
Services Co. (BJS); Bristol-Myers Squibb
Co. (BMY); Burlington Resources, Inc.
(BR); Calpine Corp. (CPN); Charles
Schwab Corp. (SCH); Citigroup Inc. (C);
ConocoPhillips (COP); Corning Inc.
(GLW); Devon Energy Corp. (DVN); EMC
Corp. (EMC); Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM);
Ford Motor Co. (F); Gateway, Inc.
(GTW); General Electric Co. (GE);
Halliburton Co. (HAL); Hewlett-Packard
Co. (HPQ); Johnson & Johnson (JNJ);
JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM); Kohl’s
Corp. (KSS); LSI Logic Corp. (LSI);
Micron Technology, Inc. (MU);
Motorola, Inc. (MOT); Noble Corp. (NE);
Occidental Petroleum Corp. (OXY);
Office Depot Inc. (ODP); Pfizer Inc.
(PFE); Phelps Dodge Corp. (PD); Pulte
Homes, Inc. (PHM); Qwest
Communications International Inc. (Q);
Schlumberger Ltd. (SLB); Solectron
Corp. (SLR); Sovereign Bancorp, Inc.
(SOV); Time Warner, Inc. (TWX); Valero
Energy Corp. (VLO); and Verizon
Communications, Inc. (VZ).
(6) No change.
(j)–(v) No change.
*
*
*
*
*
II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
Change
In its filing with the Commission,
Nasdaq included statements concerning
the purpose of and basis for the
proposed rule change and discussed any
comments it received on the proposed
rule change. The text of these statements
may be examined at the places specified
in Item IV below. Nasdaq has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.
A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
Change
1. Purpose
Nasdaq is proposing to modify its fee
schedule for transaction executions in
certain stocks listed on markets other
than Nasdaq by creating a pilot program
under which liquidity providers (i.e.,
market participants that put quotes or
E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM
19DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 21, 2006 / Notices
analyzes, publishes, and disseminates
statistics on the criminal victimization
in the U.S.
5. An estimate of the total number of
respondents and the amount of time
estimated for an average respondent to
respond: An estimate of the total
number of respondents is 77,100. It will
take the average interviewed respondent
an estimated 23 minutes to respond, the
average non-interviewed respondent an
estimated 7 minutes to respond, the
estimated average follow-up interview is
12 minutes, and the estimated average
follow-up for a non-interview is 1
minute.
6. An estimate of the total public
burden (in hours) associated with the
collection: The total respondent burden
is approximately 62, 620 hours.
If additional information is required,
contact Robert B. Briggs, Clearance
Officer, United States Department of
Justice, Justice Management Division,
Policy and Planning Staff, Patrick Henry
Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530.
Dated: March 15, 2006.
Robert B. Briggs,
Clearance Officer, United States Department
of Justice.
[FR Doc. 06–2661 Filed 3–20–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–18–M
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Comment Request
National Science Foundation.
Submission for OMB review;
comment request.
AGENCY:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The National Science
Foundation (NSF) has submitted the
following information collection
requirement to OMB for review and
clearance under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104–13.
This is the second notice for public
comment; the first was published in the
Federal Register at 70 FR 75228, and
twenty-six (26) comments were
received. NSF is forwarding the
proposed renewal submission to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for clearance simultaneously
with the publication of this second
notice. Comments regarding (a) whether
the collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimated of burden including
the validity of the methodology and
assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance
the quality, utility and clarity of the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:01 Mar 20, 2006
Jkt 208001
information to be collected; (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of
information on those who are to
responded, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology should be
addressed to: Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention:
Desk Officer for National Science
Foundation, 725–17th Street, NW.,
Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503,
and to Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports
Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard,
Suite 295, Arlington, Virginia 22230 or
send e-mail to [email protected].
Comments regarding these information
collections are best assured of having
their full effect if received within 30
days of this notification. Copies of the
submission(s) may be obtained by
calling 703–292–7556.
NSF may not conduct or sponsor a
collection of information unless the
collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB control number
and the agency informs potential
persons who are to respond to the
collection of information that such
persons are not required to respond to
the collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comment: On December 19, 2005, we
published in the Federal Register (70
FR 75228) a 60-day notice of our intent
to request renewal of this information
collection authority from OMB. In that
notice, we solicited public comments
for 60 days ending February 17, 2006.
Twenty-six (26) comments were
received in response to the public
notice. One comment came from B.
Sachau of Florham Park, NJ, via e-mail
on December 19, 2005. Ms. Sachau
objected to the information collection
but had no specific suggestions for
altering the data collection plans other
than to discontinue them entirely.
Response: NSF believes that because
the comment does not pertain to the
collection of information on the
required forms for which NSF is seeking
OMB approval, NSF is proceeding with
the clearance request.
Comment: Public comments have
been received by NSF from 23 persons
in response to the announcement, as of
the close-out date of February 17, 2006.
These all were the same e-mail
(distributed at the National
Communication Association meeting)
that proposed breaking apart the
Commission fields and placing them in
3 separate categories on the SED Field
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
14253
of Study List. In addition, SRS directly
received 2 e-mails from individuals in
the Association for Education in
Journalism and Mass Communication
who opposed the National
Communication Association proposal
for the Field of Study listing.
Response: NSF has taken these
suggestions (along with other
suggestions received on the same topic)
into consideration concerning the
placement of the field of
Communication on the Field of Study
list for respondents to select their
bachelor’s, master’s and doctorate
degree field of study.
Title of Collection: Survey of Earned
Doctorates.
OMB Approval Number: 3145–0019.
Type of Request: Intent to seek
approval to extend an information
collection for three years.
1. Abstract: The National Science
Foundation Act of 1950, as
subsequently amended, includes a
statutory charge to ‘‘provide a central
clearinghouse for the collection,
interpretation, and analysis of data on
scientific and engineering resources,
and to provide a source of information
for policy formulation by other agencies
of the Federal Government.’’ The Survey
of Earned Doctorates is part of an
integrated survey system that meets the
human resources part of this mission.
The Survey of Earned Doctorates
(SED) has been conducted continuously
since 1958 and is jointly sponsored by
six Federal agencies in order to avoid
duplication. It is an accurate, timely
source of information on our Nation’s
most precious resource—highly
educated individuals. Data are obtained
via paper questionnaire or Web option
from each person earning a research
doctorate at the time they receive the
degree. Data are collected on their field
of specialty, educational background,
sources of support in graduate school,
debt level, postgraduation plans for
employment, and demographic
characteristics. For the 2007 SED, minor
changes to questions, based on focus
group and cognitive testing will be
incorporated into the questionnaire.
Also for 2007, a field test of potential
questions about salary after graduation
will be conducted with less than 9
institutions. Based on the field test
results, the intention is to add a salary
question in 2008.
The Federal Government, universities,
researchers, and others use the
information extensively. The National
Science Foundation, as the lead agency,
publishes statistics from the survey in
many reports, but primarily in the
annual publication series, ‘‘Science and
Engineering Doctorates’’. The National
E:\FR\FM\21MRN1.SGM
21MRN1
14254
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 21, 2006 / Notices
Opinion Research Corporation at the
University of Chicago disseminates a
free interagency report entitled
‘‘Doctorate Recipients from U.S.
Universities: Summary Report.’’ These
reports are available in print and
electronically on the World Wide Web.
The survey will be collected in
conformance with the Privacy Act of
1974. Responses from individuals are
voluntary. NSF will ensure that all
information collected will be kept
strictly confidential and will be used for
research and statistical purposes,
analyzing data, and preparing scientific
reports and articles.
2. Expected Respondents: A total
response rate of 90.8% of the total
42,155 persons who earned a research
doctorate was obtained in the 2004 SED.
This level of response rate has been
consistent for several years. The
respondents will be individuals and the
estimated number of respondents
annually is 47,787 with a response rate
of 92%.
3. Estimate of Burden: The
Foundation estimates that, on average,
19 minutes per respondent will be
required to complete the survey, for a
toal of 12,465 hours for all respondents
(based on the 2004 SED numbers). Also,
for the approximately 3,000 respondents
in the field test on a salary question,
there would be approximately another
50 hours of response time. The total
response burden is therefore estimated
at 12,171 hours for the 2007 SED. This
is slightly higher than the last annual
estimate approved by OMB due
primarily to an increased number of
respondents since the last clearance
request.
Dated: March 15, 2006.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation.
[FR Doc. 06–2657 Filed 3–20–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–M
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC).
ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to
submit an information collection
request to OMB and solicitation of
public comment.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The NRC is preparing a
submittal to OMB for review of
continued approval of information
collections under the provisions of the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:01 Mar 20, 2006
Jkt 208001
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Information pertaining to the
requirement to be submitted:
1. The title of the information
collection: NRC Form 590, Application/
Permit for Use of the Two White Flint
North (TWFN) Auditorium.
2. Current OMB approval number:
3150–0181.
3. How often the collection is
required: Each time public use of the
auditorium is requested.
4. Who is required or asked to report:
Members of the public requesting use of
the NRC Auditorium.
5. The number of annual respondents:
5.
6. The number of hours needed
annually to complete the requirement or
request: 1.25 hours (15 minutes per
request).
7. Abstract: In accordance with the
Public Buildings Act of 1959, an
agreement was reached between the
Maryland-National Capital Park and
Planning Commission (MPPC), the
General Services Administration (GSA),
and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
that the NRC auditorium will be made
available for public use. Public users of
the auditorium will be required to
complete NRC Form 590, Application/
Permit for Use of Two White Flint North
(TWFN) Auditorium. The information is
needed to allow for administrative and
security review and scheduling, and to
make a determination that there are no
anticipated problems with the requester
prior to utilization of the facility.
Submit, by May 22, 2006, comments
that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of
information necessary for the NRC to
properly perform its functions? Does the
information have practical utility?
2. Is the burden estimate accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the
information collection be minimized,
including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology?
A copy of the draft supporting
statement may be viewed free of charge
at the NRC Public Document Room, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Room O–1 F21, Rockville, MD
20852. OMB clearance requests are
available at the NRC world wide web
site: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/
doc-comment/omb/index.html. The
document will be available on the NRC
home page site for 60 days after the
signature date of this notice.
Comments and questions about the
information collection requirements
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
may be directed to the NRC Clearance
Officer, Brenda Jo. Shelton (T–5 F52),
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001, by
telephone at 301–415–7233, or by
Internet electronic mail to
[email protected].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day
of March 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Brenda Jo. Shelton,
NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information
Services.
[FR Doc. E6–4086 Filed 3–20–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Advisory Committee on Reactor
Safeguards; Subcommittee Meeting on
Planning and Procedures; Notice of
Meeting
The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning
and Procedures will hold a meeting on
April 5, 2006, Room T–2B1, 11545
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to
public attendance, with the exception of
a portion that may be closed pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (6) to discuss
organizational and personnel matters
that relate solely to the internal
personnel rules and practices of the
ACRS, and information the release of
which would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy.
The agenda for the subject meeting
shall be as follows:
Wednesday, April 5, 2006, 10:30 a.m.–
12 Noon
The Subcommittee will discuss
proposed ACRS activities and related
matters. The Subcommittee will gather
information, analyze relevant issues and
facts, and formulate proposed positions
and actions, as appropriate, for
deliberation by the full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to
provide oral statements and/or written
comments should notify the Designated
Federal Official, Mr. Sam Duraiswamy
(telephone: 301–415–7364) between
7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (ET) five days
prior to the meeting, if possible, so that
appropriate arrangements can be made.
Electronic recordings will be permitted
only during those portions of the
meeting that are open to the public.
Further information regarding this
meeting can be obtained by contacting
the Designated Federal Official between
7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (ET). Persons
planning to attend this meeting are
urged to contact the above named
E:\FR\FM\21MRN1.SGM
21MRN1
ATTACHMENT 9: RESPONSES TO FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE
Plimpton, Suzanne H.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
jean public [[email protected]]
Monday, December 19, 2005 11:50 AM
Plimpton, Suzanne H.
public comment on federal registre of 12/19/05 vol 70 #242 pg 75228
fed register doc 05 24213
nsf noi info collection omb 3145-0019
i think this survey can be stopped and the resulting
federal taxpayer dollars saved from NOT doing this
survey anymore. america does not need this
information. american funds are overspent by
quadrillions and america's budget is in serious
difficulty so that medicare is being cut.
this kind of survey can be cut. we dont' need to know.
certainly our educational institutions are educating
lots of foreigners on the american tax dollar these
days, that certainly should be cut since it does not
help americans.
b. sachau
15 elm st
florham park nj 07932
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
1
Plimpton, Suzanne H.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Leach, Nancy L.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006 3:01 PM
Plimpton, Suzanne H.
Hill, Susan
Response to B Sachau comment about the SED
Suzanne,
Here is our response to Ms. Sachau concerning her comments to the SED.
Nancy
Dear Ms. Sachau,
This is in response to your question and comment to the Federal Register Notice on the National Science Foundation's
Survey of Earned Doctorates.
"Why is the Federal Government collecting this information?"
These data are collected to provide information to all the stakeholders in graduate education in this country. These data
on the education, employment plans, and demographic characteristics of the research doctorates from United States
universities are also used by universities, National Science Foundation and National Science Board, 5 other Federal
agencies, non Federal policymakers and the public. This information that describes the most highly educated persons in
our labor force, persons who perform the research and create new knowledge, is so useful to the Federal government
that 6 Federal agencies sponsor and contribute funding to it. The National Science Foundation and the Office of
Management and Budget have reviewed the budgets for this survey and deem that it is an appropriate use of federal
funds to collect this vital information about the nation's doctorate recipients.
Thank you for your interest in the Survey of Earned Doctorates.
Nancy L. Leach
Program Director, Human Resources Statistics
Division of Science Resource Statistics (SRS)
National Science Foundation
4201 Wilson Blvd, Suite 965
Arlington, VA 22230
Telephone: 703 292-7768
FAX: 703 292-9092
E-mail: [email protected]
1
Please note:
The following “form email” was received from the list of 23 individuals noted on the
tables on the next few pages.
Plimpton, Suzanne H.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Michael Morgan [[email protected]]
Tuesday, January 10, 2006 11:23 AM
Plimpton, Suzanne H.
NCA REQUEST
Dear Suzanne,
I would like to request the following changes, which were introduced at
the annual NCA meeting of doctoral chairs, and were initially endorsed: 1.
Under the Social Sciences category, insert "Communication Studies and Mass
Communication"
2. Under the Humanities/Letters category, keep "Speech and Rhetorical
Studies"
3. Under the Professional Fields category, remove the entire
"Communications" category (940, 947, 957, 958, and 959) as well as the
word "Communications." Replace the word "communications" with
"Journalism, Broadcast, and Other Professional."
This categorization places our discipline more accurately in the
disciplines of social sciences, humanities, and professional realms.
Sincerely,
-Michael Morgan
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michael Morgan
[email protected]
Professor & Chair, Dept. of Communication, UMass/Amherst
phone: 413 545 4314 // fax: 413 545 6399
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1
[email protected]
[email protected]
Paul A. Mongeau
Director, Interdisciplinary Ph.D. Program
Hugh Downs School of Human
Communication
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ 85287-1205
Jerold L. Hale
Professor and Head
Department of Speech Communication
University of Georgia
Athens, GA, USA 30602
480-965-3773 (office)
480-965-5095 (department)
480-965-4291 (fax)
[email protected]
Frank Tutzauer, Chair
Department of Communication
University at Buffalo
[email protected]
Michele H. Jackson
Associate Professor & Chair
Department of Communication
University of Colorado
706–542-4893 (office)
706-542-3245 (fax)
[email protected]
Barbara J. Wilson, Department Head
Paul C. Friedland Professorial Scholar
Department of Speech Communication
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
702 S. Wright St., Rm. 244
Urbana, IL 61801
Phone: 217-333-2683
Fax: 217-244-1598
[email protected]
Edward Castronova, PhD
Associate Professor and Director of
Graduate Studies
Telecommunications Department
Indiana University
1229 E. 7th Street
Bloomington, IN 47405-5501
[email protected]
[email protected]
Michele Finkelstein
Graduate Field Assistant
Department of Communication
Cornell University
334 Kennedy Hall
Nancy Grant Harrington, Ph.D.
Chair, Department of Communication
Associate Dean for Research, College of
Communications & Information Studies
University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
40506-0042
Phone: 607-255-2112
Fax: 607-254-1322
[email protected]
859-257-3622 (office)
859-257-4103 (fax)
[email protected]
Michael Morgan
Carol L. Rodgers, Ph.D.
Professor & Chair, Dept. of Communication, Director of Doctoral and Research Studies
Editor, Science Communication
Umass/Amherst
Philip Merrill College of Journalism
413-545-4314 (phone)
University of Maryland
413-545-6399 (fax)
College Park, MD 20742-7111
[email protected]
Phone: (301)-405-2430
Fax: (301)-314-9166
[email protected]
Albert R. Tims, Director
School of Journalism and Mass
Communication
University of Minnesota
[email protected]
Michael Kramer, Chair
Department of Communication
University of Missouri
573-882-6980
[email protected]
Michael W. Traugott
Professor and Director of the Ph.D. Program
Department of Communication Studies
University of Michigan
[email protected]
John Oetzel, Chair
Dept. of Communication & Journalism
University of New Mexico
Roger Smitter, Ph. D.
Executive Director
National Communication Association
1765 N Street NW
Washington, DC
Dr. William “Chip” Eveland
Associate Professor & Director of Graduate
Studies School of Communication
The Ohio State University
Office: 3139 Derby Hall
202-464-4622, x105 (office)
202-577-6946 (Cell)
202-464-4600 (Fax)
Phone: 614-247-6004
Fax: 614-292-2055
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Barbara J. O’Keefe
Annenberg University Professor
Dean, School of Communication
Northwestern University
[email protected]
Cheryl Geisler
Professor and Chair
Language, Literature and Communication
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
[email protected]
James P. Dillard, Professor and Head
Department of Communication Arts &
Sciences
Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802
Eric M. Eisenberg
Professor and Chair
Department of Communication
University of South Florida
Tampa, FL 33620-7800
Phone: 814-865-5232
Fax: 814-863-7986
[email protected]
[email protected]
Shirley Staples Carter, Director
School of Journalism and Mass
Communications
College of Mass Communications and
Information Studies
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
Patty Sias
Professor and Associate Director of
Graduate Studies
Edward R. Murrow School of
Communication
Washington State University
Pullman, WA 99164-2520
(803) 777-3324 (voice)
(803) 777-4103 (Fax)
[email protected]
(509) 335-8857
Barry Brummett
Charles Sapp Centennial Professor in
Communication
Department of Communication Studies Chair
CMA 7.114 A1105
University of Texas-Austin
Austin TX 78712
512-232-1714 (office)
512-471-3504 (fax)
Please note:
The following “form email” was sent to the list of 23 individuals noted on the tables on
the preceding pages.
Plimpton, Suzanne H.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Leach, Nancy L.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006 11:47 AM
'[email protected]'
Hill, Susan; Plimpton, Suzanne H.
NSF response to NCA comments on the SED
Dear Dr. Wilson,
The National Science Foundation appreciates your response to the Federal Register Notice of December 19,
2005 regarding the proposed OMB clearance of the Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) for Academic Years
(AY) 2007-2009. We have taken your suggestion (along with other suggestions received on the same topic)
into consideration concerning the placement of the field of Communication on the Field of Study list for
respondents to select their bachelor’s, master’s and doctorate degree field of study.
We are proposing the following changes to the Field of Study listing in response to your comments:
• We will change “Communications” to singular wherever it appears on the listing, but other than that, the
titles for the subcategories will remain the same.
• The entire field of Communication (CIP codes 940, 947, 957, 958, and 959) will be placed as a separate
group between the listings for Social Sciences and Humanities. This approach will keep the SED field of
study list in conformance with the U. S. Department of Education’s Classification of Instructional Programs,
while fulfilling your request that Communication be physically located closer to the Social Sciences.
• Speech and Rhetorical Studies (code 736) will remain under the Humanities/Letters listing.
We have discussed the above proposed accommodation with 2 members of the National Communication
Association, Dr. Dawn Braithwaite (Director, Research Board) and Dr. Patrice Buzzanell (Purdue University),
when they were at NSF on January 30, 2006.
The next step is that all 6 SED sponsoring agencies will discuss the entire field of study list and concur on any
changes. OMB clearance for the AY 2006-7 SED is expected in April, the SED forms will be printed in May,
and distributed to upcoming doctorate recipients starting in June for the July 2006 to June 2007 academic year.
We will keep in touch with Dawn Braithwaite of the National Communication Association as this process
progresses.
Thank you again for your interest in the Survey of Earned Doctorates. If you need any further information
about the survey, please feel free to contact Susan Hill at [email protected].
Nancy
Nancy L. Leach
Program Director, Human Resources Statistics
Division of Science Resource Statistics (SRS)
National Science Foundation
4201 Wilson Blvd, Suite 965
Arlington, VA 22230
Telephone: 703 292-7768
FAX: 703 292-9092
E-mail: [email protected]
1
Please note:
The following two emails elicited their own response.
Plimpton, Suzanne H.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hill, Susan
Wednesday, January 25, 2006 10:31 AM
Plimpton, Suzanne H.
FW: communication/field of study (fwd)
Here is the 2nd one, Suzanne.
-----Original Message----From: Leach, Nancy L.
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 5:12 PM
To: Hill, Susan
Subject: FW: communication/field of study (fwd)
FYI
-----Original Message----From: joseph bernt [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 4:49 PM
To: Leach, Nancy L.; [email protected]
Cc: Jennifer McGill; [email protected]; Wayne Wanta; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: communication/field of study (fwd)
Ms. Leach:
I too write in opposition to the NCA suggestions for new headings under
"Social Sciences." I do so as the Graduate Director of a Journalism School
that has offered a Ph.D. in Mass Communication for nearly 40 years and as a
current principal investigator on a large NSF grant grounded in mass
communication theory. What NCA has recommended flies in the face of
decades, really centuries, of Communication
Studies-Communication-Interpersonal Communication-Speech
Communication-Rhetoric tradition--a tradition based in the humanities but
recently sliding into the social sciences. Mass Communications has been a
social science program since inception in the 1930s, and Mass
Communications has a tradition completely removed from that of the
Communication Studies, formerly speech communication. Communication Studies
and Mass Communication should not be yoked in the NSF taxonomy.
For these reasons, I join Professor Sharon Dunwoody in her objection to the
NCA recommendations and wholly endorse Professor Dunwoody's recommendations
about moving Journalism/Mass Communication under the social sciences but as
a category separate from Communication/Communication Studies.
Joseph Bernt
Associate Director for Graduate Studies & Research
E. W. Scripps School of Journalism
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 42501
---------- Forwarded Message ---------Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 12:51 PM -0600
From: Sharon Dunwoody
To: [email protected]
Subject: communication/field of study
1
Ms. Leach -
Communication doctoral programs have probably been inundating you with
requests to modify the taxonomy of the Survey of Earned Doctorates in hopes
that communication/mass communication becomes a listing in the social
sciences.
Permit me to weigh in as well, with a recommendation that differs to some
extent from that offered by the National Communication Association. My
bona fides? In addition to serving as current president of the Association
for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, the nation's primary
organization for journalism and mass communication scholars and educators,
I am also an associate dean in the University of Wisconsin-Madison Graduate
School, responsible for social science research and education issues here.
For reference, I list, below, the three recommendations that NCA has
communicated to you.
AEJMC enthusiastically endorses the overall recommendation to move the
labels for most communication doctoral programs from the heading
"professional fields" to either "humanities" or "social sciences."
However, we strongly disagree with recommendation #3, which suggests
leaving behind, in the "professional fields" category, labels such as
journalism and broadcast. Instead, AEJMC recommends that all journalism
and mass communication doctoral programs be lodged within the "social
sciences" heading. Within that heading, we would recommend employing the
following labels:
Communication/Communication Studies
Journalism/Mass Communication
Communication, Other
Our argument on behalf of such a wholesale abandonment of the "professional
fields" domain is that, while the undergraduate and professional master's
components of the journalism/communication discipline are typically
professional in nature, the doctoral component is not. I am aware of no
doctoral program in journalism and/or mass communication that turns out
individuals for professional work. Instead, every one of our doctoral
degrees--regardless of label--focuses on research training in preparation
for a scholarly career.
That scholarly training focus distinguishes our degrees sharply from those
in law, for example, or in public administration.
Thus, my bottom line recommendations on behalf of AEJMC are that
1. The "communications" subhead now sitting under "professional fields" be
eliminated and all communication (singular, not plural) degrees be
referenced in "social sciences." (This recommendation does not speak to
2
the location of such labels as "rhetoric," as those are not a part of our
mass communication domain.)
2. Within the social sciences, the appropriate communication headings are:
?Communication Studies
?Journalism/Mass Communication
?Communication, Other
Permit me to briefly speak as an associate dean from UW-Madison:
The "professional fields" subsection of the "field of study" listing is a
rather eclectic brew of both scholarly and professional degrees. On my UW
campus, we have been working to operationally distinguish professional from
research degrees--those with an occupational training focus from those with
a scholarly, research focus. If I were to apply our operational
definitions to the degrees listed in the "professional fields" subsection,
many of them would be culled and placed in another subsection. Certainly,
the communication listings would come out, as would library science, social
work, and the family/consumer science label. All, at the doctoral level,
are firmly lodged in the social sciences at UW-Madison. To the extent,
then, that NSF is working to clarify the "field of study" categories, I
hope the professional fields subheading will undergo a substantial
refurbishing.
Thanks for the opportunity to provide input.
NCA recommendations:
1. Under the Social Sciences category, insert "Communication Studies and
Mass
Communication"
2. Under the Humanities/Letters category, keep "Speech and Rhetorical
Studies"
3. Under the Professional Fields category, remove the entire
"Communications" category (940, 947, 957, 958, and 959) as well as the
word "Communications." Replace the word "communications" with
"Journalism, Broadcast, and Other Professional."
Sharon Dunwoody
President, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
Associate Dean for Social Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison
_______________
Sharon Dunwoody
Evjue Bascom Professor
School of Journalism and Mass Communication
University of Wisconsin-Madison
821 University Avenue
Madison, WI 53706
608.263.3389
Fax: 608.262.1361
[email protected]
http://www.journalism.wisc.edu
3
Plimpton, Suzanne H.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Leach, Nancy L.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006 5:35 PM
'joseph bernt'
Hill, Susan; Plimpton, Suzanne H.
NSF response to AEJMC comment on the SED
Dear Dr. Bernt,
The National Science Foundation appreciates your response on behalf of the Association for Education in
Journalism and Mass Communications (AEJMC) to the Federal Register Notice of December 19, 2005
regarding the proposed OMB clearance of the Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) for Academic Years (AY)
2007-2009. We have taken your comment into consideration concerning the placement of the field of
Communication and its subcategories on the Field of Study list for respondents to select their bachelor’s,
master’s and doctorate degree field of study.
We are proposing the following changes to the Field of Study listing in response to your comments:
• We will change “Communications” to singular wherever it appears on the listing, but other than that, the
titles for the subcategories will remain the same.
• The entire field of Communication (CIP codes 940, 947, 957, 958, and 959) will be placed as a separate
group between the listings for Social Sciences and Humanities. This approach will keep the SED field of
study list in conformance with the U. S. Department of Education’s Classification of Instructional
Programs, while fulfilling the request that Communication be physically located closer to the Social
Sciences.
• The titles for the categories will not be changed. In order for Journalism to be added to the SED list,
there must be at least 3 institutions awarding a total of at least 10 doctorates in the field for at least 3
consecutive years. This is based on what is reported on the SED, so you need to encourage your new
doctorates to specify Journalism when they fill out their SED questionnaires.
The next step is that all 6 SED sponsoring agencies will discuss the entire field of study list and concur on any
changes. OMB clearance for the AY 2006-7 SED is expected in late April, the SED forms will be printed in
May, and distributed to upcoming doctorate recipients starting in June for the July 2006 to June 2007 academic
year.
Thank you again for your interest in the Survey of Earned Doctorates. If you need any further information
about the survey, please feel free to contact Susan Hill at [email protected].
Nancy
Nancy L. Leach
Program Director, Human Resources Statistics
Division of Science Resource Statistics (SRS)
National Science Foundation
4201 Wilson Blvd, Suite 965
Arlington, VA 22230
Telephone: 703 292-7768
FAX: 703 292-9092
E-mail: [email protected]
1
ATTACHMENT 10: QUALITATIVE TESTING OF THE SED QUESTIONNAIRE
SURVEY OF EARNED DOCTORATES:
Qualitative Testing for the
SED Questionnaire
Prepared by:
Mary Hess, Tom Hoffer, Lisa Lee,
Daniel Loew, Kristy Webber, and Kimberly Williams
August 2005
Table of Contents
Key Findings and Recommendations.......................................................................................... 1
Purpose and Background of the Study ....................................................................................... 2
Qualitative Testing of the SED Questionnaire ............................................................................ 3
Focus Groups......................................................................................................................... 3
Cognitive Interviews............................................................................................................... 3
Focus Groups................................................................................................................................. 5
Method of Discussions........................................................................................................... 5
Session Protocol .................................................................................................................... 5
Sampling ................................................................................................................................ 6
Recruitment............................................................................................................................ 7
Scheduling ............................................................................................................................. 9
Participant Demographics.................................................................................................... 10
Findings and Recommendations ......................................................................................... 11
Cognitive Testing......................................................................................................................... 12
Interview Protocol ................................................................................................................ 12
Pretest.................................................................................................................................. 14
Videotaping and Summary of Findings................................................................................ 15
Recruitment.......................................................................................................................... 15
Scheduling ........................................................................................................................... 15
Participant Demographics.................................................................................................... 16
Cognitive Testing: Findings and Recommendations............................................................... 17
I. 9 or 12 Month Salary (Question B7) ................................................................................ 17
II. Annual Salary (Question B8) .......................................................................................... 18
III. Social Security Number (Question C15)........................................................................ 20
IV. Source of Financial Support (Question A5)................................................................... 23
V. Years Taking Courses/Writing Dissertation (Questions A12/A13) ................................. 24
VI. Intention to Take a Postdoc (Question B2) ................................................................... 25
VII. Status of Postgraduation Plans (Question B3)............................................................. 26
VIII. Postgraduation Plans (Question B4) ........................................................................... 27
IX. Employer Type (Question B6) ....................................................................................... 29
X. Postgraduate Employer and Location (Question B9)..................................................... 30
XI. Marital Status (Question C2) ......................................................................................... 30
XII. Dependents (Question C3)........................................................................................... 31
XIII. Race/Ethnicity (Questions C12 – C14)........................................................................ 32
Possibilities for Future Research............................................................................................... 34
Salary Validation Task ......................................................................................................... 34
Additional Focus Groups...................................................................................................... 34
Exploration of Hispanic/Latino Question.............................................................................. 34
Salary Data Analysis............................................................................................................ 34
Appendix A: Qualitative Testing Recruitment Materials and Protocol .................................. 35
Focus Group Recruitment Letter.......................................................................................... 36
Focus Group Recruitment Flyer........................................................................................... 37
Focus Group Participant Background Sheet ....................................................................... 38
Cognitive Interview Recruitment Email ................................................................................ 39
Cognitive Interview Recruitment Flyer ................................................................................. 40
Cognitive Interview Participant Background Sheet.............................................................. 41
Cognitive Interview Consent Form....................................................................................... 42
Cognitive Interview Protocol Form ....................................................................................... 44
Cognitive Interview Instructions ........................................................................................... 46
Cognitive Interview Probes, Version 1................................................................................. 47
Cognitive Interview Probes, Version 2................................................................................. 53
Appendix B: Cognitive Interview Survey Instruments............................................................. 55
Cognitive Interview Survey Instrument ................................................................................ 56
Cognitive Interview Survey Instrument ................................................................................ 65
Appendic C: Key Project Staff.................................................................................................... 74
Appendix D: Balch Associates’ Focus Group Report.............................................................. 75
Key Findings and Recommendations
In spring 2005, NORC conducted six Focus Groups on the possibility of adding salary
questions to the Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED), as well as the reaction to other
sensitive items on the survey. The groups consisted of:
•
•
•
Three groups with doctoral students nearing graduation or those that have
recently earned their doctorate.
Two groups with graduate deans from participating institutions.
One group with institution contacts from participating institutions.
The conclusion of these groups was that:
1) the vast majority of participants did not object to providing their salary on
the Survey of Earned Doctorates,
2) institutions did see the value in having these data available to them, and
3) students did object to providing their full social security number, and
would feel more comfortable providing a partial SSN, especially if there
was an explanation of how these data would be used and protected.
Based on this conclusion, the NSF authorized NORC to conduct 17 cognitive interviews
in summer 2005 with recently graduated doctorates or those nearing graduation. The
purpose of the interviews was to inform questionnaire revisions for the SED Academic
Year 2007, including the proposed salary question and truncated Social Security Number
question. The key recommendations for these interviews were:
1) The proposed salary question (B7) should ask for base salary, with
instructions to exclude summertime research and bonuses, and should
provide categorized response options in $10,000 ranges.
2) An additional question is needed (within B7) to determine if the salary is
not annual, and should ask for the number of months that salary covers.
3) The truncated SSN question (C15) with an explanation box greatly eased
participants discomfort about providing this sensitive information and
should be used for future survey rounds.
4) The term “Stipend” used in a response option along with “Grant” as a
source of support (A5) was interpreted differently by most of the
respondents and should be removed to promote consistency.
5) The item on time spent in classes versus working on the thesis/dissertation
(A12 & A13, respectively) caused confusion and should be reworded or
reformatted.
6) The question asking participants to identify their employer (B6) should be
reworded to be more specific about the term “employer.”
7) The term “dependents” used in the question asking participants to
enumerate the number of people financially dependent on them (C3) led
many to think this question was only asking about children and should be
reworded.
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
1
Purpose and Background of the Study
The Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) is an annual census of research doctorate
recipients in the United States and is sponsored by the National Science Foundation
(NSF) and five other federal agencies – the National Institutes of Health, the U.S.
Department of Education, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, and the National Aeronautic and Space Administration. The
SED collects information on the educational histories, funding sources, and post-doctoral
plans of U.S. research doctorates. Each year the SED data are added to a larger historical
record of doctorate-degree graduates, the Doctorate Records File (DRF), which contains
over one million records. The NSF requested that the National Opinion Research Center
(NORC) at the University of Chicago (the current survey contractor for the SED) conduct
a panel and methodological research on adding a salary question to the SED 2007 survey
form.
In July 2004, the NSF convened a panel meeting for the SED to discuss the
possibility of adding questions on salary to the SED questionnaire. The panel identified
three main reasons for adding a starting salary question to the SED:
•
To provide compensation information to prospective doctoral students and
new doctorate recipients about what to expect from their career choices,
•
To provide data to program administrators and researchers seeking a better
understanding of the labor market for doctorate recipients in different fields of
specialization, and
•
To provide researchers with a more complete picture of career trajectories
when presented with salary data from the NSF’s Survey of Doctorate
Recipients (SDR).
Following the salary panel meeting, a series of (1) focus groups were proposed to
examine the impact of adding a question on salary and, (2) cognitive interviews to
explore the most appropriate wording and placement of the question. NSF obtained
OMB clearance for this methodological work; clearance included approval of $75 for
each participant, given the high levels of education of each type of participant.
Key project staff from NORC were Senior Research Scientist Tom Hoffer, Senior Survey
Director Mary Hess, Senior Survey Methodologist Lisa Lee, and Survey Specialists Dan
Loew, Kristy Webber and Kim Williams. George Balch, from Balch Associates, acted as
moderator for the focus groups. (See Appendix C).
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
2
Qualitative Testing of the SED Questionnaire
Focus Groups
The intent of the focus groups was to explore the possible reactions of graduate
students, Institution Contacts (ICs) 1, and graduate deans to the addition of a question on
salary to the SED. Issues of particular interest to this research included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Students’ concerns about answering salary questions
Reactions to alternative kinds of salary questions
Concerns about and reactions to sensitive items (in conjunction with salary)
Perceptions of added value of salary question data
Expectations of student reactions to salary data
How institutions might limit negative reactions
Ways the SED can help Institution Contacts if the salary question is added
The focus groups were conducted by a third party moderator, George Balch, PhD
of Balch and Associates, not affiliated with NORC or the SED sponsors. Each session
was conducted nationally via telephone using state-of-the-art technology that allows
simultaneous phone participation by the participants as well as by three client observers.
The protocol was developed in early spring 2005 by Dr. Balch in consultation with
NORC staff and was reviewed by the NSF SED Contracting Officer’s Technical
Representative (COTR), Susan Hill. Tailored protocols were developed for the student,
IC, and graduate dean sessions.
The conclusion of the focus groups was that adding a question on salary would
not negatively affect the survey’s response rate. As a result, NSF asked NORC to
proceed with cognitive testing of the instrument to determine appropriate question
wording and placement.
Cognitive Interviews
The intent of the cognitive interviews was to inform questionnaire development
for the SED – specifically to understand how graduate students respond to a question on
salary so that NORC could develop recommendations for such a question. Although the
salary question was of central importance, the entire instrument was tested during the
interview. (See Appendix B).
Testing the entire questionnaire enabled NSF and NORC to understand the impact
of the salary question (1) in the context of the whole instrument to get a sense of its
appropriateness and any additional burden it may place on the respondent and (2) in
relation to other sensitive items (i.e., Social Security Number, date of birth).
1
Institution Contacts are university staff who assist NORC’s SED team in the data collection efforts. ICs
typically assist in the distribution and collection of the SED questionnaire and also field questions from
students.
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
3
Additionally, testing the entire instrument allowed NSF to understand any need for
changes to the SED instrument at the time of Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
review in winter 2006.
Issues of particular interest to this research included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reactions to alternate versions of asking about salary
Reactions to placement of the salary question
Overall impressions of the instrument
Concerns about sensitive information, particularly Social Security Number
Particular questions that prove difficult
Improvements to question wording
Dan Loew, Kristy Webber, and Kim Williams of NORC conducted a total of 17
cognitive interviews. Each session was conducted in person at NORC using participants
from local universities. The protocol was developed in early summer 2005 by NORC
staff and reviewed by the NSF SED COTR. Each interview began with a “think aloud”
session followed by a series of in-depth probes. Prior to beginning the cognitive
interviews, two pretest interviews were conducted. Review of the pretests prompted
minor modifications to the protocol. All interviews were video taped and reviewed upon
completion.
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
4
Focus Groups
Method of Discussions
Six sessions of focus groups consisting of three groups of students, one group of
ICs, and two groups of graduate deans were conducted nationally via telephone in spring
2005. This state of the art technology allows simultaneous phone participation by the
participants and client observers. Participants are contacted by the teleconference facility
at a phone number they provide to the project’s recruiter in advance and are asked to hold
briefly. In the event that they would not be at the number they specified, participants are
able to dial an 800 number and enter a pass code to enter the session. Client observers
dial into a specific line and enter a pass code to join the session; during the session the
observers listen on a muted line. Once the session time has begun, the moderator greets
the participants and initiates the session. All participants can speak freely and be heard as
if they were having a regular conversation. Each session was audiotape recorded and
lasted no more than 90 minutes.
Session Protocol
The protocol was developed in early spring 2005 by Balch Associates with
consultation by NORC staff, and was reviewed by the NSF SED COTR. Six focus
groups were conducted – two with graduate deans, three with doctoral students near
graduation, and one with institution contacts – between May 10th and May 17th, 2005.
Tailored protocols were developed for the students’, Institution Contacts’, and graduate
deans’ sessions. Each focus group began with an informal icebreaker to initiate
conversation among the participants. Once Dr. Balch established sufficient rapport with
the participants, he proceeded with the discussion guide for that group (see “Adding a
Salary Question to the Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED): Findings from Exploratory
Qualitative Research” for a copy of each discussion guide).
For the student sessions, the primary objectives were to understand their concerns
about and reactions to being asked to share their salary information. For the IC session,
the objectives were to understand how their role would be affected by the inclusion of a
salary question and discuss ways NORC might help ICs prepare for the change. The
main objectives for the graduate dean sessions were to discuss the usefulness of salary
data and how such data would affect their institution.
While each discussion guide was tailored for the specific session, all participants
discussed their reactions to different ways about asking for salary information. Prior to
the focus group session, each participant received a Fed Ex envelope containing three
sealed envelopes that included a sample version of the SED questionnaire containing a
question on salary. Each envelope was assigned a different color label. During the
session, Dr. Balch instructed participants to open a specific envelope, review its contents,
and respond. This process was repeated three times until all versions of the sample
questionnaire had been presented.
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
5
Once Dr. Balch covered the points on the discussion guide, he paused for a few
minutes to check with the client observers to identify any points that were not covered or
that needed additional follow-up. During this time, he instructed the participants to
discuss among themselves a topic related to the evening’s discussion. Upon returning to
the session, Dr. Balch raised additional questions if the observers brought them up. At
the conclusion of each evening (a maximum of two groups were conducted each
evening), Dr. Balch debriefed with NORC observers on the sessions’ outcomes.
Sampling
NORC handled all sampling and recruitment for the focus groups. Initial
sampling for recruitment began with the list of all known educational programs in the
United States that award research doctoral degrees (n=588). In most institutions, this
program is the graduate school, which handles the SED for all the doctoral graduates.
For other institutions, there could be several schools or departments that handle the SED.
For example, one institution may offer a doctoral degree in education and one in biology,
where the School of Education handles the SED for their graduates, while the Biology
Department handles it for the biology Ph.D.s. Therefore, the number of programs noted
above is greater than the number of institutions granting doctorate degrees in the U.S.
Ninety-five of these programs were selected using the following parameters to ensure
representation, though not statistically, of the entire universe of doctoral institutions in
the U.S.:
•
Geographic region – Institutions were selected from the northwestern, western,
southwestern, Midwestern, southeastern, mid-Atlantic, and northeastern regions
of the United States.
•
Graduation date – Institutions that award degrees in May and August were
selected. Institutions that did not offer May or August graduations were excluded
so that the sample of focus group participants would (1) have limited exposure to
the SED questionnaire and (2) would be more likely to have firm job offers than
fall graduates and therefore, they would be more apt to provide reactions to
questions about expected salary.
•
Private and Public Institution status – NORC sought to include an equal
number of private and public institutions in the sample.
•
Institution Size – As reactions might differ between large and small schools,
institutions of all sizes were included. The number of research doctorates that
each educational institution grants annually determined size in this context. Size
categories included:
- fewer than100 doctorates awarded annually
- 100-200 doctorates awarded annually
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
6
-
201-300 doctorates awarded annually
301-500 doctorates awarded annually
501 or more doctorates awarded annually
•
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) – Several HBCUs were
included in the sample.
•
Specialized Institutions – Several specialized institutions (e.g., medical research
universities, theological seminaries) were included in the sample.
•
Problem Schools – Through extensive interactions with Institution contacts, SED
staff members have identified certain educational institutions which have been
traditionally uncooperative. These “problem schools” were excluded from the
sample.
•
Deans and Institution Contacts – Institution contacts and graduate deans were
recruited from different universities to avoid institution bias in the sessions.
Institutions were excluded if their IC also served as a graduate dean. These
institutions were excluded to ensure that the ICs contacted to participate in the
focus group would be responding as ICs and not in some other capacity.
Recruitment
NORC sought to recruit eight participants for each of the focus groups, totaling 24
students, eight ICs, and 16 graduate deans. NORC also sought to line up several
alternates for each session. To streamline the recruitment process, NORC contacted the
same institutions for the student and IC groups and relied on assistance from ICs in
reaching the students. NORC contacted graduate deans directly. Students and ICs were
offered $75 to participate in the focus groups, paid upon completion of the group.
Graduate deans were provided with a summary of their focus group session and given the
opportunity to provide feedback to the focus group moderator.
Student/IC Recruitment
Recruitment for the student and IC focus groups occurred in three parts; a total of
63 institutions were contacted. The first recruiting effort involved a Fed-Ex mailing to 18
institutions that included the focus group informational letter and flyer (see Appendix A).
Prior to sending the flyers, ICs from 26 institutions were called to inform them of the
study and request their help in distributing the flyers to students; 18 agreed to accept the
flyers. A week after the flyers arrived, each IC received a follow up email reminding
them about the IC and student focus group, encouraging their participation, and thanking
them for their assistance in recruiting students.
The second recruiting effort involved sending a mass email to ICs at 24 new
schools with an electronic copy of the flyer attached. The body of the email included the
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
7
focus group informational letter and asked if they would post or distribute the flyer to
doctoral students nearing the end of their degree requirements.
The third recruiting effort involved contacting eight ICs who were recommended
by Jamie Friedman, the NORC SED Institution Coordinator, as being particularly helpful
and/or easy to work with. These ICs received a personal email that included a brief
summary of the focus groups, requested their participation in the IC group, and asked for
their help in recruiting students (by either sending out the brief informational paragraph
provided or by posting the attached flyer).
The following schools were contacted for the student and IC focus groups:
Alabama A&M University
Brigham Young University
Carnegie Mellon University
Clark Atlanta University
Columbia University
Georgia Institute of Technology
Harvard University
Jackson State University
Johns Hopkins University
Morgan State University
Northwestern University
Pennsylvania State University
Purdue University-Main Campus
Texas A&M University
Univ. of Arkansas-Main Campus
Univ. of Calif.-Berkeley
Univ. of Calif.-Santa Barbara
Univ. of Colorado-Boulder
Univ. of Iowa
Univ. of Massachusetts-Amherst
Univ. of Michigan-Ann Arbor
Univ. of Nebraska-Lincoln
Univ. of New Mexico
Univ. of Notre Dame
Univ. of Pennsylvania
Univ. of San Francisco
Univ. of Utah
Univ. of Washington
Yale University
Baylor College of Medicine
Brown University
Chicago Theological Seminary
College of William and Mary
Emory Univ.
Grambling State University
Howard University
Jewish Theo. Seminary of America
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
New Jersey Institute of Technology
Ohio State University-Main Campus
Princeton University
Stanford University
Tufts University
Univ. of Calif. San Diego
Univ. of Calif.-Davis
Univ. of Chicago
Univ. of Georgia
Univ. of Maryland-College Park
Univ. of Med & Dent of N. J.
Univ. of Minnesota-Twin Cities
Univ. of Nevada-Las Vegas
Univ. of North Dakota
Univ. of Pennsylvania-School of Education
Univ. of Pittsburgh
Univ. of Southern California
Univ. of Vermont
Villanova University
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
8
Graduate Dean Recruitment
Recruitment for the graduate dean focus groups occurred in two parts; a total of
49 institutions were contacted. The first effort at reaching graduate deans involved a
direct phone call to graduate deans at 25 institutions. Approximately a week after the
original phone call, a follow up email was sent to each of the deans. NORC believed that
graduate deans would be most accessible via email and decided to direct future efforts in
that manner. As a second effort to obtain interest in the graduate dean focus groups, a
mass email was sent to deans at 24 institutions (these are the same 24 institutions that
received the IC mass email).
The following schools were contacted for the dean focus groups:
Alabama A & M University
Brigham Young University
Chicago Theological Seminary
Clark Atlanta University
Colorado State University
CUNY Graduate Center
DePaul University
Grambling State University
Indiana University-Bloomington
Johns Hopkins University
Mass. Institute of Technology
Pennsylvania State University
Princeton University
Rutgers University-New Brunswick
Univ. of Arizona
Univ. of Calif.-Los Angeles
Univ. of Calif.-Santa Barbara
Univ. of Houston - College of Natural Sciences
Univ. of Kansas-Main Campus
Univ. of Missouri-Columbia
Univ. of North Carolina-Chap. Hill
Univ. of Pittsburgh
Univ. of Vermont
Vanderbilt University
Yale University
Baylor College of Medicine
Carnegie Mellon University
Claremont Graduate University
College of William and Mary
Cornell University
Dartmouth College
Georgetown University
Harvard University
Jackson State University
Loyola University of Chicago
New Orleans Baptist Theo Seminary
Portland State University
Purdue University-Main Campus
Texas A & M University
Univ. of Calif.-Davis
Univ. of Calif.-San Diego
Univ. of Florida
Univ. of Illinois-Urbana
Univ. of Med & Dent of N. J.
Univ. of Nebraska-Lincoln
Univ. of Oklahoma
Univ. of Utah
Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison
Wake Forest University
Scheduling
Almost 100 doctoral students expressed interest in the Student Focus Group.
Each interested student received a background information sheet, which they were
instructed to fill out and return to NORC via email (see Appendix A). Students who
indicated that they had a definite commitment to work or study were given top priority,
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
9
followed by students who were negotiating with one or more organizations. Students who
were seeking a position were given lowest priority, while students who did not plan to
work or study were excluded. Beyond these criteria, NORC sought to include an equal
distribution of males and females as well as a broad representation of various fields of
study from the schools contacted.
Participant Demographics
Students
A total of 24 students participated in the focus groups, consisting of 12 males and
12 females. Three students were from institutions in the Northeast, three from the
Southeast, eight from the Midwest, six from the west, and four from the Northwest. The
majority of students (n = 15) had signed a contract or made a definite commitment to
work or study, while eight were returning to or continuing in predoctoral employment,
and one was negotiating with one or more specific organizations. Two-thirds of the
participants were from public universities and the remaining were from private
universities; three students were from specialized institutions, which included a medical
and dental research university and a technical university. Institution size (determined by
the number of doctorates awarded) was fairly evenly represented in the focus groups.
The following fields of study were represented:
Business Administration
Chemistry
Civil Engineering
Clinical Psychology
Earth & Planetary Science
Education
Educational Administration
Ethnomusicology
Geography
Immunology
International Relations
Literature
Mechanical Engineering
Molecular Biology
Molecular Genetics
Physics
Political Science
Social Psychology
Sociology
Urban Ecology
Institution Contacts
A total of six ICs participated in the Institution Contact Focus Group; all
participants were female. One IC was located in the Northeast region of the U.S., two
were located in the Southeast, one was located in the Midwest, one was located in the
Mountain region, and one was located in the West. The majority of the ICs were from
mid-sized institutions (200-500 doctorates awarded annually), while one was from a
small institution (less than 100 doctorates awarded annually) and one was from a large
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
10
institution (more than 500 doctorates annually). One IC was from a specialized school,
which was a technical university.
Graduate Deans
A total of 12 graduate deans participated in the Graduate Dean Focus Groups,
consisting of 8 males and 4 females. Two deans were located in the Northeast, one was
located in the Southeast, three were located in the Midwest, two in the West, two in the
Southwest, and two were located in the Mountain region. Ten of the graduate deans were
from public institutions while two were from private institutions. A few graduate deans
represented each institution size in the sample. There was one dean from a specialized
institution, which was a technical university.
Findings and Recommendations
Focus group participants were presented with mock-up SED questionnaires which
contained three different versions of the salary question. The first version asked
participants to write in a salary range within which their estimated salary would fit, the
second version asked participants to write their estimated salary, while the third version
asked participants to choose their salary from set ranges in a multiple-choice format.
Participants had clear preferences for the simpler question wording – with a clear
definition of “salary” - with set ranges in a multiple-choice format. In addition, nearly all
of the students said they would provide this information and most did not consider it too
sensitive.
Some focus group participants, particularly graduate deans, mentioned a variety
of ways in which salary data would be useful. They were interested in supplementing
current salary data sources with data gathered from the SED, which would provide many
practical applications of salary data. Proposed applications included comparing students’
level of investment with indebtedness, comparing salary range distributions across fields,
and comparing starting salaries to manage hiring within their universities.
When asked about their reactions to other items in the questionnaire, participants’
greatest concern by far was the Social Security Number question. All considered
answering this question risky, due to salient concerns of identity theft. Many urged that
the SED form explain how the SSN will be used. Only asking for the last 4 digits of the
SSN was greatly supported, as was providing information concerning the reasons for the
SED’s collection of the SSN.
The conclusion of the focus groups was that adding a question on salary would
not negatively affect the survey’s response rate. As a result, NSF asked NORC to
proceed with cognitive testing of the instrument to determine appropriate question
wording and placement. Detailed findings and recommendations of the focus groups are
presented in Dr. Balch’s report, “Adding a Salary Question to the Survey of Earned
Doctorates (SED): Findings from Exploratory Qualitative Research” (See Appendix D).
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
11
Cognitive Testing
The focus group findings supported moving forward with cognitive interviews to
determine how students would react to being asked for salary information in the actual
context of completing the questionnaire. Additionally, the cognitive testing encompassed
the entire instrument so that NORC could gain respondent information and present
additional proposed changes to the SED instrument at the time of OMB review in winter
2006.
Interview Protocol
The protocol was developed in early summer 2005 by NORC staff and reviewed
by the NSF SED COTR. All interviews were conducted at NORC’s downtown Chicago
facility during the weeks of July 11 and July 18. Loew, Webber, and Williams conducted
17 interviews. Each interview lasted between 45 – 90 minutes and was completed using
paper and pencil materials. Interview lengths varied depending on the participants’
feedback. The interview was broken down into four parts:
Part 1: The participant was instructed to read an introductory letter and the
“Purpose and Use” brochure that explained the SED. These documents were
presented as background information. The interviewer asked the participant if
s/he had any questions about the material.
Part 2: The cognitive interview began with a “think aloud” session whereby the
participant was asked to complete the questionnaire and share their thought
processes with the interviewer. The interviewer led the participant through an
example prior to beginning the session and told the participant that what s/he was
most interested in was how the participant was coming up with his/her responses
and not necessarily the responses themselves.
Part 3: Once the participant completed the think aloud segment, the interviewer
began a series of scripted in-depth probes for specific questions. In addition to
the pre-determined probes, interviewers listened carefully and interjected adlibbed probes where appropriate. The combination of scripted and ad-libbed
probes created consistency across all interviews while allowing for interviewer
flexibility to tease out pertinent information from the participants.
Part 4: At the completion of the probe segment, the interviewer reviewed his/her
notes from the think aloud session and asked the participant to elaborate on any
point that deserved further discussion.
NORC staff utilized findings from the focus groups, SED’s 2002 cognitive testing
of the web questionnaire, and recommendations from NORC Senior Survey
Methodologists when developing the interview protocol. Examples of salary questions
were of central importance to the protocol. NORC tested two versions of the salary
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
12
question based on feedback from the focus group participants. Some focus group
participants found it helpful if the salary question contained instructions on what to
include and exclude in their salary and some did not. Therefore, one version of the
question with instructions, based on SDR salary question wording, was presented in the
cognitive interviews and one was presented without instructions. In each case, the
response options consisted of seven salary ranges (ranging from less than $30,000 to
above $80,001 in $10,000 increments) and a “don’t know” option.
Although the salary question and Social Security Number question emerged as the
most prominent components of the scripted probes, additional survey items were selected
for testing. The additional survey items included in the protocol along with an
explanation for their inclusion are listed below (see Appendices A and B for copies of the
probes and questionnaires):
•
Source of financial support during graduate school (question A5)
- Participants in the 2002 cognitive interviews mentioned that some of
the response options could be better defined.
•
Years taking courses/working on dissertation (questions A12, A13)
- Participants in the 2002 cognitive interviews mentioned that this
question was confusing because it was not clear to them if they should
include or exclude experiences prior to graduate school entry.
•
Intention to take a postdoc (question B2)
- The word “intend” may be ambiguous to respondents as it can mean
both a desire and/or a concrete plan.
•
Status of postgraduation plans (question B3)
- The word “predoctoral” may be ambiguous to respondents as it can
mean both the time before starting the doctoral program and/or the
time before earning the doctoral degree.
•
Postgraduation plans (question B4)
- The response options may be unclear to respondents. Graduate deans
in the focus groups suggested that students might not be aware of any
difference between “postdoctoral fellowship” and “postdoctoral
research associateship”. The deans indicated that this terminology was
most often used at the administrative level.
•
Employer type (question B6)
- The response options may not be exhaustive. Some focus group
participants mentioned that they could not easily find a place for
international and non-governmental organizations.
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
13
•
Employer name and location (question B9)
- NORC was interested in the sensitivity of also requesting job title in
this item.
•
Marital status (question C2)
- Some participants from the 2002 cognitive interviews noted difficulty
understanding which option they should select if they felt they fit into
multiple categories. Some focus group participants were
uncomfortable with the response options, particularly “living in a
marriage like relationship” and “never married”.
•
Dependents (question C3)
- The layout of the response options is visually confusing since the
check boxes are not aligned. Additionally, the word “dependents”
may influence respondents to automatically think of children and
exclude adults.
•
Race/ethnicity (questions C12, C13, C14)
- Although the response options are based on the OMB regulations,
respondents occasionally call the SED 1-800 number with questions
about why they were asked to provide a race when they already
indicated they were Hispanic in question C12. This indicates that the
respondents did not think of Hispanicity as their ethnicity, but that they
thought of it as their race.
Pretest
In preparation for the cognitive interviews, NORC conducted two pretests to test
the protocol, timing and flow of the interviews. Lee and Webber each conducted one
interview, with Lee, the Senior Survey Methodologist, conducting the first so that
Webber and Williams could take notes on her approach and style. After completing the
interviews, Lee, Webber, and Williams discussed what worked well in the protocol and
what adjustments were necessary.
It was decided that the interview would work better if the probes on the salary
questions and Social Security Number were asked at the beginning of the probe segment
as opposed to the order they appear in the questionnaire since they were the most
important items. Lee worked with Webber and Williams on modifying several of the
probes to better meet the desired objectives. Each of the pretests lasted approximately
one hour and additional modifications to the protocol were not necessary.
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
14
Videotaping and Summary of Findings
Once all of the interviews were completed, NORC transferred the videos to VHS
tapes. Loew, Webber, and Williams reviewed each tape to confirm and clarify original
notes; Hess reviewed a tape from each interviewer. Loew, Webber, and Williams
aggregated and shared their notes in a debriefing session. A second debriefing was held
with Hess, Hoffer, and the NSF SED COTR to discuss the initial findings before specific
recommendations were developed.
Recruitment
NORC handled all recruitment for the cognitive interviews and offered a $75
incentive to students for participation. Because cognitive interviews are best conducted
in person 2, only Chicago-area research doctorate-granting universities were included.
The following institutions were contacted: the University of Chicago, Loyola University
of Chicago, Northwestern University, the University of Illinois at Chicago and at
Champaign-Urbana, Rush University, DePaul University, the Illinois Institute of
Technology and the Chicago Theological Seminary.
NORC sought to recruit 16 participants for the cognitive interviews, in addition to
two pretest participants and several alternates. The recruiting effort involved contacting
the ICs at the universities mentioned above to ask for their assistance in recruiting. ICs
who agreed to assist with the recruiting were sent an informational email they could
forward on to their students and an electronic copy of the flyer attached. NORC
requested that ICs send the information to all research doctoral students who were
scheduled to graduate either in spring or summer 2005. NORC also requested that ICs
post the flyer in locations frequented by doctoral students. Students were informed to
contact Loew via phone or email for more information.
Scheduling
NORC received interest from 35 students. Each interested student received a
background information sheet, which they were instructed to fill out and return to NORC
via email (see Appendix A). Students were eligible for the cognitive interviews if they
had graduated in spring 2005 or would graduate in summer 2005. Students who
indicated that they had a definite commitment to work or study were given top priority,
followed by students who were negotiating with one or more organizations and students
who were seeking a position. Students who did not plan to work or study were excluded.
Beyond these criteria, NORC sought to include an equal distribution of males and
females as well as a broad representation of various fields of study.
2
Willis, Gordon (2005). Cognitive Interviewing: A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design. London:
Pantheon Books.
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
15
Participant Demographics
A total of 17 students participated in the cognitive interviews, which included 10
females and 7 males. Students represented the University of Chicago, Loyola University
of Chicago, Northwestern University, and the University of Illinois at Chicago. The
majority (n = 13) of the participants had signed a contract or made definite commitments
for other work or study, while four participants were negotiating with one or more
specific organizations.
The following fields of study were represented in the cognitive interviews:
Art History
Business Administration
Chemistry
Curriculum Design
Economics
Evolutionary Biology
History
Mathematics
Music
Nutrition
Pharmacology
Public Health
Public Policy
Social Work
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
16
Cognitive Testing: Findings and Recommendations
The following section is a question-by-question review of all comments made by
participants during the cognitive interviews. For each item, the question and response
options are presented followed by a question description, item discussion, and NORC’s
recommendations. This section begins with discussions on the salary questions tested
during the cognitive interviews followed by the Social Security item. Subsequent items
are discussed in the order they appear in the questionnaire.
I. 9 or 12 Month Salary (Question B7)
This question was added to the questionnaire for the purposes of the cognitive
testing. Focus group participants suggested it would be helpful to identify whether the
salary was for a standard vs. “academic” contract period.
B7. For this position, will you receive a 9 or 12 month salary?
0 9 month
1 12 month
2 Don’t Know
Discussion
The probes for this question were developed to understand the usefulness of this
question, and how their ability to answer the salary question (B8) would be affected if
this question were not on the survey.
Most of the participants did not think that this question was necessary, and several
did not fit into the categories provided. For example, one respondent had an 11 month
post doc assignment. A few participants suggested incorporating this question into the
salary question. They did not see the need for a stand-alone question, but did recognize
that these data could be valuable.
Recommendations
While it may not be needed as a separate question, this information would be
useful in the analysis of salary data and post-graduation employment. We recommend
incorporating this question into the salary question by having the respondent indicate the
number of months the salary covers either before or after the salary category (see
question B8):
If this is less than a 12 month salary, write in the number of months this
salary is for_____
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
17
II. Annual Salary (Question B8)
This question was added to the questionnaire for the purposes of the cognitive
testing and requests the range within which the participant’s projected salary falls. Both
the 9 month/12 month question and the salary question were placed after the question on
employer type (question B6). NORC determined this logical placement for the salary
question because it followed employer type but preceded employer name and location.
NORC suggested that if salary were requested after specific employer name and location
were requested, the salary item might experience a higher level of nonresponse.
Two versions of the question were presented to participants. Half of the
participants first saw Version 1 on the questionnaire and half saw Version 2. Participants
then were presented with the alternate version of the question during the probe segment.
The wording for Version 1 is similar to how the SDR requests salary information and
includes explicit instructions. Version 2 of the question is abbreviated and parallels how
the Canadian Survey of Earned Doctorates requests salary information.
Version 1:
B8. Before deductions, what will be your basic annual salary for this job?
Do not include bonuses, overtime or additional compensation for
summertime teaching or research. If you are not salaried, please estimate
your earned income excluding business expenses. Mark (X) one
0
1
2
3
Less than $30,000
$30,001 - $40,000
$40,001 - $50,000
$50,001 - $60,000
4
5
6
7
$60,001 - $70,000
$70,001 - $80,000
Above $80,001
Don’t Know
Version 2:
B8. What will be your base annual salary or wages? Mark (X) one
0
1
2
3
Less than $30,000
$30,001 - $40,000
$40,001 - $50,000
$50,001 - $60,000
4
5
6
7
$60,001 - $70,000
$70,001 - $80,000
Above $80,001
Don’t Know
Discussion
Participants were probed on several different issues for this question including
sensitivity, the question stem wording, the response options provided, and how they came
up with their response. Additionally, participants were asked about components of their
hiring package.
None of the participants had any objections to providing their salary data on the
survey. Most commented that this information was publicly available in some cases, or
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
18
standardized and widely known in others. A few participants commented on the category
breakdown. Some suggested adding more to the lower end, breaking down the $30,000
to $40,000 category further, and one indicated that the ceiling ($80,001 and over) was too
low. Most post doc positions pay between $30K to $40K, and therefore a finer
breakdown in that range will be informative for that population. Several participants did
comment that this question presumed the person answering it has a traditional, full-time
job, and this did not fit their situation or the situation of many others they knew (e.g.,
persons taking an adjunct teaching position).
While more participants preferred Version 1 to Version 2, it was by a relatively
small margin. Those that preferred Version 1 thought the italicized instructions made it
clear exactly what information the survey was requesting, while those who preferred
Version 2 thought the instructions were unnecessary or confusing. Most of the
participants did not include any extras like bonuses or overtime regardless of the version
they saw. However, most of the participants did think it was necessary to keep the
wording that instructed them to exclude summertime research or teaching. It should also
be noted that all of the participants interviewed were either taking a post doc or a position
in academia. Therefore, predictions or recommendations for those going into industry
may not be appropriate.
All participants were entering academia or a postdoc position and had limited
hiring packages to speak of. Most participants who received “extras” upon hiring
received a modest moving allowance or potential money for conference attendance.
These components, including salary, they reported, were not as important to the
participant as the position itself.
Recommendations
The participants did not seem to have a strong preference for either version of the
question and thought there were benefits to both the instructions in Version 1 and the
simplicity of Version 2. Therefore, we recommend creating a new question, derived from
Version 1 and keeping only the most relevant instructions. The new question should also
specify that we are asking about the primary or principal position, and it should use the
same reference point as the other questions about postgraduate employment. In addition,
the salary ranges could be changed, to better capture the nuances of post doc salaries, and
to increase the ceiling. Finally, question B7 should be incorporated to capture data on the
number of the months this salary covers.
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
19
A preliminary recommended question is below:
What will be your basic annual salary for this principal job (in the next
year)? Do not include bonuses or additional compensation for
summertime teaching or research. If you are not salaried, please estimate
your earned income. Mark (X) one.
0
1
2
3
4
$30,000 or less
$30,001 - $35,000
$35,001 - $40,000
$40,001 - $50,000
$50,001 - $60,000
5
6
7
8
9
$60,001 - $70,000
$70,001 - $80,000
$80,001 - $90,000
$90,001 or above
Don’t Know
Is this for 12 months?
1 Yes
2 No
If no, write in the number of months this salary is for: ______.
Forthcoming research will shape the question further. NORC will review other
Federal surveys, professional association surveys, and other sources of salary data to
understand how the results from the SED would be comparable. NORC will also consult
members of the 2004 salary panel, labor economists, and graduate school administrators
for their input on the question wording.
The distributions of salary are sensitive to the “top coding decision,” and it is best
to have more categories than fewer. NORC was also asked to examine how adding this
question will affect the postgraduation plans section as a whole. The changes in the skip
patterns in the 2004 instrument now take all respondents who are going on to further
training or study through the entire postgraduation plans section, whereas they previously
were not directed to the questions on employer type, location, and work activities.
Because of this change, respondents who are continuing their education in an additional
graduate program (M.D., MBA, etc) and will not be receiving a salary would see the
salary question given the proposed placement between the original questions B6 and B7.
Therefore, the salary question will need to make an accommodation for these respondents
in the form of another response option or a note that directs them to indicate that they will
not be receiving a salary.
III. Social Security Number (Question C15)
Social Security Number (SSN) has historically been one of the most sensitive
items on the SED questionnaire. Respondents have been increasingly more reluctant to
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
20
provide their Social Security Number over the past several years, citing privacy concerns
and the possibility of identity theft.
Students who participated in the focus groups also indicated a high degree of
discomfort with providing their SSN. NORC asked Dr. Balch to ask focus group
participants how they would feel about providing the last four digits of their SSN. Focus
group participants felt more comfortable with providing the last four digits but also urged
that the survey explain why it is requesting the information.
As a result, NORC modified the questionnaire to present a truncated version of
the SSN question and developed a plan for experimental distribution during the 2006
survey round. Cognitive interview participants were presented with the truncated version
of this question.
C15. Please fill in your partial U.S. Social Security Number.
X X X - X X - __ __ __ __
We request only the last four digits of your SSN to assure additional
protection of your data. All personal information is kept strictly
confidential and is not used outside the National Science
Foundation’s Survey of Earned Doctorates project under any
condition. We ask for this information in order to assure that no
duplicate records are in the historical file. Also, NSF conducts a
voluntary, longitudinal survey of a sample of doctorate recipients.
Partial SSNs and personal contact information are used to obtain
these sample graduates’ mailing addresses two or more years after
completion of their doctoral programs. Further information on the
purpose and use of this survey and on the privacy safeguards is
available at: http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/issues/docdata.htm
Discussion
For this item, participants were asked about their reactions to being asked for their
partial SSN, how it compared to being asked for their full SSN, and the impact of the
explanation box.
When asked about providing only the last four digits of their SSN, all the
participants agreed that it was much better than providing all nine, though a few were still
reluctant to give any part of their SSN. A few mentioned they were accustomed to other
agencies using the last four digits as an identifier. The most common concern voiced was
identity theft, but most agreed it would be very difficult to perpetrate identity theft with
only a partial SSN. While most still had some misgivings about providing this
information, the participants did feel confident that NORC would keep the information
secure and confidential.
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
21
While some participants did not feel the need to read the explanation box, the
majority of those who did said the explanation made them feel more comfortable about
providing the partial SSN. Only two participants thought the box was not convincing,
and still did not understand why we needed SSN. A few participants thought the text
could be cut down, to increase clarity and make it more likely that people will read it.
The first sentence seemed to cause the most confusion, as many people did not
understand what it meant.
Recommendations
Due to the highly sensitive nature of this question, we recommend asking only for
the last four digits of the Social Security Number. This measure should greatly decrease
the unease of participants when completing the SED. The last four digits, coupled with
name, will be an effective identifier to prevent duplicate records in the historical file and
can also be used to help locate participants in the future for follow-up studies.
In addition, we recommend altering the explanation box to be more succinct. The
first line should be dropped, since it seems to cause confusion for the respondent. The
reasons/uses of SSN should be shortened to two bullet points. The recommended
explanation is below:
We ask for your partial Social Security Number for these reasons:
1) It is used to evaluate Federal programs that apply to graduate
students.
2) The NSF uses partial SSN and personal contact information to
locate a sample of doctorate recipients for a voluntary employment
survey after graduation.
3) It helps assure that no duplicate records are in the historical file.
Further information on the purpose and use of this survey and on the
privacy safeguards is available at:
http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/issues/docdata.htm
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
22
IV. Source of Financial Support (Question A5)
This question asks respondents about the different sources of financial support
during graduate school.
A5. Which of the following were sources of financial support during
graduate school?
Mark ALL that apply
a. Fellowship, scholarship
b. Grant, stipend
c. Teaching assistantship
d. Research assistantship
e. Other assistantship
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
n.
f.
Traineeship
Internship, clinical residency
Loans (from any source)
Personal savings
Personal earnings during graduate school (other than sources listed above)
Spouse's, partner's, or family earnings or savings
Employer reimbursement/assistance
Foreign (non-U.S.) support
Other – Specify ____________
Discussion
Participants were asked to define the first four response options, describe their
sources of support in their own words, and were all given the same hypothetical situation
to see if the responses would differ based on the respondent answering the question.
While most of the participants did not seem to have a problem answering this
question during the think aloud, further probing revealed a divergence in their definitions
or understanding of the response categories. The most common issue involved response
option b) Grant, stipend. The participants made several comments indicating the term
stipend was not mutually exclusive. For example, a student with a teaching assistantship
who received a tuition waiver was paid to teach or assist a professor, but the payment was
in the form of a stipend. Participants suggested that for a fellowship/scholarship, the
student does not need to work for the payment, but the word “stipend” is still used to
refer to the money the student receives for living expenses, etc. There was also some
confusion over the options “c. Teaching assistantship” and “d. Research assistantship.”
Some universities do not distinguish between these terms, and refer to them collectively
as a “graduate assistantship.”
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
23
Additionally, participants were given a scenario of a Canadian student on a full
scholarship paid for by the Canadian government, and asked how they would respond if
they were in that situation. The majority of the participants asked indicated they would
choose either “a. Fellowship, scholarship” or “m. Foreign (non-U.S.) support,” but not
both. Two participants would choose both options. In one instance, a respondent did in
fact receive a scholarship from her (non-US) government, and she only chose response
option “m. Foreign (non-U.S. support)” to reflect this form of support.
Recommendations
While this question originally did not seem to be a problem, it became clear that
some of the response options were not universally understood. Specifically, the use of
the term “stipend” seemed to cause confusion due to its generic and commonly accepted
definition as money graduate students receive for living expenses. We recommend
removing the term “stipend” from response option b. Due to the different naming
conventions at each institution, it may not be possible to account for all the variations on
sources of support. Therefore, we do not recommend any other changes at this time.
V. Years Taking Courses/Writing Dissertation (Questions A12/A13)
These questions ask respondents about the amount of time spent preparing for
their doctoral degree.
A12. How many years were you taking courses or preparing for exams for
this doctoral degree (including a master's degree, if that was a part of your
doctoral program)?
Years_______
Round to whole years
A13. After coursework and exams, how many years did you work on your
dissertation (non-course related preparation or research, writing, and
defense)?
Years________
Round to whole years
Discussion
During the probes, participants were asked how they came up with their answer
for these items, and what, if anything caused them confusion.
While most participants eventually answered this question correctly, several
began by including all of the years they spent in graduate school for A12. After reading
A13, all but one respondent went back to A12 to correct their answer, to only include the
years they spent in classes. While several participants commented that they continued to
take classes even while they were in the dissertation-writing stage, they did not include
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
24
that time in their final answer for A12. Conversely, a few participants indicated they
began working on their dissertation even while they were taking the required courses, and
they too were confused as to how to answer this question.
Recommendations
We have two recommendations to make this question clearer. The first would be
to add the phrase “pre-candidacy” to question A12, as this is a common phrase used by
graduate students who have yet to reach the dissertation writing stage of their doctoral
program. The other would be to combine questions A12 and A13 together, thus
increasing the chance that the participants will think of their graduate program in two
parts.
Recommendation 1:
A12. How many years were you taking courses or preparing for exams in
the pre-candidacy stage for this doctoral degree (including a master's
degree, if that was a part of your doctoral program)?
Years_______
Round to whole years
A13. After coursework and exams, how many years did you work on your
dissertation (non-course related preparation or research, writing, and
defense)?
Years________
Round to whole years
Recommendation 2:
A12. How many years were you:
a) taking courses or preparing for exams during the pre-candidacy
stage for this doctoral degree (including a master's degree, if that
was a part of your doctoral program)?
Years_______
Round to whole years
b) working on your dissertation after coursework and exams (noncourse related preparation or research, writing, and defense)?
Years________
Round to whole years
VI. Intention to Take a Postdoc (Question B2)
This question asks participants if they intend to take a postdoc position.
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
25
B2. Do you intend to take a “postdoc” position? (A “postdoc” is a
temporary position primarily for gaining additional education and training
in research, usually awarded in academe, industry, or government.)
1
2
Yes
No
Discussion
Participants were asked about their interpretation of the word “intend” and their
overall comprehension of the question.
Nearly all of the participants interpreted the word “intend” to mean both definite
plans for taking a postdoc and general interest in taking a postdoc. Some participants
noted that this question could be confusing for individuals who were still on the job
market and had applied to both postdocs and other types of positions.
Recommendations
The NSF SED COTR indicated that the word “intend” could encompass both the
student’s reality or a projected hope. Because participants understood the word “intend”
in the correct way as defined by the NSF SED COTR, we do not propose any changes for
this question. As a new item on the 2004 questionnaire, NORC should closely examine
the 2004 (and subsequent years) data, particularly the percent of non-response, to
determine the completeness of the response options. The item non-response rate for 2004
was 2.4%.
Note: NORC is currently conducting focus groups funded by the NSF on the
postdoc experience, and the result may inform future changes to this question.
VII. Status of Postgraduation Plans (Question B3)
This question asks respondents about the status of their postgraduation plans,
whether they have a commitment, are seeking one, or do not have plans.
B3. What is the status of your postgraduate plans (in the next year)? Mark
(X) one
0 Returning to, or continuing in, predoctoral employment
1 Have signed contract or made definite commitment for other work or study
2 Negotiating with one or more specific organizations
3 Seeking position but have no specific prospects
4 Do not plan to work or study
5 Other – Specify _______________
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
26
Discussion
Participants’ understanding of the term “predoctoral” was examined using a
scenario and other probes. Participants were presented with a hypothetical scenario in
which they played the role of a student who taught a few classes at a local university
while they were working on their doctoral degree and the university extended them a
contract to work full-time once they graduated. The timeframe used in the question was
also asked about.
In response to the scenario, participants generally chose response option 1 “Have
signed contract or made definite commitment for other work or study” if the job offer
was firm, or response option 2 “Negotiating with one or more specific organizations” if
the job offer was under negotiation. A few respondents explained that they wouldn’t
choose the response option 0 (Returning to, or continuing, in predoctoral employment)
because the full-time position would involve a contractual change in role, status, and
personal priorities. When asked to define “predoctoral”, roughly half of the respondents
understood the term to refer to anytime before they entered their doctoral program, while
roughly half understood the term to refer to anytime before earning their doctoral degree.
Recommendations
The distinction between response options 0 and 1 for this question collapses when
the data are grouped into the categories of “definite employment or study” and “seeking
employment or study”, as they are in the SED Summary Report, because both 0 and 1
constitute some type of definite plan. However, the addition of salary data to the survey
may prompt a closer look at these items, particularly if differences in salary exist between
individuals who are returning to/continuing in employment and individuals who report
having signed a contract. For instance, the data may show that salaries are higher for
those who are returning to employment because their doctoral degree may likely mark a
promotion or salary increase where it would not in the case of first time (postdoctoral)
employment. Therefore, at this time we have no recommendations to alter the question.
We do, however, suggest that this item be explored in conjunction with the salary data to
better understand how the items are related.
VIII. Postgraduation Plans (Question B4)
This question asks respondents to select one option for their postgraduation plans.
B4. What best describes your (within the next year) postgraduate plans?
Mark (X) one
FURTHER TRAINING OR STUDY
0 Postdoctoral fellowship
1 Postdoctoral research associateship
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
27
2
3
4
Traineeship
Intern, clinical residency
Other – Specify _____________
EMPLOYMENT
5 Employment (other than 0, 1, 2, 3, 4)
6 Military service
7 Other – specify ______________
Discussion
Participants were asked to describe their answering process, to note any unclear
response options, and to explain the difference between (1) postdoctoral fellowship and
postdoctoral research associateship and (2) traineeship and internship.
Participants generally found their response without too many problems, but
several found it difficult to differentiate between the aforementioned response options.
Most participants did not know the difference between a postdoc fellowship (response
option 0) and a postdoc research associateship (response option 1). Several participants
described a postdoc fellowship as more of an honorary title than a research associateship.
Other differentiations included the idea that a fellowship is primarily tied to a university
or a large company and that it involves more freedom to design projects, while a research
associateship would involve joining a team on a set project, often tied to a specific
professor’s research. Several participants were taking postdocs, and weren’t sure if their
postdoc was a fellowship or an associateship, but chose “fellowship” because the term
was in their offer.
Some respondents did not know what the word traineeship meant, and could not
differentiate between the response options “traineeship” and “intern, clinical residency”.
Although, one thought that a traineeship involved training in an organization for longterm employment, while an internship involved training in an organization without
commitment for future employment. Another respondent thought that traineeships are
found in many fields of study while clinical residencies are more associated with
medicine. However, one participant who had a traineeship during her doctoral career
knew the term referred to an NIH program.
Recommendations
Although participants found it difficult to differentiate between several of the
response options, we tentatively do not recommend any changes to this question because
each participant was able to find their answer relatively easily. However, we advise that
the results of the postdoc focus groups that NORC is conducting this fall for NSF/SRS be
considered before a final recommendation is made.
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
28
IX. Employer Type (Question B6)
This question asks respondents to indicate the type of employer they will be
working or in training with in the next year.
B6. For what type of employer will you be working or in training within
the next year? Mark (X) one
EDUCATION
a. U.S. 4-year college or university other than medical school
b. U.S. medical school (including university-affiliated hospital or medical
center)
c. U.S. university-affiliated research institute
d. U.S. community college or technical institute
e. U.S. preschool, elementary, middle, secondary school or school system
f. Foreign educational institution
GOVERNMENT (other than education institution)
g. Foreign government
h. U.S. federal government
i. U.S. state government
j. U.S. local government
PRIVATE SECTOR (other than education institution)
k. Not for profit organization
l. Industry or business (for profit)
OTHER
m. Self-employed
n. Other – Specify ________________
Discussion
For this item, participants were asked to describe how they arrived at their
answer, if they felt their answer fit into more than one response option, or if any other
response options should be added.
For the most part, participants answered this question easily. However, several
participants found it difficult to fit their answer within the available response options.
Several participants were going into a postdoc that was housed at a U.S. 4-year university
(response option a), but was funded by a U.S. university-affiliated research institute
(response option c). These individuals were confused as to how to answer, and one felt
that her answer belonged in both response options a) and c).
Generally, participants did not suggest the addition of new response options,
although there were some exceptions. One respondent suggested adding another
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
29
response option for national labs. Several participants thought that the “Private Sector”
section was not comprehensive enough, and would not know what to choose if they had
taken positions at other places they applied (e.g., museum or non-governmental agencies
[NGOs]).
Recommendations
Several participants whose postdoc research was funded and housed at separate
institutions were confused as to how they should answer this question. To help remedy
this confusion, the survey should be more specific about the term “employer”.
X. Postgraduate Employer and Location (Question B9)
This question asks the respondent to indicate the name and location of the
organization where s/he will work or study after graduation.
B9. Please name the organization and geographic location where you will
work or study.
Name
State (if U.S.)
OR
Country (if not U.S.)
Discussion
Participants were asked how they would feel if this question also asked them to
report their job title. None of the participants thought job title was a sensitive item and
they would provide it if asked in this question. One participant commented that the
information is readily available on the university website where she will be teaching.
Another noted that this might be difficult for postdocs to answer since there is no real title
associated with the position in many universities.
Recommendations
It does not appear that adding a field for job title would threaten the response rate
of this item or the questionnaire. NORC recommends no changes unless the Sponsors
and others want to demonstrate the utility and coding options for this item.
XI. Marital Status (Question C2)
This question asks the respondent to indicate his/her marital status. Focus group
participants expressed sensitivity about this question and NORC decided to explore this
in the cognitive interviews.
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
30
C2. What is your marital status? Mark (X) one
1 Married
2 Living in a marriage-like relationship
3 Widowed
4 Separated
5 Divorced
6 Never married
Discussion
Participants were asked about their level of comfort with the response options and
to provide an example of response option 2.
Generally, participants found this question very easy to answer and not overly
sensitive, unlike the focus group participants. Response option 2, “Living in a marriagelike relationship” was not a point of uncertainty for participants, as they all understood
"living in a marriage-like relationship" to involve cohabitation with a same-sex or
different-sex romantic partner, a long-term personal commitment, and the sharing of
living expenses. Overall, participants understood the question to be asking about their
current marital status.
Recommendations
This question was easily understood; there were few objections to the wording of
the stem or response options. Therefore, no changes are recommended at this time.
OMB has been investigating this issue for Federal surveys in general.
XII. Dependents (Question C3)
This question asks respondents to indicate the number of dependents they have.
C3. Not including yourself or your spouse/partner, how many dependents
do you have – that is, how many others receive at least one half of their
financial support from you?
Mark (X) box if none
Number
5 years of age or younger
6 to 18 years
19 years or older
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
31
Discussion
Probes for this question were designed to understand how participants understood
the word “dependents”. Participants were also asked to consider a scenario in which a
graduate student on a paid assistantship was married to a physician and they had two
children and no other dependents. Participants were then asked how they think this
graduate student should answer question C3. This was done to help understand if
participants considered shared income when thinking about dependents.
Many participants thought of dependents in tax terms, and a few understood
“dependents” to mean children only and did not think of elderly dependents. Most,
however, understood the term to include anyone who is financially dependent on them.
In response to the hypothetical scenario, most of the participants said that the graduate
student should respond by writing the number 2 in the appropriate box, as married
couples’ individual salaries would most commonly be considered as shared. However, a
couple of participants thought that if a “literally minded” respondent was filing their
taxes separately from their spouse, this could change the answer. Participants clearly
understood that if they had no dependents, they should mark the first box.
Recommendations
Because the word “dependents” was not universally understood, we recommend
revising the question to be more explicitly worded. As a formatting change, it is further
recommended that the “none” box be moved in line with the rest of the boxes. We
recommend the following revision:
Not including yourself or your spouse/partner, how many others (children
or adults) receive at least one half of their financial support from you?
Mark (x) box if none
Number
5 years of age or younger
6 to 18 years
19 years or older
XIII. Race/Ethnicity (Questions C12 – C14)
The following question series asks respondents to indicate their Hispanic ethnicity
(if any) and their race.
C12. Are you Hispanic (or Latino)?
1 Yes
2 No
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
32
C13. Which of the following best describes your Hispanic origin or
descent?
Mark (X)
a. Mexican or Chicano
b. Puerto Rican
c. Cuban
d. Other Hispanic – Specify ____________
C14. What is your racial background? Mark (X) one or more
a. American Indian or Alaska Native, Specify tribal affiliation(s)
______________
b. Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
c. Asian
d. Black or African-American
e. White
Discussion
Because people often hold differing definitions of the terms “Hispanic” and
“Latino”, participants were probed as to their understanding of them. Participants were
also asked about their understanding of the word “Hispanic” and how that
compares/contrasts to the phrase “Hispanic origin or descent.” Finally, participants were
asked whether they thought definitions of the racial categories would be helpful.
Participants understood the terms “Hispanic or Latino” in a fairly uniform
fashion, although several participants pointed out that the ancestry and cultural
identification of participants can complicate the exact definition of these terms.
Participants unanimously did not see any difference between the terms "Hispanic" and
the phrase "of Hispanic origin or descent". It should be noted that, in these cognitive
interviews, none of the participants considered themselves to be Hispanic or Latino.
Participants did not find the race question difficult to answer, as the racial
categories were well known to them. None of the participants, including foreign
graduates, felt that definitions of racial categories were necessary.
Recommendations
We do not recommend any changes to these questions, as the OMB mandates the
stem and response options. However, further research could examine the use (or non use)
of parentheses around the word “Latino” in question C12, in addition to the absence of
the phrase “origin or descent” in question C12. 3 (See Possibilities for Future Research on
page 34).
3
Lavrakas, P.J., M. Courser, and L. Diaz-Castillo. 2005. What a difference a word can make: new research on the
differences between Hispanic “origin” and Hispanic “identity” and their implications. Paper presented at the 2005
Annual Meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Miami, Florida.
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
33
Possibilities for Future Research
Salary Validation Task
After one round of salary data has been collected, NORC could conduct a
validation study to identify if students are accurately reporting their salaries. Also,
graduates who indicated they were negotiating positions could be contacted to see if
reported salary data were ultimately accurate. Additionally, studies comparing trend
lines of planned and actual salaries/positions from SED and SDR would be informative.
Additional Focus Groups
NORC could conduct focus groups with institution contacts after one round of
salary data has been collected to identify if the new question has increased the burden on
students or on the Institution Contacts; the ICs could also discuss the impact of the
shortened SSN. The focus groups could explore ways NORC could work with the
institutions to reduce any burden and assist the ICs in fielding questions from students.
Focus groups could also be held with deans to assess the utility of the salary data to their
institutions, faculty, and students.
Exploration of Hispanic/Latino Question
NORC could conduct research on adding a “Mark one or more” instruction in the
Hispanic origin or descent item. Using input from both OMB and the U.S. Census,
NORC could consider whether this option is appropriate for Hispanic doctorate
recipients. NORC could also conduct methodological research on the question stem for
this set of questions, to explore if the term “origin or descent” and how that affects the
participant’s response.
Salary Data Analysis
NORC could compare trend lines of salaries and positions across the SED and the
SDR after one round of salary data is collected. NORC could also conduct a set of focus
groups with graduate deans to assess the utility of the salary data to their institutions,
faculty, and students.
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
34
Appendix A
Qualitative Testing Recruitment Materials and Protocol
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
35
Focus Group Recruitment Letter
NORC is recruiting research doctorate candidates who are nearing graduation (i.e., graduating in
May or June 2005) to participate in a confidential focus group that will discuss possible changes
in the SED questionnaire. NORC is hoping to get valuable feedback from doctoral students so
that we can understand the impact of modifying the questionnaire.
Three sessions of focus groups for students will be offered: May 10, May 12 and May 17.
Students only need to participate in one of the sessions. The time for these sessions is 6:00 – 7:30
p.m. Eastern time.
All of the focus groups will take place over the phone and will last no longer than 90 minutes.
This technology works a lot like a conference call and is extremely flexible because participants
can call in from their home, office, or any other convenient location; we only ask that cellular
phones not be used. During the focus group, participants will be able to respond to prompts from
a professional moderator (who is not affiliated with NORC or the SED sponsors) and discuss
them among other participants from across the U.S.
Each participant will be paid $75.00 upon completion of the focus group.
Thank you for assisting me in posting and/or distributing this flyer. Please feel free to post or
distribute this letter as well.
Please let me know if need any additional information. Thank you for your continued
participation in the SED!
Dan Loew, Survey Specialist
National Opinion Research Center
312-325-2527 – direct
1-800-248-8649
[email protected]
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
36
Focus Group Recruitment Flyer
EARN $75 BY SHARING YOUR OPINIONS!
THE NATIONAL OPINION RESEARCH CENTER
IS SEEKING DOCTORAL STUDENTS TO TAKE
PART IN A FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSING
POSSIBLE CHANGES IN THE SURVEY OF
EARNED DOCTORATES QUESTIONNAIRE.
Doctoral students who are nearing graduation
will be paid $75 to take part in a
focus group on May 10, May 12, or May 17
from 6 to 7:30 pm (Eastern time).
The focus group will last no more than 90 minutes
and will take place over the phone.
This way, you can participate from any location!
(No cell phones, please.)
If you are interested, please contact DAN LOEW
for more information at
1-800-248-8649
or
[email protected]
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
37
Focus Group Participant Background Sheet
SURVEY OF EARNED DOCTORATES (SED)
Focus Group Background Sheet
1. Contact Information
Name:
Address:
City, State, Zip:
Day phone:
Evening phone:
Email address:
2. When is the best day of the week and time of day to reach you by telephone?
3. What is your date of birth?
4. What is your doctoral field of study?
5. What university do you currently attend?
6. Are you:
Male
Female
7. Month and year you began your doctoral program:
Month and year you expect to graduate:
8. Is English your first language?
Yes
No
9. Are you currently a U.S. Citizen?
Yes
No
10. In what country or state to you intend to live after graduation (within the next year)?
In U.S.
State:
Not in U.S.
Country:
11. Do you intend to take a “postdoc” position? (A “postdoc” is a temporary position
primarily for gaining additional education and training in research, usually awarded
in academe, industry, or government.)
Yes
No
one)
12. What is the status of your postgraduate plans (in the next year)? (Mark
Returning to, or continuing in, pre-doctoral employment
Have signed contract or made definite commitment for other work or study
Negotiating with one or more specific organizations
Seeking position but have no specific prospects
Do not plan to work or study
Other – specify:
Yes
13. Have you received a copy of the SED questionnaire?
(this is not a requirement to participate in the focus group)
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
No
38
Cognitive Interview Recruitment Email
NORC is recruiting research doctorate candidates who are nearing graduation (i.e., graduating in
June, July or August 2005) to participate in a confidential cognitive interview that will discuss the
Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) questionnaire. During the interview, participants will be
asked to “think aloud” as they fill out the questionnaire and respond to questions. NORC is
hoping to get valuable feedback from doctoral students so that we can better understand how
students respond to the questionnaire.
Cognitive interviews are scheduled to take place during the weeks of July 11 and July 18 during
regular business hours at NORC’s downtown office (55 E. Monroe Street, Chicago, IL 60603).
The session will last no more than 90 minutes, and students only need to participate in one
session.
Each participant will be paid $75.00 upon completion of the cognitive interview.
I am hoping that you can assist me in recruiting these participants. Their feedback is invaluable
to us. If you can get in touch with any doctoral students who fit the criteria, and ask them to
contact me, it will be very helpful. We would like to get the word out to as many students as
possible, so if there is a way to distribute the information electronically or to a large audience
(i.e., in student mailboxes) that would be extremely helpful. Please let me know if I can provide
our information in another format that would be easier to distribute (I have attached a flyer for
posting).
Thank you for assisting me in posting and/or distributing this information! Please let me know if
you need any additional information or have any questions. We appreciate your continued
participation in the SED!
Dan Loew, Survey Specialist
National Opinion Research Center
312-325-2527 – direct
1-800-248-8649
[email protected]
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
39
Cognitive Interview Recruitment Flyer
EARN $75 BY SHARING YOUR OPINIONS!
THE NATIONAL OPINION RESEARCH CENTER
IS SEEKING DOCTORAL STUDENTS TO TAKE
PART IN A COGNITIVE INTERVIEW
DISCUSSING
THE SURVEY OF EARNED DOCTORATES
QUESTIONNAIRE.
Doctoral students who are nearing graduation
will be paid $75 to take part in a
cognitive interview during the week of
July 11th or July 18th
(during regular business hours).
The interview will last no more than 90 minutes
and will take place at NORC’s downtown office:
55 East Monroe Street, Chicago, IL 60603.
If you are interested, please contact DAN LOEW
for more information at
1-800-248-8649
or
[email protected]
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
40
Cognitive Interview Participant Background Sheet
SURVEY OF EARNED DOCTORATES (SED)
Cognitive Interview Participant Background Sheet
1. Contact Information
Name:
Address:
City, State, Zip:
Day phone:
Evening phone:
Email address:
2. When is the best day of the week and time of day to reach you by telephone?
3. What is your date of birth?
4. What is your doctoral field of study?
5. What university do you currently attend?
6. Are you:
Male
Female
7. Month and year you began your doctoral program:
Month and year you expect to graduate:
8. Is English your first language?
Yes
No
9. Are you currently a U.S. Citizen?
Yes
No
10. In what country or state to you intend to live after graduation (within the next year)?
In U.S.
State:
Not in U.S.
Country:
11. Do you intend to take a “postdoc” position? (A “postdoc” is a temporary position
primarily for gaining additional education and training in research, usually awarded
in academe, industry, or government.)
Yes
No
one)
13. What is the status of your postgraduate plans (in the next year)? (Mark
Returning to, or continuing in, pre-doctoral employment
Have signed contract or made definite commitment for other work or study
Negotiating with one or more specific organizations
Seeking position but have no specific prospects
Do not plan to work or study
Other – specify:
13. Have you received a copy of the SED questionnaire?
Yes
No
(this is not a requirement to participate in the cognitive interview)
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
41
Cognitive Interview Consent Form
STATEMENT OF INFORMED CONSENT
Survey of Earned Doctorates – Cognitive Interviews
PURPOSES AND BENEFITS
The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) is conducting a series of cognitive
interviews for the Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) on behalf of the National Science
Foundation and its sponsors, the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Department of
Education, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Your participation
will involve completing a pencil-and-paper questionnaire and answering some follow up
questions about your experience with this questionnaire. By participating in this study,
you are assisting us in the revision of our primary research instrument.
PROCEDURES
NORC will interview you at its Chicago downtown facilities. You will be asked to
complete a videotaped think aloud session, where you will complete the paper-and-pencil
questionnaire, and then answer follow up questions about your thought process during
this exercise and your experience as a whole with the survey. The interview will take no
more than 90 minutes of your time. Upon completion of the interview, you will be paid
$75.00 in the form of a personal check to be mailed to an address, which you provide.
Your participation is completely voluntary and your status as a doctoral student will not
be affected in any way by your decision to participate or not to participate in this study.
You may stop the interview at any time and you are free to refrain from answering any of
the questions.
RISKS, STRESS, AND DISCOMFORT
This survey will take no more than 90 minutes of your time. You may choose to not
answer any one of the questions, and you may stop the interview at any time.
OTHER INFORMATION
Your answers to the survey questions are completely confidential and cannot be used
against you in any way. The information we gather from you will be used only to refine
future survey questions and the design of the questionnaire. The interview will be
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
42
videotaped for quality purposes only, and will be destroyed, along with any link between
your name and your answers, once the study has been completed.
Your answers, along with the answers provided by other participants in this study may be
given to other research organizations, but your identification will never be revealed to
anyone who is not a member of this research team.
_________________________________
Interviewer
____________________
Date
PARTICIPANT STATEMENT
I understand that this session will be videotaped and that it is completely confidential. I
have had an opportunity to ask questions about my rights as a participant before I signed
this form. I also understand that any further questions I have about this study or about my
rights will be answered by the interviewer named above.
_________________________________
Participant
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
____________________
Date
43
Cognitive Interview Protocol Form
A. Welcome
- Begin by thanking the participant for coming to the interview and explain that
you are going to go over a few things with him/her before beginning the
session
- Give a brief summary of what the SED is, who sponsors it, and what the
interviews are for
- Give a summary of what you are going to do: consent, instructions, etc. Be
sure to mention that the camera is not on yet.
B. Informed Consent
- Present the participant with the consent form and explain the information it
contains (make sure you have a pen available for the participant to use)
- Remember to give 2: one to be signed for NORC and one for him/her to
keep.
C. Explanation of videotaping
- Remind the participant that the interviews will be taped and briefly go over
our procedures to keep the tapes secure.
- Now turn on the camera
D. Letter and Brochure
- Tell the participant that in the Fed Ex envelope there is a letter & brochure for
him/her to read. Let them know this is some background information on the
project.
- Once he/she has read the materials, ask the participant if he/she has any
feedback or questions about either.
E. Instructions & “think aloud” training exercise
- Explain the interview procedures to the participant
- Ask the participant to complete the think aloud training exercise
F. Completion of the SED
- Have the participant complete entire questionnaire
G. Cognitive Interview (probes)
- Once the think aloud session is complete, begin probing the participant using
the attached sheet of probe questions.
H. Wrap-Up
- Use this time to go back and touch on any items that the participant brought
up in the think aloud that you did not get to during the probes
- Ask the participant if there is anything else he/she would like to share about
the survey
- Let the participant know that he/she can take the 1st page of the quex with
them since it contains personal information.
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
44
I. Verify Address
- Have the participant verify the address where he/she will be up to 6 weeks
after the interview
J. Conclusion
- Answer any questions from the participant and thank him/her for their time
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
45
Cognitive Interview Instructions
During this interview, I am going to ask you to complete a questionnaire and answer
some follow up questions. As you complete the questionnaire, I would like you to try to
think aloud and verbally share your thoughts and reactions; please try not to censor your
thoughts. Please feel free to share all of your opinions and questions about what you are
seeing. One of the things I am most interested in is how you are deciding which answer
to select. I am going to take notes and will try to respond to your questions when we are
finished.
Before we begin, I’d like go through an exercise to help familiarize you with what I mean
by “think aloud”. [PAUSE] Try to visualize the place where you live. Now, think about
how many windows there are in that place. [PAUSE] As you count up the windows, tell
me what you are seeing and thinking about.
[AFTER PARTICPANT RESPONDS]
That’s an example of what I would like you to try and do as you read through these
materials. Do you have any questions before we begin?
[HAND PARTICIPANT THE ENVELOPE]
In this envelope you will find a questionnaire and a pencil. The letter and brochure will
provide some background information on the survey. I would like you to take out the
questionnaire. Beginning with the first page, please complete the questionnaire using the
pencil provided. Please remember to tell me what you are thinking about as you respond
to the questionnaire. Please feel free to share all comments with me.
[AFTER THE PARTICIPANT HAS COMPLETED THE QUESTIONNAIRE]
Now that you have seen the entire questionnaire, I have some follow up questions. I will
ask you to refer back to the questionnaire as we go through the questions.
[BEGIN PROBES]
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
46
Cognitive Interview Probes, Version 1
SED Cognitive Interview Probes
(QUEX VERSION 1)
Now I am going to ask you some follow up questions. [Let the participant know that
you’re going to jump around a bit]
B8
The first question I would like you to take a look at is B8.
1. [If needed] How do you feel about providing your salary information?
2. Can you please repeat the question for me in your own words?
3. When you read the question, did you also read the italicized instructions?
4. When you were thinking about your answer did you exclude any payroll
deductions such as income taxes, insurance contributions, or retirement plan
contributions?
5. When you were thinking about your answer did you exclude any bonuses that you
might receive around the holidays or some other time?
6. What about overtime? Did you exclude any estimates of overtime that you might
work?
7. If you will be on an academic contract, did you exclude any work you might do
over the summer that is not included in your base salary?
8. When you were thinking about your answer did you exclude any business
expenses such as reimbursement for travel or equipment?
9. Do the instructions add clarity or create confusion about what the question is
asking?
[OR] Are the instructions clear or confusing?
10. Would it be helpful if the question instructed you to think only about your
“primary” job?
[OR] Were you thinking about one job or a combination of jobs when you
answered this question?
11. In thinking about the salary you had in mind when you answered this question,
where were you drawing your information from? [Try to get an idea of what
the source of knowledge is. Is it a contract, verbal agreement, something
they saw online or talked about with friends, a guess?]
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
47
B7
Now please look at question B7.
1. If there was no question asking to clarify if your salary was for 9 months or 12
months, how would that affect your ability to answer the salary question?
Now I would like you to take a look at another way of asking for salary information.
[Hand participant Version 2 of the quex] Please take a look at questions B7 and B8 on
page 4. As you look at these questions, please tell me what you are thinking.
•
If you had to pick one version of the question, which one would you pick?
Can you tell me a little more about that?
[Now we need to get an idea about other parts of their hiring package. It will be
helpful to refer to their quex to find out what industry they will be working in so
you can better direct the probes]
1. Other than salary, what are the other components of your hiring package?
2. [If needed] Did you receive a signing bonus? Moving allowance? Lab start up
costs? Etc.?
3. Which of these was the most important in deciding whether or not to take this
position?
B9
Please refer to question B9.
1. How would you feel if this question also asked you to report your job title? [Try
to determine whether or not this would increase the sensitivity of the item]
C15
Please refer to question C15.
1. Do you have any concerns about sharing your partial social security number?
2. Is sharing the last four digits of your social security number better or the same as
sharing your full social security number?
3. When you were responding to the question, did you read the explanation in the
box?
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
48
4. Does the explanation make you feel more comfortable providing us with your
partial social security number?
5. Does the explanation help you understand why the survey is requesting your
social security number?
6. How confident do you feel that this information will be kept secure?
7. What does the first sentence in the explanation mean to you?
A5
Now I would like you to take a look at question A5.
1. I would like you to think about the sources of your financial support during
graduate school. Can you tell me what these were? [Pause, wait for response]
Were there any other sources of support? [Gently probe until you feel all
responses are mentioned. If they worked during graduate school, did they
account for this?]
2. Now please refer to question A5. How does what you just indicated compare to
what you marked on the questionnaire?
3. Was it easy or difficult to find your answer among these response options? [With
probes 2 and 3, try to get an idea of how well the form captures what the
respondent said]
4. Let’s say you charged some of your tuition payments to a credit card. How would
respond to this question?
5. Are there any response options that you do not fully understand?
[If so], which ones and why?
6. How would you define response option a)? b)? c)? d)? [Try to get an idea of
what their source of knowledge is. Is it personal experience, friends’
experiences, an educated guess?]
7. Now, let’s say you are a foreign student from Canada, studying at the University
of Chicago on a full scholarship provided by the Canadian government. How
would you respond to this question?
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
49
A6
1. Thinking about the example I just gave about the foreign student, please look at
question A6. How would you respond to this question if your primary source of
support was a scholarship provided by a foreign government?
A12
Please refer to question A12.
1. Can you explain for me how you came up with your answer to question A12?
[Probe to find out if the participant had any difficulty coming up with his/her
answer]
B2
Please refer to question B2.
1. Can you please explain to me in your own words what you think this question is
asking?
[If necessary:]
• In the context of this question, how do you interpret the word ‘intend’?
•
Let’s say you have applied for three post docs and have received one
rejection letter but have not yet heard back from the other two. How
would you respond to this question?
B3
Please refer to question B3.
1. Let’s say you taught a few classes at a local university while you were working on
your doctoral degree and the university extended you a contract to work full-time
once you graduated. How would you respond to this question?
2. Would you add any other response options?
3. What time period do you believe the question is asking about?
4. How would you define the word “predoctoral”?
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
50
B4
Please refer to question B4.
1. Can you tell me how you came up with your answer?
2. Are any response options unclear as to their meaning?
3. Looking at the first two response options, how would you explain the difference
between “postdoctoral fellowship” and “postdoctoral research associateship”? [If
they know, try to get an idea of what their source of knowledge is. Is it
personal experience, friends’ experiences, an educated guess?]
4. Looking at the second and third response options, how would you explain the
difference between “traineeship” and “internship”? [If they know, try to get an
idea of what their source of knowledge is. Is it personal experience, friends’
experiences, an educated guess?]
B6
Please refer to question B6.
1. Can you describe how you arrived at your answer for this question?
2. [If needed] Do you feel that your answer fits into more than one response option?
3. Do you feel that any other response options should be added?
C2
Please refer to question C2.
1. [If needed] Do you feel that your answer fits into more than one response option?
2. Can you give me an example of someone who is “living in a marriage like
relationship?” [May need to probe further here to really understand how they
define this phrase]
3. Are you comfortable or uncomfortable with the wording of the response option
“never married”?
4. [If applicable, ask] If the question read, “What is your current marital status?”
would this make it easier to answer?
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
51
C3
Please refer to question C3.
1. Can you please repeat this question to me in your own words? [Pay attention
here to see if they use the word “children” in place of dependents. If so, this
may require further probing. We want to understand how they understand
the word ‘dependents’ in this question]
2. If you had no dependents, how would you answer this question?
3. If you had an elderly parent who lived with you who did not work and you
supported them financially, how would you respond to this question?
4. Let’s say a graduate student on a paid assistantship is married to a physician and
they have 2 children. How do you think the graduate student should respond to
this question?
C12/C13/C14
Please refer to question C12.
1. What do you think of when someone says they’re Hispanic or Latino?
2. Do you think there a difference between the terms “Hispanic” and “of Hispanic
origin or descent”?
3. Do you think it would be helpful if there were definitions of the racial categories?
[At the end of the session, be sure to ask if there is anything else the participant
would like to comment on. If there is time, you could go back and probe on some of
the points that came up during the think aloud session.]
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
52
Cognitive Interview Probes, Version 2
SED Cognitive Interview Probes
(QUEX VERSION 2)*
*The probes for Version 2 of the questionnaire were identical to the probes for Version 1
with the exception of the probes for the salary question presented below.
Now I am going to ask you some follow up questions. [Let the participant know that
you’re going to jump around a bit]
B8
The first question I would like you to take a look at is B8.
1. [If needed] How do you feel about providing your salary information?
2. Can you please repeat the question for me in your own words?
3. What do you think the question is referring to when it says “base annual salary”?
[Try to get an idea of what they may have included when they thought about
their total-are they including just the salary or other parts of their package?}
4. Would it be helpful if the question instructed you to think only about your
“primary” job? [OR] Were you thinking about one job or a combination of jobs
when you answered this question?
5. In thinking about the salary you had in mind when you answered this question,
where were you drawing your information from? [Try to get an idea of what
the source of knowledge is. Is it a contract, verbal agreement, something
they saw online or talked about with friends, a guess?]
B7
Now please look at question B7.
1. If there was no question asking to clarify if your salary was for 9 months or 12
months, how would that affect your ability to answer the salary question?
Now I would like you to take a look at another way of asking for salary information.
[Hand participant Version 1 of the quex] Please take a look at questions B7 and B8 on
page 4. As you look at these questions, please tell me what you are thinking.
•
Do the instructions add clarity or create confusion about what the question is
asking?
[OR] Are the instructions clear or confusing?
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
53
•
If you had to pick one version of the question, which one would you pick?
Can you tell me a little more about that?
[Now we need to get an idea about other parts of their hiring package. It will be
helpful to refer to their quex to find out what industry they will be working in so
you can better direct the probes]
1. Other than salary, what are the other components of your hiring package?
2. [If needed] Did you receive a signing bonus? Moving allowance? Lab start up
costs? Etc.?
3. Which of these was the most important in deciding whether or not to take this
position?
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
54
Appendix B
Cognitive Interview Survey Instruments
Qualitative Testing for the SED Questionnaire
55
Cognitive Interview Survey Instrument
Version 1
56
Cognitive Interview Survey Instrument
Version 2
65
Appendix C
Key Project Staff
Balch Associates
George Balch, PhD, a qualitative research consultant of Balch and Associates moderated
the focus groups. Balch has over 30 years of experience in research, consulting, teaching
and training in marketing and behavioral science. He worked closely with NORC staff
on developing the focus group protocol. Balch prepared an interim and final report on
the outcomes of the focus groups for NSF and NORC.
NORC
Kim Williams, Survey Specialist, managed the focus group and cognitive interview tasks.
She contributed to the focus group and cognitive interview protocol and conducted two
interviews. In preparation for the cognitive interview task, Williams reviewed Cognitive
Interviewing: A Tool For Improving Questionnaire Design by Gordon Willis and
participated in the pretest training. Williams reviewed interview tapes, summaries of the
interview notes, and contributed to the final report for this project.
Dan Loew, Survey Specialist, handled recruitment, scheduling, and incentives for the
focus groups and cognitive interviews and contributed to the focus group and cognitive
interview protocol. In preparation for the interviews, Loew attended “Cognitive
Interviewing: A Hands-On Approach”, a two day short course sponsored by the Joint
Program in Survey Methodology instructed by Gordon Willis. Loew conducted eight
cognitive interviews, developed summaries for each interview he conducted, and
contributed to the final report for this project.
Kristy Webber, Survey Specialist, contributed to the cognitive interview protocol and
conducted seven cognitive interviews. In preparation for the cognitive interview task,
Webber reviewed Cognitive Interviewing: A Tool For Improving Questionnaire Design
by Gordon Willis, conducted a pretest interview, and participated in the pretest training.
Webber developed summaries of each interview she conducted and contributed to the
final report for this project.
Lisa Lee, Senior Survey Methodologist, provided project specific training on cognitive
interviewing. Lee worked closely with Williams, Loew, and Webber on the cognitive
interview protocol and conducted one of the pretest interviews. She reviewed summaries
of the interview notes and offered recommendations for the final report.
Mary Hess, Senior Survey Director and Project Manager for the SED, contributed to the
focus group and cognitive interview protocol and worked closely with Williams, Loew,
and Webber in organizing the interview sessions, developing recommendations and the
final report.
Tom Hoffer, Senior Research Scientist and Project Director for the SED, reviewed
interview notes, offered recommendations, and contributed to the final report.
74
Appendix D
Balch Associates’ Focus Group Report
75
Adding a Salary Question to the
Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED):
Findings from Exploratory Qualitative Research
August 4, 2005
Prepared by:
George I. Balch, Ph.D.
Everly Macario, Sc.D., M.S., Ed.M.
Phone: (708) 383-5570
Fax: (703) 784-3002
E-mail: [email protected]
Balch Associates
635 South Kenilworth Avenue
Oak Park, Illinois 60304-1129
Background and Purpose..............................................................................................................1
Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) ...................................................................................1
Methods ...........................................................................................................................................2
Computer-Assisted Telephone (CAT) Focus Groups .......................................................2
Sample ...................................................................................................................................2
Recruitment ...........................................................................................................................3
Data Collection......................................................................................................................4
Option #1: Open-Ended Salary Range Response Format................................................... 5
Option #2: Exact Salary Figure Response Format................................................................ 5
Option #3: $10,000 Increment Check-Box Response Format............................................. 6
Analysis and Reporting........................................................................................................6
Note on Method .......................................................................................................................... 7
Key Findings ...................................................................................................................................7
Salary .....................................................................................................................................8
Uses Of Salary Data .................................................................................................................. 8
Expected Response Rate ......................................................................................................... 8
Most Useful Approach to Asking About Salary ...................................................................... 9
Response Format..................................................................................................................... 10
Social Security Number .....................................................................................................11
Collateral Findings .......................................................................................................................12
Current SED Uses and Possible Uses of Salary Information.........................................12
Factors Students Consider When Taking First Job........................................................13
Administering the SED.......................................................................................................14
Main Conclusions: Salary and Sensitive Items .........................................................................14
Effect of a Salary Question on SED Response Rate.......................................................14
Preferred Salary Question Wording..................................................................................15
Reaction to Social Security Number Question ................................................................15
Recommendations .......................................................................................................................15
Appendices
Appendix A: Computer Assisted Telephone (CAT) Focus Groups
Appendix B: Participant Recruitment Screener
Appendix C: Moderator’s Guide – Graduate Deans
Appendix D: Moderator’s Guide – Institution Contacts
Appendix E: Moderator’s Guide – Students
Appendix F: Sample Salary Question – Option #1: Open-Ended Salary Range
Appendix G: Sample Salary Question – Option #2: Exact Salary Figure
Appendix H: Sample Salary Question – Option #3: $10,000 Increment Check-Box
Background and Purpose
Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED)
The Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) is a census of the research doctorates awarded
at United States universities during the academic year, from July 1 of one year to June 30 of the
following year. The survey gathers information on all fields that award research and appliedresearch doctorates, except professional degrees such as the MD, DDS, OD, DVM, and JD. It
gathers data on a field-specific basis, and includes information on ethnic background, sex, postsecondary education, time to doctoral degree from the baccalaureate degree, financial support
during graduate studies, and post-doctoral plans.
Data from the SED become part of the Doctorate Records File (DRF), a virtually
complete database on doctorate recipients from 1920 to the present.
The SED is sponsored by six Federal agencies: the National Science Foundation (NSF),
the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the U.S. Department of Education (USED), the
National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),
and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Salary Information
Salary is one of many career factors doctoral graduates take into consideration. Adding
a starting salary question to the SED may: (1) provide information to prospective doctoral
students and new doctorate recipients about what to expect from their own career choices; (2)
provide data to program administrators and researchers seeking a better understanding of the
labor market for doctorate recipients in different fields of specialization; and (3) provide
researchers who use salary data from the NSF’s Survey of Doctorate Recipients (SDR) with a
more complete picture of career trajectories.
Since the SED has not asked about salary to date, it is important to explore the strengths
and weaknesses of the SED as a vehicle for collecting salary data. Therefore,
NORC contracted with Balch Associates to conduct exploratory qualitative research to learn
more about:
•
Expectations of student reactions to a salary question
1
•
Reactions to alternative kinds of salary questions
•
Concerns about sensitive items in general and in conjunction with asking about salary
•
What might lighten student concerns about answering a salary question
•
Perceptions of the value of adding a salary question to the SED (for graduate deans and
students)
•
What “institution contacts” (the university staff who distribute and collect the SED
questionnaires) perceive as possible reactions
•
How NORC can help institution contacts
Methods
Balch Associates conducted a total of six computer-assisted telephone (CAT) focus
groups in May, 2005 with graduate deans, doctoral students near graduation, and institution
contacts, all from a variety of doctorate-granting institutions across the continental United
States.
Computer-Assisted Telephone (CAT) Focus Groups
CAT focus groups were deemed suitable for this initial exploratory research phase
because they provide the most cost-effective and efficient method for meeting with, and for
gathering information from, a variety of target audience members across the nation
representing a range of geographic locations and types of institutions. CAT focus groups are
especially helpful for assuring a sense of privacy and encouraging open discussion about
sensitive topics. (See Appendix A for more information on CAT focus groups.)
Sample
We conducted six CAT focus groups – two with graduate deans, three with doctoral
students near graduation, and one with institution contacts – on May 10, May 12, and May 17,
2005, with groups beginning at 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern time. Focus group participants
were affiliated with a variety of United States doctorate granting institution types (public and
private), sizes (large and small – graduating from 35 research doctorates to 767 doctorates in
2003), and locations (representing, in a very limited way, all regions of the country).
2
Graduate Deans: A total of 12 graduate deans participated in two groups, 8 of whom
were men and 4 women, representing 12 different schools (2 private and 10 public – one of
which is a technical university) located in the following states: California, Colorado, Florida,
Indiana, Kansas, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin. Deans were affiliated
with institutions awarding between 114 research doctorates and 653 doctorates.
Students: A total of 24 doctoral students near graduation participated in three groups,
half of whom were men and half women, representing 12 different schools (4 private and 8
public – one of which is a technical university and another a medical and dental research
institution) located in the following states: Arkansas, California, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, and Washington. The following fields of study were represented:
applied social psychology, American colonial history, business (marketing), chemistry, civics,
civil environmental engineering, clinical psychology, comparative literature, earth and
planetary sciences, education administration, environmental engineering, ethnomusicology,
geography, immunology, international relations, mechanical engineering, molecular biology,
molecular genetics, nursing education, political science, religious ethics, sociology, theatre, and
urban design and planning. Students were affiliated with institutions awarding between 35
research doctorates and 767 doctorates in 2003. Four students were non-U.S. citizens. NORC
did not obtain racial/ethnic background information on the participants.
Institution Contacts: A total of 6 institution contacts, all women, participated in one
group, representing 6 different schools (1 private and 5 public – one of which is a technical
university) located in the following states: California, Colorado, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin. ICs were affiliated with institutions awarding between 51 research doctorates and
653 doctorates.
Recruitment
A NORC project representative identified and contacted graduate deans and institution
contacts directly to participate in this study. Institution contacts helped in the recruitment of
doctoral students by distributing and posting invitation flyers, as well as by sending emails and
placing information in campus mailboxes, with a project-specific 1-800 number and email
address to contact if interested in participating in the focus groups.
3
A screener form was used to place students with a definite commitment to work or
study into the groups first, select students who were negotiating with an organization second,
and consider students seeking a position last. Students who did not plan to work or study were
not eligible for the study. (See Appendix B for the Participant Recruitment Screener.) The
NORC representative followed-up with interested participants via confirmation phone calls,
emails, and letters until a quota was reached with an eye toward diversity across gender, field
of study, and school type/size/location. One student and one institution contact from
Historically Black Colleges or Universities (HBCUs) were scheduled but dropped out, leaving
no participants representing HBCUs. Two alternate students were identified for each group to
replace no-shows.
Thank you letters were sent to all participants upon completion of the groups. Students
and institution contacts received a $75 incentive for participating. Graduate deans received a
summary of the group discussion in which they participated and were invited to comment on its
accuracy and provide any additional thoughts. This was intended to insure accuracy and
completeness of findings and to reinforce a sense of collaboration.
Data Collection
George I. Balch, Ph.D., moderated the focus groups, using separate discussion guides
appropriate for graduate deans, students, and institution contacts, respectively, developed by
Balch Associates in consultation with NORC. (See Appendices C, D, and E for the discussion
guides.) All groups discussed what they knew about and may have experienced with the SED,
with particular emphasis on the sensitivity of questions and response rates, as well as their
expectations of the benefits and drawbacks of adding a salary question. Then all were asked to
react to three sample ways of asking about salary (embedded in an abbreviated questionnaire),
in different order across groups to minimize any potential bias related to the order of
presentation:
4
Option #1: Open-Ended Salary Range Response Format
The first two focus groups reacted to the following question that included an openended salary range response format:
B7. Before deductions, what will be your annual salary or wages for this job? Do
not include bonuses, overtime, or additional compensation for summertime teaching
or research. If you are not salaried, please estimate your earned income including
expenses.
Please provide the range that your salary falls within.
_________ to _________.
Low
High
After the first two focus groups (one each with graduate deans and students), the
moderator asked groups to react to a shorter initial question:
B7. What will be your annual salary or wages?
Please provide the range that your salary falls within.
_________ to _________.
Low
High
(See Appendix F for a copy of the sample questionnaire including this format.)
Option #2: Exact Salary Figure Response Format
B7. Before deductions, what will be your basic annual salary for this job? Do not
include bonuses, overtime, or additional compensation for summertime teaching or
research. If you are not salaried, please estimate your earned income including
expenses.
___________________________________________
Please write in your annual salary or earned income.
(See Appendix G for a copy of the sample questionnaire including this format.)
5
Option #3: $10,000 Increment Check-Box Response Format
B7. Before deductions, what will be your basic annual salary for this job? Do not
include bonuses, overtime, or additional compensation for summertime teaching or
research. If you are not salaried, please estimate your earned income including
expenses. Mark (X) one:
0 Less than $30,000
1 $30,001 – $40,000
2 $40,001 – $50,000
3 $50,001 – $60,000
4 $60,001 – $70,000
5 $70,001 – $80,000
6 Above $80,001
(See Appendix H for a copy of the sample questionnaire including this format.)
Analysis and Reporting
All group sessions lasted about 90 minutes and were audio-taped. Because we provided
graduate deans with a summary of their group discussion, only the groups with the deans were
transcribed verbatim. Observers from NORC listened on muted telephone lines (with
participants’ consent) and were able to insert additional probes of issues for the moderator to
ask the group before the discussion ended. Immediately after each session, while memories
were fresh, the moderator and observers debriefed about what was learned. Subsequently,
Balch Associates reviewed transcripts and observers’ hand-written notes and tapes for themes
that emerged across and within groups and categories of participants.
Balch Associates also prepared a summary of each of the deans’ sessions and sent them
to the respective participants for feedback. Eight of the 12 graduate deans responded to the
summary of their respective session, all of whom found the summaries to capture the highlights
of the conversations faithfully, with one offering a specific recommendation related to the
widths of the salary intervals. In our experience, this is an exceptionally high response. We
consider it highly likely that those who did not respond had nothing to challenge.
Findings in this report reflect agreement among Balch Associates, observers, and the
graduate deans who participated in this study.
6
Note on Method
Qualitative research of this sort provides rich, in-depth information most useful in
understanding what people think about and how they think, feel, and behave. The sample in
this study is a purposive sample – composed of only people who are most directly relevant to
the specific research issues at hand, rather than a probability sample of the broad target
audiences of students, graduate deans, and institution representatives. Moreover, the data take
the form of in-depth, contextually rich, interactive conversations rather than brief answers to
identically administered questionnaires. Generalization from the findings is more credible
when findings are similar across multiple groups, as they tended to be in this study.
Key Findings
Overall, participants cited a range of potential uses for a starting salary question and concluded
there is little or no disadvantage to including it. All groups generally concluded that a salary
question would not reduce overall SED response rates noticeably. They had clear preferences for a
short, simple question with check-off response categories.
Participants’ greatest concern by far was the Social Security Number question. All
considered it risky (identity theft). They found it the greatest source of questions, complaints
and nonresponses. Many urged that the questionnaire explain how it will be used. All
preferred using only the last 4 digits to raise response rate to the question and, perhaps,
completion of the questionnaire.
7
Salary
Uses Of Salary Data
Participants across all focus groups identified potentially valuable uses of salary data in
the SED. They would appreciate the ability to supplement current salary data sources with
relevant data gathered from the SED, and thought new analyses such as correlating geographic
location of a job with salary (e.g., to assess cost of living issues) would be especially helpful.
Participants across focus groups felt these data would help in advising undergraduates
contemplating graduate school (e.g., comparing differences among jobs in academia, industry,
government, and non-governmental organizations) and prospective and current graduates (e.g.,
making realistic salary expectations across disciplines, types of institutions, and position
levels). Students, in particular, thought data on salary would help them negotiate compensation
wisely, manage student debt and compare the level of investment with indebtedness, and
perhaps pressure institutions to raise post-doc stipends. They were especially interested in the
correlation between amount of student debt and starting salary.
Graduate deans said salary information may be useful generally for monitoring trend
data for projections and budget planning (e.g., rates of increase in salary). They added that
these data would assist them in comparing starting salaries to manage institutional hiring (to
keep salaries in line with peer institutions over time and be able to make competitive offers), as
well as in comparing gender and race differences in salary with peer institutions and over time.
They reported wanting to learn about differences in salary by geographic location, field of
study, institutional type, race/ethnicity, marital status, gender, and number of children.
Expected Response Rate
All groups generally concluded that a salary question would not reduce overall SED response rates
noticeably.
The groups concluded that students would not be reluctant to answer a question about
their starting salary. They also agreed that those few students who might not answer a salaryrelated question would continue with the rest of the questionnaire.
8
In the student groups, nearly all participants said they would share the salary
information; most did not consider it too sensitive. Many said they are comfortable providing
this information, as peers tend to be open about this topic and some salaries are on the public
record. The dean groups and institution contact groups also concluded that most students
would answer the question. All groups generally agreed that it would not reduce overall SED
response rates noticeably. And several noted that an explanation of how the salary information
is used – perhaps by adding a one sentence explanation in a text-box next to this question on
the SED – would likely raise students’ comfort level about answering a salary-related question.
The institution contact group – the only one to feel strongly that including a salary
question would result in more feelings of discomfort and cynicism among students – also
concluded that asking a salary question would not lower the overall SED response rate. The
institution contacts recruited to participate in this study were invited precisely because they are
“seasoned” professionals dedicated to securing a high response rate for the SED each year –
they have probably heard complaints from students over the many years they have served in
this position at their respective institutions.
Institution contacts observed that they address students’ privacy concerns by reiterating
that the data are used in the aggregate. They also acknowledged that a vocal minority of
students report finding the SED too long and intrusive as it is. They felt that this minority of
students uncomfortable with a salary question, especially when paired with the name and
location of their employer, would simply not answer it. But this unease need not depress
overall response rate.
Most Useful Approach to Asking About Salary
Participants generally preferred a short, simple question, such as “What will be your base
salary?” plus a clear definition of salary (time covered, what is included and excluded). All
participants immediately and strongly preferred the response format with check-off
categories.
Question Wording
Participants generally preferred a short, simple question, such as “What will be your
base salary?” plus a clear definition of salary (time covered, what is included and excluded).
9
Several administrators (graduate deans and institution contacts) also emphasized the need for a
definition of salary to assure that all students had the same definition in mind. It might exclude
bonuses, research expenses, start-up expenses, benefits, and the like, since these may confuse
some, are highly variable, and are not easily compared. Participants would also want the period
for which the salary is covered to be identified, e.g., 9 months, 12 months, part-time (at a
specified percentage); this would make it clearer to respondents and data users.
Response Format
All participants immediately and strongly preferred the response format with check-off
categories. They considered it clearest, most familiar, easiest and quickest to answer, least
intrusive and, implicitly, more valid. [Many also noted that it easiest to analyze and report
and would be most reliable.]
Participants also made a point of considering the advantages and disadvantages of
different increments for dividing the intervals (e.g., $5K versus $10K; graded increments where
salaries above $80K are collected in $10K intervals while salaries below $80K are collected in
$5K intervals). In general, the $10K interval was acceptably precise.
They also reviewed the range of salaries in the question. Some participants suggested
decreasing the lowest category to “less than $20,000” to capture some post-docs, fellowships,
summer positions, and part-time adjunct positions. At the other end, to produce more sensitive
data for doctoral graduates of professional schools, such as business and engineering, they also
thought raising the upper category to at least $120,000 would include meaningful data on those
students in the higher end of the salary range; for amounts above $80K the intervals might be
broader.
For the open-ended salary range response option, participants across groups said a selfselected range is difficult to understand and far too ambiguous: respondents might understand it
very differently and it would be impossible to prevent even uselessly vague responses such as
“0 to $100,000.” One student added that this format made him feel “paranoid” that institutions
would use this information to offer salaries on the low end of a respondent’s range.
Participants across groups said the exact salary figure response option felt too intrusive.
People generally do not like giving their exact salary, and students may often not know their
specific salary amount.
10
Social Security Number
Participants’ greatest concern by far was the Social Security Number question. They
considered it risky, particularly for identity theft. Graduate deans and institutional contacts
found it to be the greatest source of questions, complaints and nonresponses. Many
participants urged that the questionnaire explain how this information will be used. All
preferred truncating it to the last 4 digits to maintain or raise response rate to the question
and, perhaps, completion of the questionnaire.
Students expressed inquietude about why this information is requested. Participants in
all focus groups said an explanation for why this number, or an equivalent, is needed to raise its
response rate. So, too, they said, is a satisfactory “privacy and protection” disclosure
statement. Since the passage of the Patriot Act, international students are especially wary of
this question.
All groups preferred that the SED request only the last four digits of the Social Security
Number to raise response rate of the question and, perhaps, that of the entire questionnaire.
Many students are accustomed to other sources (e.g., credit card companies) requesting the last
four digits and are increasingly being exposed to university-wide student identification systems
that no longer use Social Security Numbers. Students underscored that they would be more
likely to report the four digits if they felt there was a legitimate use for this information.
All focus groups agreed that the Social Security Number question should not cause
students to refuse to fill out the entire survey, particularly if only the last four digits are
requested and an adequate explanation of how this information is used is provided next to,
above, or below the question. 4 More often than not, participants across focus groups agreed
that students uncomfortable with this particular question will simply not answer it and move on
to the rest of the questionnaire (especially since this question is asked toward the end of the
survey, after respondents have already completed most of it).
4
On the web version of the questionnaire, if a respondent does not provide SSN they are presented with a screen
that explains why the survey requests the information and ensures confidentiality. The paper version of the
questionnaire addresses these issues on the cover page in the informed consent statement.
11
Collateral Findings
Current SED Uses and Possible Uses of Salary Information
Graduate deans, students, and institution contacts reported that data from the SED
are currently used by them for a variety of purposes.
Graduate deans use the SED to track trends among graduate students within their own
home institutions and across peer institutions nationally. They monitor doctoral degree
production among specific departments, and across different disciplines, schools, and
institutions, as well as identify diversity in fields of study. This information helps to plan
resource allocation across departments, disciplines, schools, and institutions.
The SED helps the deans and departments map where, and in what sectors, students get
jobs. Institutions would like to use data from the SED to assess the level of diversity among
graduate students and faculty members, professional development needs (e.g., preparing
students for academia versus industry), the correlation of student background with career
outcomes, the amount of student indebtedness, and time-to-degree.
Deans suggested several possible uses of salary information on the SED. It might help
in comparing students’ level of investment with indebtedness, as well as in comparing salary
range distributions across fields.
It would also be helpful to future graduates for setting
realistic expectations to help them choose post-graduate positions.
In addition, it would
provide students with a useful perspective on the competitiveness of their degree and for
negotiating their salary.
Institutions reported other ways in which they used it, such as to assess: the level of
diversity among their faculty; doctoral degree production among different disciplines and
schools; graduates’ amount of indebtedness; time-to-degree; and how home institutions
compare with others nationally. Certain units on their campuses (e.g., Office of Institutional
Research or Institutional Analysis or Institutional Research & Planning) are interested in
monitoring SED trends for: faculty hiring (e.g., related to increasing diversity and preparing for
future faculty programs); general trends on graduate students produced by different graduate
schools; and professional development purposes (proportion of students pursuing academic
versus industry careers).
12
Some graduate deans in this study were not aware of how a variety of personnel and
units at their institutions (such as deans of multiple levels, graduate student advisors, faculty,
equal employment offices, career services, public relations offices, development offices,
institutional research offices, and alumni associations) may (or may not) be using the SED,
though on reflection they recognized benefits that they could gain by sharing institutional
profiles and national reports.
Salary information could help students to deal with debt management; help institutions
to advise undergraduates who are thinking about entering graduate school; and help institutions
to know what salary is appropriate when hiring fresh doctoral graduates. One dean also noted
that her school examines the economic impact of its graduating students on her own state: how
many are taking jobs in the state; presumably, knowing their salaries would enrich that
knowledge.
Factors Students Consider When Taking First Job
Salary is not necessarily the main factor in deciding one’s career path, according to the
students. Others students mentioned: autonomy (e.g., opportunity to work in personal area of
interest); collegiality within a department; flexibility (e.g., possibility for interdisciplinary
research; flexible hours); intellectually challenging and stimulating work environment; lifestyle
(e.g., parental leave policy; quality of life; treatment of women); location (e.g., urban versus
rural; whether partner can also find job; close to family); long-term stability; prospects for
professional growth; reasonable workload; reputation, prestige, and research direction of
department and faculty; research productivity of the school; resources for research (e.g.,
financial support, number of graduate students); and size of a program.
Students in all three groups highlighted geographic location, in particular, as an
important determinant of their employment choice. For example, a few students in the same
group shared they had turned down offers in Syracuse (for one in Colorado), Canada (as this
would require a change in citizenship), and the rural South. They tended to prefer professional
possibilities in urban settings, as these have a higher chance of being culturally-rich, offering
work possibilities for partners, and having larger academic programs – all lifestyle
characteristics that would benefit them. Location, for some, was a deal-breaker even for a
13
higher salary. Indeed, any of the named factors might also be a deal-breaker. In general, these
students consider all the factors before making a decision.
Administering the SED
At least two institution contacts mentioned having transitioned to an electronic version
of the SED. Since this method requires students to print their questionnaire and mail it to the
appropriate office at least for one institution, institution contacts mentioned the possibility of
this electronic methodology lowering the SED’s response rate. One or two of the institution
contacts reported that they distribute the SED Purpose and Use brochure along with the
questionnaire.
Institution contacts echoed each other in their experiences fielding students’ multiple
questions about the purpose of the SED, sharing that some students have not been shy to voice
their discontent about completing yet another form before graduation.
From the focus groups, we learned that students often think the SED is supposed to be
“anonymous” and question whether it truly is since they have to include personal information
that would readily identify them individually (e.g., date of birth, email address, employer
address, information on individuals that may be able to locate them).
Main Conclusions: Salary and Sensitive Items
Effect of a Salary Question on SED Response Rate
From the findings of this qualitative research study, we conclude that a salary question
will not noticeably affect the high overall response rate to the SED questionnaire. In the
student groups, nearly all participants said they would share the information; most did not
consider it too sensitive. The graduate dean and institution contact groups also concluded that
most students would answer the question and those who would not answer it would skip it but
probably complete the questionnaire in any case.
14
Preferred Salary Question Wording
Participants generally preferred a short, simple question, such as “What will be your base
salary?” plus a clear definition of salary (time covered, what is included and excluded). All
participants immediately and strongly preferred the response format with check-off categories;
they considered this format to be clearest, easiest and quickest to answer, least intrusive, easiest
to report, and most reliable.
Reaction to Social Security Number Question
As participants across the board acknowledged a large and growing concern with
identity theft and how personal data will be used, the Social Security Number question is the
most sensitive item on the SED questionnaire. Asking for date of birth and email address along
with Social Security Number may especially make students balk as at least a couple of students
and one institution contact reported believing the SED claims it is “anonymous” (though, in
fact, it claims only confidentiality and never sharing data that identify information about any
individual).
Truncating the Social Security Number into four digits will be an acceptable and
practical alternative to asking for the full Social Security Number. An explanation as to why
the four digits are needed, however, must also be provided.
Recommendations
The findings from these focus groups suggest several recommendations for adding a
useful salary question while improving SED administration and assuring a continued high SED
response rate.
To increase response rate, students should be presented the current SED Purpose and
Use Brochure – attached to the questionnaire – so that answers to questions about the SED are
readily available. The word “confidential” should be used to describe how SED data will be
treated. The fact that such a trusted source as NORC manages the survey should also be
highlighted.
Explanations for why the salary and Social Security Number (full or last four digits)
questions are being posed are critically needed, along with a “privacy and protection”
disclosure statement. A one-sentence explanation in the form of a text-box could be provided
15
next to these questions on the SED, in addition to a footnote with a Web site address for more
detailed information.
NORC should consider working with a variety of units and personnel at institutions
(such as deans of multiple levels [e.g., assistant, associate], graduate student advisors, faculty,
equal employment offices, career services, public relations offices, development offices,
institutional research offices, and alumni associations) to raise awareness of how the SED can
help them in their respective efforts. These expanded promotional efforts may encourage
greater support and commitment to promoting the SED to students, as well as fuller use of its
data.
The salary question format with the check-boxes should be used with an initial salary
question and definition of salary that are short and simple and clear about whether benefits,
bonuses, over-time, summer-time teaching, etc., are included and excluded. (In view of the
incomparability of the items beyond base salary it may be wise to exclude them.) The salary
range should be expanded to include “less than $20,000” and “$120,000 or more,” and the
intervals widened at the higher levels (above $80,000). The size of the intervals may need to
be changed depending on how the first year of data collected on salary are distributed.
It should be clear whether a reported salary is based on a 12-month calendar year, 9month academic year, or part-time position (and at what percentage). It should also be clear
about whether it captures benefits and start-up packages and/or income earned from off-campus
consulting. Finally, we recommend cognitive testing of prospective questions, followed by
pilot-testing the implementation of the above recommendations with a sub-set of SED
questionnaires. Such a quantitative experiment with a national sample of SED questionnaires
will help to confirm or refute the predicted protection of response rate when the salary question
is added, the Social Security Number truncated, and both questions satisfactorily justified.
16
Appendix A
Computer Assisted Telephone Focus Groups 5
Telephone focus groups have been in use for over 30 years, and have been enhanced by computer
technology invented in the past decade. Organizations are increasingly finding it valuable for
reaching people from all over the U.S., going beyond the usual less-than-a-handful of major
markets to represent many locations and kinds of participants that could not otherwise be
considered. It is especially useful where participants are geographically dispersed, relatively rare,
reluctant or unable to travel to a central facility, or in need of anonymity.
People can participate from the comfort of their home or other private place where they
have access to a phone. This permits equal ease across locations. Participants may also
feel more candid than in face-to-face groups. All are equal on the phone. There is less
distraction, less silence, less formality and posturing, and a greater sense of privacy.
Everyone can hear everyone else clearly. Interaction starts fast and is often more natural and
intense than in face-to-face groups. The fact that participants cannot see each other is not unusual
or problematic. People use the phone to communicate all the time. Participants use complete
sentences and nonverbal remarks, like “uh-huh” to substitute for the nonverbal head nods. They
are encouraged to "chorus" their agreement or disagreement. Pauses become more obvious and
meaningful. Many other nonverbal auditory cues supplement the conversation, such as participants
using their name each time they speak. Mutual invisibility also permits more creative and diverse
group composition, such as mixing people from different demographic and geographic situations.
The computer technology provides several unique advantages. The moderator can identify who is
talking -- on a computer screen. Client observers can call in from anywhere to listen without being
heard and can pass notes to the moderator; the notes appear on the moderator’s computer screen
without interrupting the group. Removal of the (rare) disruptive participant is quick, simple, and
invisible to other participants.
Compared to face-to-face focus groups, CAT focus groups are more representative, easier to
recruit, and faster to set up. They eliminate the costs, time, and inconvenience of travel for client
observers as well as for participants. They permit involvement by a broader variety of clients (such
as executives and implementers) as well as participants. And, most importantly, they provide a
greater flexibility of research designs and depth of response.
5
For further detail, see Balch, G.I. C.A.T. (Computer-Assisted Telephone) Focus Groups:
Better, Faster, Cheaper Focus Groups for the “Hard-To-Reach.” Social Marketing Quarterly,
Vol. 7 (Winter 2001) no. 4, pp. 38-40; Silverman, G (1994). Introduction to telephone focus
groups. Orangeburg, N.Y.: Market Navigation, Inc.
17
Appendix B
Participant Recruitment Screener
See Appendix A in Main Report
18
Appendix C
Moderator’s Guide: Graduate Deans
Objectives are to explore:
Perceptions of added value of salary question data.
Reactions to possible salary question types.
Any concerns about confidentiality of student data?
Expectations of student reactions to salary questions?
Uses of questions vs. problems with questions vs. don’t care.
Introduction
(5 minutes)
• Welcome, thanks for participating
• Purpose of group
• Taping, confidentiality, presence of observers
• Have envelope(s) we sent available
• Have paper and pen/pencil available
• Introduce moderator, topic, participants – first name, type of institution
• Describe focus group process, summary for review
Warm-up:
(10 minutes)
[EVERYBODY:] Have you heard of the SED before and if so, say ONE thing you have
heard or know.
Does your university use SED data? Let’s list some of the ways your institution uses the
SED data (EACH NAME ONE).
Others?
Which is most important on the list? How so?
How, if at all, would salary questions help?
(10 minutes)
What incremental benefits would accrue? To whom? How important are these (compared
to current benefits)?
•
[PROBE:]To the university, advisors, and faculty, EEO advisors, career
services, PR office, Development office, Research Office, Alumni association?
Others?
•
•
How important is a high student response rate for these uses?
Would there be any negative impacts of providing salary data on/for your
student?
Brief Reactions to sample ways of including expected salary question(s)
minutes)
(20
[READ] Now we need your reactions to some different ways of including questions about
expected salary. Let’s look at them one at a time, in the context of some of the other
19
questions on the current questions... [DEANS OPEN SAMPLE K 6 ENVELOPE WHEN
INSTRUCTED; ROTATE ORDER OF SAMPLES ACROSS DEAN GROUPS]
•
Impressions?
•
How would this provide useful data for you/your university?
•
How might the salary question be made more useful?
•
How might students respond to it? [Skip? Make them not return the whole
questionnaire? Lie? Guess wildly?]
REPEAT FOR REMAINING SAMPLES
Which of these three approaches to the salary question do you think would:
• Provide the most useful data for you/your university? How so?
•
Provide the best response rate to the question and the questionnaire?
•
How does asking about expected salary compare with other personal info?
How reactions to salary questions may affect your institution
• Student reactions
(15 minutes)
•
How much of a difference do you think that adding salary make to overall
response rate? [Insignificant, significant, or the straw that breaks the camel’s
back?]
•
[IF SIGNIFICANT OR THE LAST STRAW]: Is it worth it to your institution’s
uses of the data?
•
Any other effects of adding salary questions? [Questions for Deans and
Institution Contacts (ICs)? Complaints? Negative buzz?]
6
Each envelope has a meaningless code for identification, e.g., a letter or combination of letters in middle of
the alphabet
20
CHECK OBSERVERS
Closing
7
(5-10 minutes)
•
Any additional items from observers.
•
Covered everything—anything to add?
•
Correct misinformation, answer questions about SED if needed. 7
•
Reminder to look for summary and please provide feedback to keep this
accurate and complete.
•
Thanks!
Qualified NORC observer does this, if needed
21
Appendix D
Moderator’s Guide: Institution Contacts
Objectives are to explore:
Reactions to possible salary question types and sensitive items in general, asking all
of the sensitive items on one form.
Expectations of student reactions to salary questions.
How Institution Contacts might limit negative reactions.
How NORC can help.
Introduction
(5 minutes)
• Welcome, thanks for participating.
• Purpose of group.
• Taping, confidentiality, presence of observers.
• Have envelope(s) we sent available.
• Have paper and pen/pencil available.
• Introduce moderator, topic, participants – first name, job title, type of institution,
about when did you start your responsibilities for the SED.
• Describe focus group process
Warm-up:
(10 minutes)
EVERYBODY: Name one thing that sticks in your mind – if anything does -- that you have
heard or know about the SED.
What’s it like to distribute and collect them; how do you do that?
•
What helps get it done?
•
What hinders?
Sensitive Questions
How many of you have seen the questions? [SHOW OF “YES”]
Do you ever hear from students about them? Anything they say they feel uncomfortable
answering?
• What questions?
• What do they do about it (discuss, skip, not return
questionnaire)?
• How do you deal with it?
• Do you think adding a question about their expected starting
salary would affect your interactions with graduating students
about the SED? How?
22
Brief Reactions to sample ways of including expected salary question(s)
minutes)
(20
[READ] Let’s see how what you think about to some different ways of including a question
about expected salary. [ICs OPEN SAMPLE K 8 ENVELOPE WHEN INSTRUCTED;
ROTATE ORDER OF SAMPLES ACROSS DEAN GROUPS]
• Overall impressions?
• Concerns and suggested improvements for the salary question
to maximize response?
REPEAT FOR REMAINING SAMPLES
Which of these three salary questions will provide the best response rate for the
questionnaire? How so?
How does asking about expected salary compare with other personal info?
How much of a difference in overall questionnaire response do you think adding a salary
question to the other personal info will make? [Little or none; some; the straw that breaks
the camel’s back]
How reactions to salary questions may affect your institution
(20 minutes)
Student reactions
•
Reactions to prior SED about any of these personal info
questions.
•
Other possible anticipated student reactions with salary
questions
•
Little to none?
•
Raise questions for Deans and Institution Contacts (ICs)?
Which wording would raise the fewest?
•
Complaints? Which wording would raise the fewest?
•
Negative buzz? Which wording would raise the least?
•
Other …?
•
Don’t know?
•
Positive reactions?
Possible institution preparation for student reactions
[NOTE GENTLY THAT THEIR INSTITUTIONS GET THE DATA FOR THEIR
OWN INSTITUTION AS WELL AS OVERALL, AND SOME MAY FIND SALARY
DATA USEFUL.]
• Change promotion? Distribution? Collection? How? /Why
not?
• Other …?
8
Each envelope has a meaningless code for identification, e.g., a letter or combination of letters in middle of
the alphabet
23
How might NORC help Institution Contacts prepare?
(5 minutes)
CHECK OBSERVERS
Closing
(5-10 minutes)
Any additional items from observers
Covered everything—anything to add?
Correct misinformation, answer questions about SED if needed 9
Thanks—check or notification of donation should arrive within 6 weeks from now (June
23). Call Dan if you need a progress report.
9
Qualified NORC observer does this, if needed
24
Appendix E
Moderator’s Guide: Students
Objectives are to explore:
Concerns about answering salary questions in general and what might lighten them.
Reactions to alternative kinds of salary questions and what might lighten concerns.
Concerns about/reactions to sensitive items in general and in conjunction with asking
about salary.
Introduction
(5 minutes)
• Welcome, thanks for participating.
• Purpose of group.
• Taping, confidentiality, presence of observers.
• Have envelope(s) we sent available.
• Have paper and pen/pencil available.
• Introduce moderator, topic, participants – first name, field of study, department.
• Describe focus group process
Warm-up: job choice criteria
(10 minutes)
Other than salary, what is the most important thing you were/are looking for in your first
job after graduation? Name one. (ASK ALL PARTICIPANTS)
What other things did/do you consider important?
Which of these, if any, are/were deal-breakers? Why? More important than salary?
How do you find salary information to help you make career choices? [PROBE: The web,
friends, professors, published data?]
SED awareness and perceptions
(5-10 minutes)
A. Ever heard anything about the SED? [SHOW OF YESES]
1. Impressions? (Big deal, not, how?)
2. PROBE ONLY IF ISSUES ARE RAISED
B. As you may know, the SED is sponsored by several organizations: the National
Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the National Endowment for
the Humanities, the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, and the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration. How do you feel about sharing your personal information
with these organizations? [Trust? Concerns?]
25
Reactions to sample ways of including expected salary question(s)
(45 minutes)
[READ] Now need your reactions to some different ways of including questions about
expected salary. [STUDENTS OPEN SAMPLE K 10 ENVELOPE WHEN INSTRUCTED;
ROTATE ORDER OF SAMPLES ACROSS STUDENT/POST-DOC GROUPS]
• First impressions?
• Take a minute to fill out – we won’t ask what you wrote.
• Clear? Hard to answer? Questions? Concerns?
• How did you feel about answering the expected salary question?
• How firmly did you know your “starting salary”?
• If not firm, what did you do? Estimate? Leave it blank?
• How comfortable or uncomfortable do you feel answering about expected starting
salary compared with answering about:
• Your salary if it were in mid-career?
• SSN
• Your future contact info
• A contact person’s contact info
• Your signature
• Date of birth (age)
• Asking all of these items on one form?
• Did you feel inclined to answer any of them, including the salary questions?
• If not, which might you NOT answer? Why?
• Would you continue with the rest of the questions? Why/not?
If the salary question were not there, would you answer the rest of the questions?
REPEAT FOR REMAINING SAMPLES, FOCUSING ON THE SALARY QUESTION:
Which of these three ways of asking the salary question are you most comfortable
answering? What makes it so? Which is least comfortable? What makes it so?
Benefits of salary information to future graduate students
(5 minutes)
How might salary info help future grad students?
•
Choose field, specialty
•
Other planning choices…?
CHECK OBSERVERS
Closing
(5-10 minutes)
o Any additional items from observers.
o Covered everything—anything to add?
o Correct misinformation, answer questions about SED if needed. 11
10
Each envelope has a meaningless code for identification, e.g., a letter or combination of letters in middle of
the alphabet
26
o Thanks—check or notification of donation should arrive within 6 weeks from now
(June 21/23/28). Call Dan if you need a progress report.
11
Qualified NORC observer does this, if needed
27
Appendix F
Sample Salary Question – Open-Ended Salary Range
SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE
PART B – POSTGRADUATION PLANS
B4. What best describes your (within the next year) postgraduate plans? Mark (x) one.
0
Postdoctoral fellowship
1
Postdoctoral research associateship
2
Traineeship
3
Intern, clinical residency
4
Other-specify
5
Employment (other than 0,1,2,3,4)
6
Military service
7
Other-specify
Go to
B5
Skip
to B6
B5. What will be the main source of financial support for your postdoctoral study/research
within the next year? Mark (x) one.
0
1
2
3
4
5
U.S. Government
Industry/Business
College or university
Private foundation
Nonprofit, other than private foundation or college
Other – specify __________________________
6
Unknown
28
B6. For what type of employer will you be working or in training within the next year?
Mark (x) one.
EDUCATION
a.
U.S. 4-year college or university other than medical school
b.
U.S. medical school (including university-affiliated hospital or medical center)
c.
U.S. university-affiliated research institute
d.
U.S. community college or technical institute
e.
U.S. preschool, elementary, middle, secondary school or school system
f.
Foreign educational institution
GOVERNMENT (other than education institution)
g.
Foreign government
h.
U.S. federal government
i.
U.S. state government
j.
U.S. local government
PRIVATE SECTOR (other than education institution)
k.
Not for profit organization
l.
Industry or business (for profit)
OTHER
m.
Self-employed
n.
Other-specify ________________________
B7. What will be your annual salary or wages?
Please provide the range that your salary falls within.
_________ to _________
Low
High
B8. Please name the organization and geographic location where you will work or study.
Name
_____________________
State (if U.S.) _____________________
OR
Country (if not in U.S.) _________________
Part C – Background Information
C1. Are you –
1
Male
2
Female
C2.
1
2
3
What is your marital status? Mark (x) one.
Married
Living in a marriage-like relationship
Widowed
29
4
5
6
Separated
Divorced
Never married
C6. What is your date of birth?
Month
Day
Year
C15. Please fill in your U.S. Social Security Number.
C16. In case we need to clarify some of the information you have provided, please list an
E-mail address (if applicable), and telephone number where you can be reached.
E-mail address ________________________________
Daytime telephone _____________________________
C17. Please provide your address and the name and address of a person who is likely to
know where you can be reached.
Current Address
Street Address ________________________________
City, State/Country, Zip or Postal code ________________________
Contact Person
First Name ________________ Last Name _____________________
Street Address _________________________________
City, State/Country, Zip or Postal code ________________________
Phone Number (including area or country code) ________________
E-mail address __________________________________________
C18. Please sign and date.
________________________________________________________
Signature
Date
30
Appendix G
Sample Salary Question – Exact Salary Figure
SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE
PART B – POSTGRADUATION PLANS
B4. What best describes your (within the next year) postgraduate plans? Mark (x) one.
0
Postdoctoral fellowship
1
Postdoctoral research associateship
2
Traineeship
3
Intern, clinical residency
4
Other-specify
5
Employment (other than 0,1,2,3,4)
6
Military service
7
Other-specify
Go to
B5
Skip
to B6
B5. What will be the main source of financial support for your postdoctoral study/research
within the next year? Mark (x) one.
0
1
2
3
4
5
U.S. Government
Industry/Business
College or university
Private foundation
Nonprofit, other than private foundation or college
Other – specify __________________________
6
Unknown
31
B6. For what type of employer will you be working or in training within the next year?
Mark (x) one.
EDUCATION
U.S. 4-year college or university other than medical school
a.
b.
U.S. medical school (including university-affiliated hospital or medical center)
c.
U.S. university-affiliated research institute
U.S. community college or technical institute
d.
e.
U.S. preschool, elementary, middle, secondary school or school system
f.
Foreign educational institution
GOVERNMENT (other than education institution)
Foreign government
g.
U.S. federal government
h.
i.
U.S. state government
j.
U.S. local government
PRIVATE SECTOR (other than education institution)
k.
Not for profit organization
l.
Industry or business (for profit)
OTHER
m.
Self-employed
n.
Other-specify ________________________
B7. Before deductions, what will be your basic annual salary for this job?
Do not include bonuses, overtime or additional compensation for summertime teaching or
research. If you are not salaried, please estimate your earned income including expenses.
____________________
Please write in your annual salary or earned income.
B8. Please name the organization and geographic location where you will work or study.
Name
_____________________
State (if U.S.) _____________________
OR
Country (if not in U.S.) _________________
Part C – Background Information
C1. Are you –
1
Male
2
Female
32
C2.
1
2
3
4
5
6
What is your marital status? Mark (x) one.
Married
Living in a marriage-like relationship
Widowed
Separated
Divorced
Never married
C6. What is your date of birth?
Month
Day
Year
C15. Please fill in your U.S. Social Security Number.
C16. In case we need to clarify some of the information you have provided, please list an
E-mail address (if applicable), and telephone number where you can be reached.
E-mail address ________________________________
Daytime telephone _____________________________
C17. Please provide your address and the name and address of a person who is likely to
know where you can be reached.
Current Address
Street Address ________________________________
City, State/Country, Zip or Postal code ________________________
Contact Person
First Name ________________ Last Name _____________________
Street Address _________________________________
City, State/Country, Zip or Postal code ________________________
Phone Number (including area or country code) ________________
E-mail address __________________________________________
C18. Please sign and date.
________________________________________________________
Signature
Date
33
Appendix H
Sample Salary Question – $10,000 Increment Check-Box
SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE
PART B – POSTGRADUATION PLANS
B4. What best describes your (within the next year) postgraduate plans? Mark (x) one.
0
Postdoctoral fellowship
1
Postdoctoral research associateship
2
Traineeship
3
Intern, clinical residency
4
Other-specify
5
Employment (other than 0,1,2,3,4)
6
Military service
7
Other-specify
Go to
B5
Skip
to B6
B5. What will be the main source of financial support for your postdoctoral study/research
within the next year? Mark (x) one.
0
1
2
3
4
5
U.S. Government
Industry/Business
College or university
Private foundation
Nonprofit, other than private foundation or college
Other – specify __________________________
6
Unknown
34
B6. For what type of employer will you be working or in training within the next year?
Mark (x) one.
EDUCATION
a.
U.S. 4-year college or university other than medical school
b.
U.S. medical school (including university-affiliated hospital or medical center)
c.
U.S. university-affiliated research institute
d.
U.S. community college or technical institute
e.
U.S. preschool, elementary, middle, secondary school or school system
f.
Foreign educational institution
GOVERNMENT (other than education institution)
g.
Foreign government
h.
U.S. federal government
i.
U.S. state government
j.
U.S. local government
PRIVATE SECTOR (other than education institution)
k.
Not for profit organization
l.
Industry or business (for profit)
OTHER
m.
Self-employed
n.
Other-specify ________________________
B7. Before deductions, what will be your basic annual salary for this job?
Do not include bonuses, overtime or additional compensation for summertime teaching or
research. If you are not salaried, please estimate your earned income including expenses.
Mark (X) one:
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Less than $30,000
$30,001 - $40,000
$40,001 - $50,000
$50,001 - $60,000
$60,001 - $70,000
$70,001 - $80,000
Above $80,001
B8. Please name the organization and geographic location where you will work or study.
Name
_____________________
State (if U.S.) _____________________
OR
Country (if not in U.S.) _________________
35
Part C – Background Information
C1. Are you –
1
Male
2
Female
C2.
1
2
3
4
5
6
What is your marital status? Mark (x) one.
Married
Living in a marriage-like relationship
Widowed
Separated
Divorced
Never married
C6. What is your date of birth?
Month
Day
Year
C15. Please fill in your U.S. Social Security Number.
C16. In case we need to clarify some of the information you have provided, please list an
E-mail address (if applicable), and telephone number where you can be reached.
E-mail address ________________________________
Daytime telephone _____________________________
C17. Please provide your address and the name and address of a person who is likely to
know where you can be reached.
Current Address
Street Address ________________________________
City, State/Country, Zip or Postal code ________________________
Contact Person
First Name ________________ Last Name _____________________
Street Address _________________________________
City, State/Country, Zip or Postal code ________________________
Phone Number (including area or country code) ________________
E-mail address __________________________________________
C18. Please sign and date.
________________________________________________________
Signature
Date
36
37
ATTACHMENT 11: DATA USE AGREEMENT FOR INDIVIDUALS
(NSF staff and contractors)
38
National Science Foundation
Division of Science Resources Statistics
INDIVIDUAL DATA USE AGREEMENT FOR NSF STAFF AND
CONTRACTORS
Data collected by the Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) may be used only for the
purpose for which they were obtained – statistical analysis and reporting. Any effort
to determine the identity of any respondent or to use the information for any purpose
other than statistical reporting and analysis could violate the NSF Act of 1950, as
amended; the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended; and other applicable statutes. The
Director of Science Resources Statistics (SRS) is the designated System Manager for
the above mentioned systems of records. SRS has taken every effort to assure that
the confidentiality of the data is carefully protected. Considerable harm could ensue
if there were unauthorized access to or disclosure of identifiable information
concerning an individual who responded to the survey by any user of the data files.
Therefore, the undersigned gives the following assurances with respect to the data
files:
I will not use the data in the file for any purpose other than statistical
reporting, analysis, or other uses as authorized by SRS. Information from the files
will be released only in statistical summaries which do not disclose information about
any individual;
(1) I will not release the data sets or any part of them to any other person or
organization;
(2) I will not use the data sets to attempt to learn the identity of, or to gain
information concerning, any person included in the data sets unless the task
is directly related to survey administrative tasks under the SRS contract;
and
(3) If the identity of any person should be discovered inadvertently, I will not
make use of this knowledge and advise the Director, SRS:
(a) of the incident;
(b) how the information about the individual will be safeguarded; and
(c) no one else will be told of the information discovered.
_______________________________
Print Name
_______________________________
Signature
_______________________________
Organization
_____________________________________
Date
39
NOTE: Data Use Agreements must be renewed annually if access to the confidential
data is to be continued. Survey Contractor’s Staff are exempt from the condition (4)
above when the identification is directly involved in the survey conduct.
40
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Modified | 0000-00-00 |
| File Created | 0000-00-00 |