DOCUBEET RESUME ED 106 121 SE 019 080 AUTHOR Dickens, Charles H.; . Young and Senior salience and Engineering Fadulty, 1974: Support, Research Participation, and Tenure. INSTITUTION National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. Div. of Science Resources Studies. REPORT -NO NSF-75-302 PUB DATE - Dec 7* NOTE "- 128p. AVAILABLE FROM Superintendent of DocUments, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,-D.C. 20402 ($1.70) EDRS PRICE NF-80.76 NC-36.97 PLUS POSTAGE DESCRIPTORS Financial Support; *Nigher.Education; Research; *Research Directors; *Research Opportunities;- Research Projects; Science. Education; *Sciences; *Surveys IDENTIFIERS National Science Foundation; NSF ABSTRACT Presented are the results of a survey,.initiated-in-- mid-1974 by the National Science Foundation, tO,update:thelfindings of a 1968 survey designed to obtain information ow:research activities of faculty in colleges and universitiee.:SOrvey deal with faculty composition, tenure, proportion of faCulty in research, division of research support between.young:and_seniolv- 'staff, ability of researchers to secure support-in research'irea4---Of their_own choosing, and changes in tine spent by faculty -in classioom teaching. Although information reported came from departuent-_-heade, inforuation was requested for both young and stnior-investigators:-: - The document's three appendices contain information on methodology, annotated statistical tables, and copies of survey instrusents. (PEW)
129
Embed
DOCUBEET RESUME Dickens, Charles H.; Young and ...DOCUBEET RESUME ED 106 121 SE 019 080 AUTHOR Dickens, Charles H.;. Young and Senior salience and Engineering Fadulty, 1974: Support,
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
DOCUBEET RESUME
ED 106 121 SE 019 080
AUTHOR Dickens, Charles H.; .
Young and Senior salience and Engineering Fadulty,1974: Support, Research Participation, and Tenure.
INSTITUTION National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. Div. ofScience Resources Studies.
REPORT -NO NSF-75-302PUB DATE - Dec 7*NOTE "- 128p.AVAILABLE FROM Superintendent of DocUments, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington,-D.C. 20402 ($1.70)
EDRS PRICE NF-80.76 NC-36.97 PLUS POSTAGEDESCRIPTORS Financial Support; *Nigher.Education; Research;
ABSTRACTPresented are the results of a survey,.initiated-in--
mid-1974 by the National Science Foundation, tO,update:thelfindingsof a 1968 survey designed to obtain information ow:researchactivities of faculty in colleges and universitiee.:SOrveydeal with faculty composition, tenure, proportion of faCultyin research, division of research support between.young:and_seniolv-'staff, ability of researchers to secure support-in research'irea4---Oftheir_own choosing, and changes in tine spent by faculty -in classioomteaching. Although information reported came from departuent-_-heade,inforuation was requested for both young and stnior-investigators:-:
- The document's three appendices contain information on methodology,annotated statistical tables, and copies of survey instrusents.(PEW)
U.S.DEPARTMENTWF WEALTH.EDUCATIONS voluTARaanoissas. INSTITUTE OF
EDUCATIONTHIS DOCUMENT MAS SEEM REPRO.DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED 00 NOT NEIX.SSARILT REPRESENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTEOFEDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY.
YOUNG AND SENIOS$CI C._ AND ENGliFACULTY, 1974
Support, Research Participatioi
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION2
ALTR.ARSCOIF
EN REPROIVED FROMIONORIDIM
OPINIONSLY REPRETITUTEOF
YOUNG AND SENIORAND ENGINEERING
FACULTY, 1974
Support Research Participation, and Tenure
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION2 3
Related Publications
REPORTS NSF No. Price
Federal Support to Universities, Colleges,and Selected Nonprofit Institutions,Fiscal Year 1973 75-303 In Press
Detailed Statistical Tables, Graduate ScienceEducation: Student Support and Post-doctorals, Fall 1973 74318-A
Graduate Science Education: Student Supportand Postdoctorals, Fall 1972 73-315 $2.85
Impact of Changes in Federal Science FundingPatterns on Academic Institutions, 1%8-70 70-48 $0.75
Support and Research Participation of Youngand Senior Academic Staff, 1968 68-31
HIGHLIGHTS
"Graduate Enrollment Up in Biological Sciences,Fall 1974" 74321
"Academic R&D Expenditures Up 9 Percent in1973" 74.306
Availability of Publications
Those publications marked with a price should be obtained directly from the Superintendent ofDocuments, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. Where no price is fisted,single copies may be obtained gratis from the National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.20550.
(See inside of back cover for Otiktr Science Resources Publications.)
4
YOUNG AND SENIOSCIENCE AND ENGIFACULTY, 1974
Support, Research Participatio
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
5
YOUNG AND SENIORSCIENCE AND ENGINEERINGFACULTY, 1974
Support, Research Participation, and Tenure
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
5
if
For ale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20102 Price $1.70
7
FOREWORD
The National Science Foundation periodically conducts surveys to obtaininformation on research activities of faculty in colleges and universities. Thelast such survey was made in 1968. Since then, major changes have takenplace in Federal and non-Federal funding of academic science. In order to ob-thin information on the current status of faculty research activity and to deter-mine the changes that have occurred since 1968, the Foundation initiated thepresent survey in mid-1974. Replieswere requested from heads of doctorate-level departments in 15 selected, ty typical science anti engineering fields.
The survey topics deal with faculty composition, tenure, proportion offaculty active in research (both overall and directly connected with federallysupported projects), division of research support between young and seniorstaff, ability of researchers to secure support in research areas of their ownchoosing, and changes in time spent by faculty in classroom teaching. For allitems, information was requested for both young and senior investigators. The(,pinions reported are those of department heads, but it is believed that theygenerally reflect broad views based on concern for the overall welfare ofdepartments and the various fields of science.
The Foundation is deeply appreciative of the high degree of responsefrom department heads. The timeliness and completeness of their replies in-dicate the importance of the problems studied. It is expected that the sum-mary of the opinions and factual data developed in the survey will assist in theformulation of Federal and non-Federal science policy.
December 1974
iii
8
Charles E. FalkDirector, Division of Science
Resources Studies
iv
acknowledgments
This report was developed in the Manpower Studies Section, Robert W.Cain, Head, within the Division of Science Resources Studies. Charles H.Dickens, Study Direct Or, Science Education Studies Group, supervicor'..."7-11uc of the survey and prepared the report. J. Hamilton Andrews assistedwith survey operations data, editing; and data tabulations. Additionalassistance was provided by Lola Edwards, Felix H. I. Lindsay, and Naomi Sul-kin. Statistical assistance was provided by Vivian Englemann, Marjorie Mc-Mahan, Gayle Barker, James Md..emom, and David Nor land.
CONTENTS
PageHighlights vi
Faculty Characteristics 1Introduction 1Overall faculty composition 1Proportion of young doctorate faculty by field 2Tenure 3Research activity 4Research connected with federally supported projects 5Source of research funds 7Appropriateness of split of research funds 7Support in chosen research area 8Participation in research projects at industrial
and government laboratories 10Change in time spent in classroom teaching 10
Selected Characteristics of Science andEngineering Departments, 1973-74 11
Appendixes
Appendix A. Methodology 16Appendix B. Annotated Statistical Tables 18Appendix c. Survey Instruments 56
UST OF
1. Change in number of young doctolevel science and engineering d
2 Percent of faculty spending 20 perin research for matched doctorate -1engineering departments: 1968 and
3 Proportion of faculty investigatorswith Federal project grants and con..enior to young doctor& investigat
science and engineering department
4 Proportion of doctorate-level sciencreporting that split of research fufaculty is not appropriate, by field 1
5 Proportion of doctorate-level scienindicating that faculty investigatorssecure support in research areas of
6 Change in classroom teaching timedoctorate-level science and engineeri
7 Selected characteristics of doctoratedepartments: 1973-74
(See Appendix table A-1 for surveydoctorate-level science and enginegraduate enrollment, by field).
1.
2
Pagevi
3
1
1
1culty by field 2 4
34
ly supported projects 57 5
ch funds 7
at industrial8
10 6m teaching 10
74 117
16Tables 18
56
UST OF TABLES
Page
Change in number of young doctorate faculty for matched doctorate-level science and engineering departments, by field: 1968-74 2
Percent of faculty spending 20 percent Or more of their timein research for matched doctorate-level science andengineering departments: 1968 and 1974 4
Proportion of faculty investigators doing research connectedwith Federal project grants and contracts and ratio Ofsenior to young doctorate investigators in doctorate-levelscience and engineering departments, by field: 1974 5
Proportion of doctorate-level science and engineering departmentsreporting that split of research funds for young doctoratefaculty is not appropriate, by field: 1968-74 8
Proportion of doctoratelevel science and engineering departmentsindicating that faculty investigators generally are able tosecure support in research areas of their own choosing: 1974 8
Change in classroom teaching time of fulltime faculty indoctoratelevel science and engineering departments: 1968.74 10
Selected characteristics of doctoratelevel science and engineeringdepartments: 1973-74 11
(See Appendix table A1 for survey population and respondents by number ofdoctorate-level science End engineering departments and fall 1973 full-timegraduate enrollment, by field:
1.1
HIGHLIGHTS
The overall proportion of young doctorate faculty in doctorate-levelscience and engineering departments has decreased from 39 percent offull-time faculty in 1968 to 28 percent in 1974. The proportion ranges byfield from 18 percent for physics to 42 percent for sociology in t1 latteryear. (Young doctorate faculty are those who have held diy:tcoates for 7years or less.)
Fully 70 percent of the faculty in 1974 in these departments are tenured. Interms of individual fields, the proportion of tenured faculty ranges from 59percent for physiology to 81 percent for chemical engineering.
In 1974, about 84 percent of the full-time faculty in doctorate-level scienceand engineering departments are spending 20 percent or more of theirtime in research, with the proportion being even higher, 89 percent, foryoung doctorate faculty. This represents a slight increase over 1968.However, only about one-half of these researchers in 1974 are doingresearch directly connected with project grants and contracts awardby Federal agencies, a proportion substantially Wow the nearly two-thirds 1968 level.
The degree of faculty participation in research projects in industrial andgovernment laboratories is lowabout 3 percent for projects in industriallaboratories and 5 percent for projects in government laboratories. In theengineering disciplines, participation lies generally in the 10- to 15-percentrange.
vi
12
Only about one-half (55 percfaculty investigatorsseniorsecure support hi research ardepartment heads classify theresearch areas of their ownother hand, choice of researproblem.
More than three-fourths (78science and engineeringty are receiving an appropriateFed,' s 4 and non-Federal. Thisveys.
For slightly less than two-thirdsty in 1974 are spending aboutteaching as they did in 1970. Mcreases of 10 percent or more
In 1973-74 the average nuscience and engineering dtime graduate students is 49Mathematics departments hafull-lime faculty, 37; those interms of average number ofdepartments have the most, 80fewest, 17.
doctorate faculty in doctorate-levelis has decreased from 39 percent of
cent in 1974. The proportion ranges byto 42 percent for sociology in the latter
arc those who have held doctorates for 7
1974 in these departments are tenured. Inportion of tenured faculty ranges from 59
cent for chemical engineering.
full-time faculty in doctorate-level scienceare spending 20 percent or more of their
rtion being even higher, 89 percent, forrepresents a slight increase over 1968.
I of these researchers in 1974 are doingnth project grants and contracts awardedrtion substantially below the nearly two-
tion in research projects in industrial and-about 3 percent for projects in industrialrojects in government laboratories. In thecation lies generally in the 10- to 15-percent
vi
12
Only about one-half (55 percent) of the department heads report thatfaculty investigatorssenior as, well as juniorgenerally are able tosecure support in research areas of their own choosing. Most of the otherdepartment heads classify the inability of faculty to secure support inresearch areas of their own choosing as a major problem. In 1968, on theother hand, choice of research areas was viewed as much less of aproblem.
More than three-fourths (78 percent) of the heads of doctorate-levelscience and engineering departments believe that young doCtorate facul-ty are receiving an appropriate share of available research fundsbothFederal and non-Federal. This finding is in accord with results of prior sur-veys.
For slightly less than two-thirds of the departments, regular full-time facul-ty in 1974 are spending about the same proportion of time in classroomteaching as they did in 1970. Most of the remaining departments report in-creases of 10 percent or more in classroom teaching time.
In 1973-74 the average number of full-time faculty for doctorate-levelscience and engineering departMents is 21 and the average number of full-time graduate students is 49. These figutes vary greatly by field.Mathematics departments have, on the average, the largest number offull-time faculty, 37; those in chemical engineering, the fewest with 11. Interms of average number of full-time graduate students, psychologydepartments have the most, 80, while physiology departments have thefewest, 17.
13
FACULTY CHARACTERISTICS
Introduction
The primary focus of this study is the research activities of full-timescience and engineering faculty in doctorate-granting colleges and univer-sities./ Department heads were asked to provide information on the relativedistribution of research activity and support between "young" and "senior"faculty, and on faculty composition, tenure status, and time spent inclassroom teaching.
The status of younger faculty members in research activities is of specialand continuing interest. In order to serve the need for this information, the sur-vey made an arbitrary distinction between "young" and "senior" doctoratefaculty. Those who received doctorates on or after July 1, 1967, are con-sidered to be in the "young" category. The remaining doctorate faculty areconsidered "senior" doctorate faculty. Information on faculty without doc-torates was also requested for some items of the survey, but no distinctionbetween "young" and "senior" faculty is made for this group. All faculty spend-ing 20 percent or more of their time in research are designated as"investigators."
The survey population consists of 160 doctorategranting institutions which awarded at least one doc-torate in a science or engineering field in 1970-71 and which received at least $1 million in Federal obligationsfor research and development h fiscal year 1972. Within these institutions, the survey covers doctorate-level departments in 15 fields: Biochemistry, biology, botany, chemical engineering, chemistry, economics,electrical engineering, geology, mathematics, microbiology, physics, physiology, psychology, sociology,and zoology.
141
Overall Faculty Compositi
In 1974, senior doctorate facultypercent) of those in the 1,366 respothan 3 out of 10 full-time faculty (28.group, and only a small minority, 4.0torates (appendix table B-1).
There are only slight differenceswith respect to faculty composition.proportion of young doctorate facultyB-3). The departments rated "distillAndersen study2 have the lowest propercent, followed closely, with 25.9each field in terms of fall 1973 full-lime4 and 8-5).
Between 1968 and 1974, the prodoctorate-level science and engineedropping from 39.2 percent to 27.4departments included in both surveys.torates also decreased from 7.0 percenperiod, there was an overall increase oftime faculty in these 602 departments.increase of 39.5 percent in the numtables B-6 and B-7).
2 Kenneth D. Roose and Charles J. Andersen. AAmerican Council on Education), 1970.
ERISTICS
is the research activities of full-timeorate-granting colleges and univer-
to provide information on the relativepport between "young" and "senior", tenure status, and time spent in
rs in research activities is of speciale the need for this information, the sur-
"young" and "senior" doctoratees on or after July 1, 1967, are con-. The remaining doctorate faculty are
Information on faculty without doc-ems of the survey, but no distinctionmade for this group. All faculty spend-
in research are designated as
tins institutions which awarded at least one doc-received at least $1 million in Federal obligationsthese institutions, the survey covers doctorate-
any, chemical engineering, chemistry, economics,PhYsi0109Y, Psychology, sociology,
141
Overall Faculty Composition
In 1974, senior doctorate faculty account for more than two-thirds (67.8percent) of those in the 1,366 responding doctorate-level departments. Fewerthan 3 out of 10 full-time faculty (28.2 percent) are in the young doctorategroup, and only a small minority, 4.0 percent, of the faculty dO not hold doc-torates (appendix table B-1).
There are only slight differences between public and private institutionswith respect to faculty composition. For both groups of institutions theproportion of young doctorate faculty is 28.2 percent (appendix tables B-2 andB-3). The departments rated "distinguished" or "strong" in the Roose-Andersen study2 have the lowest proportion of young doctorate faculty, 25.2percent, followed closely, with 25.9 percent, by the 20 largest departments ineach field in terms of fa111973 full-time graduate enrollment (appendix tables B-4 and B-5).
Between 1968 and 1974, the proportion of young doctorate faculty indoctorate-level science and engineering departments declined substantially,dropping from 39.2 percent to 27.4 percent of total faculty in the 602departments included in both surveys. The proportion of faculty without doc-torates also decreased from 7.0 percent to 3.4 percent. Yet, during this 6-yearperiod, there was an overall increase of about 8.4 percent in the number of full-time faculty in these 602 departments. The resultant of all the changes was anincrease of 39.5 percent in the number of senior doctorate faculty (appendixtables B-6 and B-7).
2 Kenneth D. Roose and Charles J. Andersen. A Rating of GraduatePrograms. (Washington, D.C.:American Council on Education), 1970.
15
DISCUSSION
The overall composition of faculty in doctoiate-level science andengineering departments during the sixties was strongly influenced by therapid gains in enrollment that characterized that decade. From fall 1960 to fall1967, total degree-credit enrollment in higher education increased by 78.8 per-cent and enrollment for advanced degrees in science and engineering fields in-creased by 86.1 percent. In addition, from academic years 1959-60 to 1966-67,the number of doctorates awarded in science and engineering fields increasedby 110.7 percent. Thus, it was possible for departmental faculties to meet thechallenges of greater enrollment, in large part by hiring new doctontes.3
In 1968, as stated above, for the 602 departments included in both NSFsurveys, the proportion of young doctorate faculty stood at 39.2 percent. Theage distribution of faculty in these departments probably did not differ greatlyfrom that reported by an American Council on Education study for 1969,which found that 5.8 percent of the science and engineering faculty indoctorate-granting institutions were over age 60.4 It would appear that only asmall fraction of the faculty could attain atireme.-.1 age by 1974.
In 1968 the 602 departments reported 5,535 young doctorate faculty.Each following year a number of these faculty moved into the senior doctoratecategory, because by then they have held their doctorates for more than sevenyears. If one assumes that in 1968 there were equal numbers of young facultywho held doctorates for one year, two years, etc., one would find that by 1974,six years later, six-sevenths of the starting group of 5,535 young doctorates, orabout 4,750, would have moved to the senior doctorate category. The numberof senior doctorate faculty reported in 1974 is 2,999 more than in 1968. Underreasonable sets of assumptions about retirements, changes to nonacademicpositions, deaths, etc., for both young and senior doctorate faculty during the1968-74 period, it is doubtful that all the young doctorate faculty of 1968 couldhave been retained.
3 U.S. Office of Education, Fall Enrollment in Higher Education, Enrollment for Advanced Degrees,and Earned Degrees Conferred, three annual series (Washington, D.C. 20402: Supt. of Documents, U.S.Government Printing Office).
4 Unpublished tabulations from Alan E. Bayer, "College and University Faculty: A Statistical Descrip-tion," ACE Research Reports 5,5 (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education), 1970.
2
16
Proportion of Young Doc
The proportion of young doctoranging from 42.4 percent for sociolwith 1968 data for the 12 fields cotions of young doctorate faculty relati(appendix tables B-6 and B-7). Whenfaculty reported for the two surveysthree fields are found to have incr(table 1).
acuity in doctorate-level science andsixties was strongly influenced by the
terized that decade. From fall 1960 to fallhigher education increased by 78.8 per-ees in science and engineering fields in-
from academic years 1959-60 to 1966-67,science and engineering fields increasedle for departmental faculties to meet thelarge part by hiring new doctorates.3
602 departments included in both NSF.torate faculty stood at 39.2 percent. The
nts probably did not differ greatlyCouncil on Education study for 1969,e science and engineering faculty in
over age 60.4 It would appear that only aain retirement age by 1974.
eported 5,535 young doctorate faculty.faculty moved into the senior doctorate
eld their doctorates for more than sevenre were equal numbers of young facultyyears, etc., one would find that by 1974,
g group of 5,535 young doctorates, orsenior doctorate category. The number1974 is 2,999 more than in 1968. Under
t retirements, changes to nonacademicand senior doctorate faculty during thee young doctorate faculty of 1968 could
Higher Education, Enrollment for Advanced Degrees,(Washington, D.C. 20402: Supt. of Documents, U.S.
, "College and University Faculty: A Statistical Descrip-.C.: American Council on Education), 1970.
162
Proportion of Young Doctorate Faculty by Field
The proportion of young doctorate faculty in 1974 varies greatly by field,ranging from 42.4 percent for sociology to 18.2 percent for physics. Comparedwith 1968 data for the 12 fields common to bothsurveys, all the 1974 propor-tions of young doctorate faculty relative to other facultygroups show declines(appendix tables B-6 and B-7). When the actual numbers of young doctoratefaculty reported for the two surveys are compared, however, departments inthree fields are found to have increases: biology, psychology, and sociology(table 1).
Table 1. Change in number of youngdoctorate faculty for matched
doctorate-level science and engineeringdepartments, by field: 1968 -74
Seven out of ten full-time scienceing doctorate-level departments have 11ing is in accord with other observationstion of faculty with tenure has increasedCouncil on Education study' found thatcent) of faculty in all fields were tenur1(46.7 percent) with tenure in 1968-69.
The proportion of tenured facultycovered by this study ranges from a higl1ing down to 59.1 percent for physiologyhave a lower proportion, 65.2 percent,1institutions, 71.9 percent (appendix'departments rated by quality of grad"strong" in the Roose-Andersen study6each field in terms of fall 1973 full-timetenured faculty, 71.6 percent and 72.411the average for all departments (appal
Overall, more than half of the facl(54.4 percent), a fact suggesting thatmembers for a number of years. Althwithout doctorates are in departmentengineering, mathematics, and socibetween fields in the proportion of thosand mathematics, 83.8 percent and 68.respectively, are tenured, compared t.percent in sociology (appendix tables
$ Alan E. Bayer, "Teaching Faulty in Academe:D.C.:American Council on Education), 1973.
6 Roose and Andersen, op. cit.
3
Tenure
Seven out of ten full-time science and engineering faculty in the respond-ing doctorate-level departments have tenure (appendix table B-8). This find-ing is in accord with other observations. During the past few years the propor-tion of faculty with tenure has increased substantially in all fields. An AmericanCouncil on Education study5 found that in 1972-73 almost two-thirds (64.7 per-cent) of faculty in all fields were tenured, compared with less than onehalf(46.7 percent) with tenure in 1968-69.
The proportion of tenured faculty in the 15 science and engineering fieldscovered by this study ranges from a high of 80.7 percent for chemical engineer-ing down to 59.1 percent for physiology. Departments in private institutionshave a lower proportion, 65.2 percent, of tenured faculty than those in publicinstitutions, 71.9 percent (appendix tables B-9 and B-10). Both fordepartments rated by quality of graduate faculty as "distinguished" or"strong" in the Roose-Andersen study6 and for the 20 largest departments ineach field in terms of fall 1973 full-time graduate enrollment, the proportions oftenured faculty, 71.6 percent and 72.4 percent, respectively, are greater thanthe average for all departments (appendix tables B-11 and B-12).
Overall, more than half of the faculty without doctorates have tenure(54.4 percent), a fact suggesting that a majority of this group have been staffmembers for a number of years. Although nearly two-thirds of the facultywithout doctorates are in departments in four fieldseconomics, electricalengineering, mathematics, and sociologythere are great differencesbetween fields in the proportion of those with tenure. In electrical engineeringand mathematics, 83.8 percent and 68.4 percent of the nondoctorate faculty,respectively, are tenured, compared to 35.7 percent in economics and 20.5percent in sociology (appendix tables B-1 and B-8).
5 Alan E. Bayer, "Teaching Faulty in Academe: 1972.73," ACE Research Reports 8, 2 (Washington,D.C.: American Council on Education), 1973.
6 Roose and Andersen, op. cit.
19
Research Activity
The survey findings show a high level of research activity for full-timescience and engineering faculty, as measured by the proportion of facultyspending 20 percent or more of their time in research.7 Overall, 83.6 percent ofthe faculty are involved in research to at least that extent; for convenience, thisgroup will be referred to as faculty "investigators." The degree of research ac-tivity is greatest for faculty in departments rated as "distinguished" or "strong"in the Roose-Andersen study, where 91.1 percent are found to be in-vestigators. Departments in private institutions have a considerably higherproportion of faculty investigators than do those in public institutions, 88.0percent compared to 81.9 percent. For the 20 largest departments in each fieldin terms of fall 1973 full-time graduate enrollmentthe majority of which are inpublic institutions-84.9 percent of the faculty are in the investigator group(appendix tables B-19B-23 and B- 25 B-29).
Typically, a higher proportion of young doctorates than of senior doc-torates or nondoctorates are spending 20 percent or more of their time inresearch. For 1974 the overall proportions of faculty investigators are 89.1 per-cent of young doctorates, 84.2 percent of senior doctorates, and 34.8 percentof those without doctorates (appendix table B-19):
In 1974 there is considerable variation in the proportion of faculty in-vestigators by field. More than 9 out of 10 faculty in departments of
7 The definition for research activity, admittedly somewhat arbitrary, serves to establish as minimumstandard a substantial degree of ongoing faculty research involvement. The definition does not provide abasis to delineate those who spend, for example, 50 percent or more of their time in research.
Table 2. Percent of faculty spending20 percent or more of
their time in research formatched dowrate-level science and
engineering departments: 1968 and 1974
Young Senior FacultyAll doctorate doctorate without
Year faculty faculty faculty doctorates
1968 83.3 90.9 84.0 34.7
1974 84.9 90.8 85.0 35.3Change,
1968-74 + 1.6 -.1 +1.0 + .6
Source: National Science Foundation.
4
level of research activity for full-timemeasured by the proportion of facultyme in research.? Overall, 83.6 percent ofat least that extent; for convenience, thisvestigators." The degree of research ac-
ts rated as "distinguished" or "strong"e 91.1 percent are found to be in-
institutions have a considerably higherdo those in public institutions, 88.0
r the 20 largest departments in each fieldenrollmentthe majority of which are in
the faculty are in the investigator group25 B-29).f young doctorates than of senior doc-ng 20 percent or more of their time in
ns of faculty investigators are 89.1 per-t of senior doctorates, and 34.8 percent
table 849).
nation in the proportion of faculty in-out of 10 faculty in departments of
somewhat arbitrary, serves to establish as a minimumarch involvement. The definition does not provide a
50 percent or more of their time in research.
of faculty spendingt or more of
research forto -level science and
ntc 1968 and 1974
Young Senior Facultyoctorate doctorate withoutfaculty faculty doctorates
90.9 84.0 34.7sas 85.0 35.3
-.1 +1.0 + .6
ndation.
4
C
21
Research Connected With FederallySupported Projects
For all 15 fields combined in 1974, more than one-half of the faculty in-vestigators (55.9 percent) are doing research directly connected with projectgrants and contracts awarded by Federal agencies. There are greatdifferences among the several fields, however, with more than three-fourths ofthe faculty investigators in biochemistry, but only about one-fourth of those insociology, doing research connected with federally supported projects (table 3and appendix table B-31).
The proportion of senior doctorate faculty investigators, 60.8 percent,doing research connected with federally supported projects is substantiallygreater than that for young doctorate faculty investigators, 46.3 percent.Senior/young ratios facilitate comparisons of these proportions for thevarious fields and departmental groupings. A senior/young ratio of 1.00 wouldsignify that equal proportions of senior and young faculty investigators are do-ing research directly connected with federally supported projects. Based ondata from all responding departments, the ratios for all fields are greaterthan 1.00. The fields with the greatest disparity are botany and psychology,with ratios of 1.66 and 1.69, respectively, indicating that much greater propor-tions of senior than of young faculty investigators are doing research con-nected with federally supported projects (table 3 and appendix table B-31).
There are also substantial differences among the various groups ofdepartments with respect to the proportion of faculty investigators who aredoing research directly connected with Federal project grants and contracts.Only slightly more than one-half (51.3 percent) of .the faculty investigators inpublic institutions are doing research connected with federally supported pro-jects compared to nearly two-thirds (65.1 percent) of those in the 20 largestdepartments in graduate enrollment, more than two-thirds (67.1 percent) ofthose in private institutions, and almost three-fourths (72.4 percent) of those indepartments rated as "distinguished" or "strong" in the Roose-Andersenstudy. In addition, the ratio of senior to young doctorate investigators doingresearch connected with federally supported projects is higher for public in-stitutions than for other groups of departments, 1.36 compared to an averageof 1.23 (appendix tables B-31B-35).
4, more than one-half of the faculty in-esearch directly connected with project
Federal agencies. There are greatr, with more than three-fourths of
ry, but only about one-fourth of those in*th federally supported projects (table 3
te faculty investigators, 60.8 percent,y supported projects is substantially
te faculty investigators, 46.3 percent.ns of these proportions for the
ings. A senior/young ratio of 1.00 wouldr and young faculty investigators are do-federally supported projects. Based onts, the ratios for all fields are greatert disparity are botany and psychology,y, indicating that much greater propor-investigators are doing research con-ts (table 3 and appendix table B-31).
ences among the various groups ofportion of faculty investigators who are
Federal project grants and contracts.percent) of the faculty investigators in
connected with federally supported pro-(65.1 percent) of those in the 20 largestmore than two-thirds (67.1 percent) oft three-fourths (72.4 percent) of those in
or "strong" in the Roose-Andersento young doctorate investigators doingpported projects is higher for public in-
ts, 1.36 compared to an average
225
Table 3. Proportion of faculty investigators'doing research connected with Federal project
grants and contracts and ratio of seniorto young doctorate investigators in
doctorate-level science and engineeringdepartments, by field 1974
Field(Ranked)
As percentof all
facultyinvestigators
Ratio ofsenior to
young doctorateinvestigatorsfor federallysupportedprojects
'Those spending 20 percent or more of their time inresearch.
Source: National Science Foundation.
23
65% 57%
58% 48%
71% 62%
38%
24
Compared with 1968, the 602 da substantial decline for 1974 in the presearch directly connected with pFederal agencies (appendix table B-from other NSF surveys8 which showsupport for research and development
31% several years after 1968. However, dastated above, that the overall proresearch on projects supported byFederal increased slightly betweenveyed in both years.
6
6 See National Science Foundation, Federal FActivities, annual series, and Resource for(Washington, D.C. 20402: Supt. of Documents, U
6
Compared with 1968, the 602 departments included in both surveys showa substantial decline for 1974 in the proportion of faculty investigators doingresearch directly connected with project grants and contracts awarded byFederal agencies (appendix table B-36). This finding is consistent with datafrom other NSF surveyss which show that, in constant dollar terms, Federalsupport for research and development in colleges and universities declined forsever:! years after 1968. However, data from the present survey indicate, asstated above, that the overall proportion of faculty investigators doingresearch on projects supported by all sourcesboth Federal and non-Federalincreased slightly between 1968 and 1974 in the departments sur-veyed in both years.
See National Science Foundation, Federal Funds for Research, Development, and Other ScientricActivities, annual series, and Resources for Scientific Activities at Universities and Colleges, annual series(Washington, D.C. 20402: Supt. of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office.)
24 25
Source of Research Funds
For approximately 83 percent of the departments, more than one-half ofall research funds available to faculty come from Federal research projectfunds. As with other items, there are differences among fields. The greatestproportion of departments reporting that one-half or more of their researchfunds come from sources other than Federal project fundsare in the fields ofbotany, economics, and sociology (appendix table 13-37).
Appropriateness of Split of Research Funding
In view of the importance of support of new researchers, the Foundationhas periodically surveyed this situation in selected doctorate-level science andengineering departments. More than three-iourths (78 percent) of theresponding department chairmen feel that in 1974 there is an appropriate splitof available research fundsboth Federal and nom Federalfor young doc-torate faculty. Similar responses to the question if an appropriate split ofresearch funds for young doctorate faculty were reported by NSF surveysmade in 1968, 1969, and 1970-75 percent, 79 percent, and 78 percent, respec-tively. A 1971 Higher Education Panel sample survey9 produced a very similarweighted estimate, 75 percent. Between one-fifth and one-fourth of the depart-ment heads have stated each time that the split of research funds for youngdoctorate faculty is not appropriate. Although the overall situation seems tochange little, there is considerable variation over time by field, as shown intable 4. (Also see appendix tables B-38B-44.)
9 "Research Support for Science Faculty," Ifigher Education Panel Report Nurr4ter 2 (Washington,D.C.: American Council on Education), 1971. The Higher Education Panel is supported ;ointlY by theNational Science Foundation, the National institutes of Health, and the US. Office of Education.
7
26
e departments, more than one-half ofcome from Federal research project
differences among fields. The greatestthat one-half or more of their researchederal project funds are in the fields ofpendix table B37).
Research Funding
rt of new researchers, the Foundationin selected doctorate-level science and
three-fourths (78 percent) of thethat in 1974 there is an appropriate spliterai and non-Federalfor young doc-e question of an appropriate split of
acuity were reported by NSF surveysnt, 79 percent, and 78 percent, respec-
pie survey9 produced a very similarone-fifth and one-fourth of the depart-
t the split of research funds for youngthough the overall situation seems toation over time by field, as shown in
B-44.)
Education Panel Report Number 2 (Washington,Higher Education Panel is supported jointly by theof Health, and the U.S. Office of Education.
7
26 27
Table 4. Proportion of doctorate-level science and engineeringdepartments reporting that split of research funds foryoung doctorate faculty Is not appropriate, by field:
1968 -74
Selecteddepartments,
Percent of departments
by field 1968 1969 1970 1974
All selected sciencedepartments 24.9 20.4 21.7 21.5
Biochemistry 30.8 N.A. 38.1
Biology 14.9 28.8 23.1
Botany N.A. N.A. N.A.
Chemical engineering 18.6 21.2 18.5
Chemistry 34.4 27.1 26.9
Economics 21.8 16.3 9.3
Electrical engineering 25.7 15.1 8.9
Geology N.A. N.A. N.A.
Mathematics 24.7 23.3 27.4
Microbiology 16.7 19.5 26.7
Physics 28.9. 23.4 24.3
Physiology 16.7 22.2 23.1
Psychology 16.2 12.1 14.8
Sociology 31.6 14.9 18.4
Zoology N.A. N.A. N.A.
N.A. = Not availableNote: Data for 1969 and 1970 may not be strictly comparable to those for 1968 and 1974 because
of differences in the format of the wording of the survey question.Source: National Science Foundation.
Department heads who state that the-current (1974) split of researchfunds is not appropriate were asked to indicate what they would consider to bean appropriate proportion of funds for young faculty in their department.These recommended proportions of research funds have been compared withthe proportion of young faculty in these departments. In general, departmentheads appear to believe that an appropriate split of research funds for youngfaculty would be one reflecting the proportion of young faculty to total faculty(appendix table B-45). A slight majority, 52.2 percent, of these departmentheads also favor the creation of special Federal research support programsspecifically limited to young faculty. There is only scattered support for similarprograms limited to senior faculty. Seven out of ten who favor creation ofthese special programs think that some of the support provided should'be ear-marked for special equipment (appendix table B46).
8
28
Support in Chosen Resear
Information on the degree tosecure support in research areas of tsight to understanding the currenSomewhat more than one-half of thevestigators in their departments arresearch areas of their own choosinrated as "distinguished" or "strong" inthe 20 largest departments in fall 1973be somewhat more successful thansecuring support in research areas ofalmost one-third of the department hExcept for departments in private ihave been slightly more able to securchoosing than their senior colleagudifferences among the various groupsB-51).
Table S. Proportiscience and engiindicating that f
generally aresupport in
their own
Departmentby
type
All departments
Departments inprivate institutions
Departments inpublic institutions
"Distinguished" or "strong"departments (Roose-Andersen)
20 largest departmentsin fall 1973 full-timegraduate enrollment
Source: National Science Fou
to -level science and engineeringspilt of research funds for
fly comparable to those for 1968 and 1974 becausethe survey question.
t the current (1974) split of researchindicate what they would consider to befor young faculty in their department.esearch funds have been compared with
departments. In general, departmentpriate split of research funds for youngportion of young faculty to total faculty
rity, 52.2 percent, of these departmential Federal research support programsere is only scattered support for similar
Seven out of ten who favor creation ofof the support provided should be ear-x table B46).
8
'28
Support in Chosen Research Area
Information on the degree to which faculty investigators ,are able tosecure support in research areas of their own choosing provides valuable in-sight to understanding the current state of faculty research activity.Somewhat more than one-half of the department heads feel that faculty in-vestigators in their departments are generally able to secure support inresearch areas of their own choosing. Faculty investigators in departmentsrated as "distinguished" or "strong" in the Roose-Andersen study and those inthe 20 largest departments in fall 1973 full-time graduate enrollment appear tobe somewhat more successful than their colleagues in other departments insecuring support in research areas of their own choosing. Even here, however,almost one-third of the department heads, report there are major problems.Except for departments in private institutions, young faculty investigatorshave been slightly more able to secure support in research areas of their ownchoosing than their senior colleagues. Table 5 presents a summary of the 'differences among the various groups of departments (appendix tables B47-B-51).
Table 5. Proportion of doctorate-levelscience and engineering departmentsindicating that faculty investigators
generally are able to securesupport in research areas of
their own choosing: 1974
Department Percent of departments
by Young Seniortype investigators investigators
All departments 55.5 54.8
Departments inprivate institutions 55.6 57.4
Departments inpublic institutions 55.4 53.5
"Distinguished" or "strong"departments (Roose-Andersen) 64.6 63.6
20 largest departmentsin fall 1973 full-timegraduate enrollment 64.5 62.0
Source: National Science Foundation.
29
Mathematics faculty in public institutions appear to be having great dif-ficulty in securing support in research areas of their own choosing. This situa-tion prevails in almost three-fourths of the departments (for youngnwestigators-.-72.5 percent of departments; for senior investigators-74.3percent of departments). Other fields in which substantial difficulties havebeen noted arc as follows:
(1) Departments in private institutionsyoung investigators inchemical engineering and economics; senior investigators inchemistry;
(2) Departments in public universities (in addition to mathematicsalready noted above)senior investigators in physics;
(3) Departments rated as "distinguished" or "strong" in the Roose-Andersen studyyoung investigators in botany; senior investigatorsin chemical engineering;
(4) 20 largest department's in fall 1973 full-time graduate enrollmentyoung investigators in botany; senior investigators in chemicalengineering and mathematics.
For the departments reporting that faculty investigators generally havenot been able to secure support in research areas of their own choosing, ananalysis of faculty data reveals the following: More than one-half (51.3 percent)of the young investigators and more than one-third (37.8 percent) of the seniorinvestigators in these departments were unable to secure support in researchareas of their own choosing during the preceding 12-month period. Ap-proximately nine-tenths of these department heads said that they considerthis situation to be a major problem (appendix tables B-52 and B-53).
In 1968, the situation was very different. That year more than three-fourths of the departments (compared to about one-half in 1974) reported thatfaculty were able to select research areas of their own choosing. Furthermore,the department heads citing the problem of choice of research area generallyclassified it as a minor problem in 1968. Although the comparison between1968 and 1974 responses on this item may have to be tempered somewhat bythe fact that data for only 10 fields are included, the direction of the change isclear and its magnitude is corroborated by the fact that most departmentheads now consider this problem to be major rather than minor.
9'
30
titutions appear to be having great dif-eas of their own choosing. This situa-
of the departments (for youngts; for senior investigators-74.3
in which substantial difficulties have
institutionsyoung investigators ineconomics; senior investigators in
rsities (in addition to mathematicsr investigators in physics;
guished" or "strong" in the Roose-tigators in botany; senior investigators
1 1973 full-time graduate enrollmenty; senior investigators in chemical
at faculty investigators generally havech areas of their own choosing, anT More than one-half (51.3 percent)
one-third (37.8 percent) of the seniore unable to secure support in researchthe preceding 12-month period. Ap-
ment heads said that they considerappendix tables B-52 and B-53).
different. That year more than three-to about one-half in 1974) reported that
of their own choosing. Furthermore,m of choice of research area generally
58. Although the comparison betweennay have to be tempered somewhat byincluded, the direction of the change ised by the fact that most departmentbe major rather than minor.
9
30
78% ..
56%
31
53%
Participation in Research ProjectsAt Industrial and GovernmentLaboratories
To gain a broad perspective of the research activity of science andengineering faculty investigators, information was collected on the numberwho participated in research projects in government or industrial laboratoriesduring the 12 months ending in May 1974. Faculty participation rates are lowfor both activities-2.9 percent for projects ill industrial laboratories and 5.0percent for projects in government laboratories. In general, the participationof senior investigators is somewhat greater than that of young investigators.Faculty investigators in chemistry, chemical engineering, and electricalengineering departments account for over one-half (57.5 percent) of those par-ticipating in research projects in industrial la oratories while those in physicsdepartments alone account for nearly one- alf (47.8 percent) of the par-ticipants in research projects in government l boratories (appendix tables B-54 and B-55).
Change in Time Spent in Classroom Teaching
For about two-thirds of the departments, regular full-time faculty arespending about the same proportion of time engaged in classroom teaching in1974 as they did in 1970. For the departments reporting changes of 10 percentor more in classroom teaching time, those with increases outnumber thosewith decreases by nearly six to one in the case of senior faculty and by morethan four to one for young faculty. Fields with proportionately the greatestnumber of departments reporting increases in teaching time are biochemistry,biology, microbiology, physiology, and physics. Correspondingly, the fieldswith the greatest decreases in teaching time are chemical engineering, elec-trical engineering, and zoology. In general, changes in Federal funding areseen as being the primary cause of changes in classroom teaching time by onlyabout one-fourth of the affected departments (appendix table B-56). Thereason for the changes cited most frequently by the remaining departments isadministrative or legislative decision requiring standard teaching load.
The changes in classroom teaching time reported for the 1970.74 period,when compared with similar data for 1968-70, strongly suggest a trend towardsincreases in faculty time spent in teaching (table 6). How much the level offaculty research activity has been affected by this development cannot bedetermined from the survey ozita.
10
Table 6. Change Intime of full-t
doctorate-level soledepartmer
Teachingtime
GreaterLesserAbout the same
Impact of Changes in Faon Academic Institutions,National Science Foundation)
2 For this item, the 1970 11
tion separately for young andpossible the comparison withibeen developed in the 1970 fedata differ slightly from those56 because nonrespondentstionately across the three clal
Source: National Science Fot
Projectsent
f the research activity of science andormation was collected on the numberin government or industrial laboratories1974. Faculty participation rates are lowojects in industrial laboratories and 5.0boratories. In general, the participationeater than that of young investigators.chemical engineering, and electrical
over one-half (57.5 percent) of those par-trial laboratories while those in physics
rly one-half (47.8 Percent) of the gar-ment laboratories (appendix tables B-
lassroom Teaching
rtments, regular full-time faculty aref time engaged in classroom teaching inments reporting changes of 10 percent
those with increases outnumber thosethe case of senior faculty and by more
ields with proportionately the greatesteases in teaching time are biochemistry,d physics. Correspondingly, the fieldsg time are chemical engineering, elec-neral, changes in Federal funding areges in classroom teaching time by only
artments (appendix table B-56). Theuently by the remaining departments is
requiring standard teaching load.
g time reported for the 1970-74 period,70, strongly suggest a trend towards
hing (table 6). How much the level ofected by this development cannot be
10
Table 6. Change in classroom teachingtime of full-time faculty in
doctorate-level science and engineeringdepartments: 1968-74
Teaching Percent of departments
time 1968-70' 1970-742
Greater 12.3 28.0Lesser 4.1 5.5About the same 83.5 66.5
1 Impact of Changes in Federal Science Funding Patternson Academic Institutions, 1988-70 (Washington, D.C.:National Science Foundation), p. 35.
2 For this item, the 1970 survey did not request informa-tion separately for young and senior faculty. In order to makepossible the comparison with the earlier data, estimates havebeen developed in the 1970 format from the 1974 data. Thesedata differ slightly from those presented in appendix table B-56 because nonrespondents have been distributed propor-tionately across the three classes. .
Source: National Science Foundation.
'i3
SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF SCIENCE AND ENGINEERINGDEPARTMENTS, 1973-74
By using data from two NSF surveys, the responding departments maybe compared further. The present survey provides informationon faculty forthe spring of 1974. The Foundation's Graduate Science Student Support Sur-vey provides information on full-time graduate enrollment in thesedepartments for the fall of 1973. Table 7 presents for various groups ofdepartments the average number of full-time faculty per department, theaverage full-time graduate enrollment per department, and the unadjustedratio of full-time graduate students to full-time faculty. For each grouping, in-formation is presented for all respondents that may properly be included. Forexample, in the case of departments included in both the 1968 and 1974 sur-veys, only data for the 12 fields common to both surveys are used. (Also seeappendix tables B-57B-68).
In the interpretation of these data, however, it is important to note thatthe unadjusted ratio of full-time graduate students to full-time faculty is likely tounderstate the case for two reasons: (1) not all full-time facultyare active ingraduate education,'° and (2) part-time graduate students are not taken intoconsideration. Adjustments for these two factors would both work to producea larger number of graduate students per faculty member. Furthermore, theproportion of part-time graduate enrollment varies considerably by field. Onthe other hand, if part-time faculty had been included, this factor would havereduced the ratios somewhat. Although there are limitations inherent in theunadjusted ratio of full-time graduate enrollment to full-time faculty, still theratio provides useful information on full-time graduate education, which is thelarger component of the activity.
%
Private institutions, which make up slightly more than one-third of thesurvey population (35.6 percent), account for 32.5 percent of the respondingdepartments but only 28.0 percent of the full-time faculty and 28.6 percent ofthe full-time graduate enrollment. While responding departments in private in-stitutions, on the average, have fewer faculty and graduate' students thanthose in public institutions, they have a slightly greater unadjusted ratio ofgraduate students to faculty, 2.40:1 compared to 2.32:1 (appendix tables B-57,B-58, B-64, and B-65).
" A 1973 ACE study found that 34 percent of the faculty in all fields combined at universitieswereteaching courses in which no graduate students were enrolled. Bayer, "Teaching Faculty in Academe: 1972.73," op. cit.
11
34
When the 20 largest responding digraduate enrollment for each field, noiremaining departments, strikingdepartments, more than three-fourthcount for 32.8 percent of the fultimel
Table T. Seimof doctorate4
engineering19
AI
nulill
1
Respondentgroup
All departments
Departments inprivate institutions
Departments in publicinstitutions
==1-1
--120 largest departments ingraduate enrollment ...
All other departments ...Departments rated
"distinguished" or"strong" (Roose-Andersen)'
All other departments' ..Departments included in
both 1968 and 1974surveys'
All other departments' ..
' Unadjusted.2 Biology departments a3 Botany, geology, and z
eluded.Source: National Science Fo
TERISTICS OF SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING3-74
rveys, the responding departments mayrvey provides information on faculty forGraduate Science Student Support Sur--time graduate enrollment in theseable 7 presents for various groun.1 off full-time faculty per department, thet per department, and the unadjustedfull-time faculty. For each grouping, in-
ents that may properly be included. Forincluded in both the 1968 and 1974 sur-
n to both surveys are used. (Also see
ta, however, it is important to note thatto students to full-time faculty is likely to(1) not all full-time faculty are active ine graduate students are not taken into
two factors would both work to produceper faculty member. Furthermore, theIlment varies considerably by field. On
been included, this factor would havegh there are limitations inherent in theenrollment to full-time faculty, still the
II-time graduate education, which is the
e up slightly more than one-third of theount for 32.5 percent of the responding
f the full-time faculty and 28.6 percent oflie responding departments in private fin-er faculty and graduate students thane a slightly greater unadjusted ratio ofmpared to 2.32:1 (appendix tables B-57,
the faculty in all fields combined at universities weree enrolled. Bayer, "Teaching Faculty in Academe: 1972.
11
When the 20 largest responding departments in terms of fal11973 full-timegraduate enrollment for each field, 300 departments in all, are compared to theremaining departments, striking differences are noted. These 300departments, more than three-fourths of which are in public institutions, ac-count for 32.8 percent of the full-time faculty and 46.9 percent of the full-time
Table 7. Selected characteristicsof doctorate-level science and
engineering departments:1973-74
Respondentgroup
Average Averagenumber of full-timefull-time graduatefaculty enrollment
Graduatestudentfacultyratio'
All departments 21 49 2.34:1
Departments inprivate institutions 18 43 2.40:1
Departments in publicinstitutions 22 52 2.321
20 largest departments ingraduate enrollment 31 105 3.36:1
Departments included inboth 1968 and 1974surveys" 25 64 2.5a1
All other departments3 18 36 2.01:1
' Unadjusted.2 Biology departments are not included.3 Botany, geology, and zoology departments are not in-
cluded.Source: National Science Foundation.
35
graduate students. The unadjusted ratio of graduate students to faculty forthese 300 departments, 3.36:1, is much greater than that for the other 1,066departments, 1.85:1 (appendix tables 8.61 and B-67). Whether or not these1,066 departments have the capacity to provide education for additionalgraduate students was not ascertained in the survey.
The 313 responding departments rated as "distinguished" or "strong" bythe Roose'-Andersen study" consist of 47.3 percent from private institutionsand 52.7 percent from public institutions. Furthermore, there is substantialoverlap with the 20 largest departments in terms of fall 1973 full-time graduateenrollment, with 170 departments across all covered fields being in bothgroups. The Roose-Andersen rated departments have substantially largernumbers of faculty and graduate students, on the average, than otherdepartments in the 14 fields covered. The unadjusted ratio of full-timegraduate students to full-time faculty in the Roose-Andersen-rateddepartments is also much greater than that for the other departments, 3.11:1compared to 1.80:1 (appendix tables B-59 and B-66).
The information in table 7 shows that the 602 departments included inboth the 1968 and 1974 surveys are somewhat larger in terms of numbers offaculty and graduate enrollment than the other departments in the 12 fieldscovered. Many of the departments which responded to the 1974 surveyprobably did not have offerings at the doctorate level in 1968.
When these data are considered by field, substantial differences are alsoevident. In terms of all respondents, for example, mathematics departmentshave by far the largest average number of full-time faculty, 37, and chemicalengineering departments have the fewest faculty, averaging 11. Psychologydepartments have the largest average full-time graduate enrollment, 80, andphysiology departments have the fewest, 17. Departments in these two fieldsalso have, respectively, the greatest and smallest unadjusted ratios ofgraduate students to faculty, 3.01:1 and 1.28:1 (appendix table B-63).
II Roose and Andersen, op. cit. The RooseAndersen study rates 377 departments as being"distinguished" or "strong" in terms of quality of graduate faculty for the 160 survey institutions. Biologydepartments as designated in the present study are not rated by RooseAndersen; therefore, the analysis islimited to 14 of the 15 fields. The 313 respondents represent 83.0 percent of the 377 departments. Becauseof the trend of mergers of separate botany and zoology departments into biology departments, theresponse rate may be understated. In 20 cases in which the Roose-Andersen study indicates a botany orzoology department, the response to the present study is from a biology department (appendix tables B-59and B-60).
01)612
The chart presents comparisonsrated "distinguished" or "strong" inrespondents in each of 14 selected scithe Roose-Andersen-rated departmenfaculty, more full-time graduate studgraduate students to faculty.
The 313 Roose-Andersen-rated dcent of the respondents for the 14 fifaculty and 42.6 percent of the full-tiboth Roose-Andersen-rated and all ofhave the largest average number ofservice function of mathematics dgraduate levels. The field having the sthe same for both groups of deorder of the other fields is fairly simil
In terms of full:time graduatedepartments with an average of 86 sother departments in the respectivegraduate students. There is, howeverfor the two groups of departments ienrollment. Electrical engineering hasgraduate students for the Roose-Andepartment, but psychology has the 1the other departments, 69 students
The unadjusted ratios of full-tishow for all fields except psycho!Roose-Andersen-rated departments.dergraduate level, may account for mfor Roose-Andersen-rated mathnumber of full-time faculty; fifth for avthirteenth for the unadjusted ratio ofdramatic difference is seen in the caseof chemical engineering, which rank fotime faculty, ninth in average full-timeadjusted ratio of graduate students t
do of graduate students to faculty forch greater than that for the other 1,066
B-61 and 847). Whether or not theseto provide education for additionalin the survey. .
rated as "distinguished" or "strong" byf 47.3 percent from private institutions
. Furthermore, there is substantialis in terms of fall 1973 full-time graduate
all covered fields being in bothdepartments have substantially largertudents, on the average; than othered. The unadjusted ratio of full-time
ulty in the Roose-Andersen-ratedthat for the other departments, 3.11:1
B-59 and B-66).
that the 602 departments included inmetvhat larger in terms of numbers ofthe other departments in the 12 fieldswhich responded to the 1974 surveydoctorate level in 1968.
by field, substantial differences are alsoor example, mathematics departments
r of full-time faculty, 37, and chemicalt faculty, averaging 11. Psychology
full-time graduate enrollment, 80, andt, 17. Departments in these two fields
t and smallest unadjusted ratios of1.28:1 (appendix table B-63).
-Andersen study rates 377 departments as beingto faculty for the 160 survey institutions. Biology
rated by Roosendersen; therefore, the analysis isresent 83.0 percent of the 377 departments. Because
zoology departments into biology departments, thethe Roose-Andersen study indicates a botany or
is from a biology department (appendix tables B59
12
The chart presents comparisons between the responding departmentsrated "distinguished" or "strong" in the Roose-Andersen study and all otherrespondents in each of 14 selected science and engineering fields. For all fieldsthe Roose-Andersen-rated departments have, on the average, more full-timefaculty, more full-time graduate students, and greater unadjusted ratios ofgraduate students to faculty.
The 313 Roose-Andersen-rated departments, which account for 24.2 per-cent of the respondents for the 14 fields, have 32.3 percent of the full-timefaculty and 42.6 percent of the full-time graduate students in these fields. Forboth Roose-Andersen-rated and all other departments, those in mathematicshave the largest average number of full-time 'faculty, which may reflect theservice function of mathematics departments at the undergraduate andgraduate levels. The field having the smallest average number of faculty is alsothe same for both groups of departments, chemical engineering. The rankorder of the other fields is fairly similar for the two groups of departments.
In terms of full-time graduate enrollment, the Roose-Andersen-rateddepartments with an average of 86 students, are substantially larger than theother departments in the respective fields, which have an average of only 37graduate students. There is, however, considerable difference between fieldsfor the two groups of departments in the rank order by average graduateenrollment. Electrical engineering has the largest average number of full-timegraduate students for the Roose-Andersen departments, 149 students perdepartment, but psychology has the largest average graduate enrollment forthe other departments, 69 students per department.
The unadjusted ratios of full-time graduate students to full-lime facultyshow for all fields except psychology substantially greater figures for theRoose-Andersen-rated departments. The service load, particularly at the un-dergraduate level, may account for much of the observed differences in ranksfor Roose-Andersen-rated mathematics departments: First for averagenumber of full-time faculty; fifth for average full-time graduate enrollment; andthirteenth for the unadjusted ratio of graduate students to faculty. Anotherdramatic difference is seen in the case of Roose-Andersen-rated departmentsof chemical engineering, which rank fourteenth (last) in average number of full-time faculty, ninth in average full-time graduate enrollment, and first in the un-adjusted ratio of graduate students to faculty.
37
*
APPENDIXES
A. Methodology
B. Annotated Statistical Tables
C. Survey Instruments
40
APPENDIX A
Methodology
The survey institutions were selected from among the 229 that granted doctorates in 1970-71by applying the following two criteria: (1) all institutions that awarded at least cne doctorate in ascience or engineering field in 1970.711 and (2) all institutions that received at least $1 million inFederal obligations for research and development in fiscal year 1972.2 (The data used were thelatest available at the time the selection of institutions was made.) The 160 colleges and univer-sities that satisfied both criteria constituted the survey population of institutions. These 160 in-stitutions accounted for 94.3 percent of the 18,466 science and engineering doctorates awardedin 1970.71, and 96.7 percent of the $1,751 million in total Federal obligations for research anddevelopment awarded in fiscal year 1972 to institutions granting doctorates in science andengineering fields.
The survey population included heads of doctoratelevel departments in 15 selected science-and engineering fields in the 160 institutions. The survey fields were biochemistry, biology,botany, chemical engineering, chemistry, economics, electrical engineering, geology,mathematics, microbiology, physics, physiology, psychology, sociology, and zoology.Together, these fields accounted for nearly two-thirds of all science and engineering doctoratesawarded in 1970-71.
The number of eligible departments in the 160 survey institutions was estimated to be ap-proximately 1,550 with approximately 73,600 full-time graduate students enrolled in the fall of1973. The estimate of eligible doctoratelevel departments in the 160 institutions was preparedby comparing the survey respondents with the list of departments covered by the Foundation'sSurvey of Graduate Science Student Support for Fall 1973. Because the Survey of FacultyResearch Activities, Spring 1974, and the Survey of Graduate Science Student Support(GSSS), Fall 1973 were conducted during the same academic year, and because the 1973 GSSSsurvey included a total of 5,683 doctorate-level departments, this estimation procedure wasbelieved to yield an adequate approximation of the population of eligible departments. Onlythose departments not represented in either survey were omitted. The estimate of fall 1973 full-time graduate enrollment was based principally on the 1973 GSSS survey. For the small numberof departments that responded to the 1974 Survey of Faculty Research Activities but not to the1973 GSSS survey, enrollment data were inputed using the 1972 GSSS survey and, wherenecessary, the U.S. Office of Education's Fall 1971 Survey of Enrollment for Advanced Degrees.Survey materials were mailed on April 29, 1974, to a coordinating official, frequently the
Based on special NSF tabulations of U.S. Office of Education, Survey of Earned Degrees Conferred,1970.71.
2 Based on reports to the National Science Foundation derived from the Govemmentwide data systemoriginally established under the auspices of the Committee on Academic Science and Engineering (CASE).
4116
graduate dean, at each institution for clistribu15 selected fields. Separate mailings wereble departments. Replies were generally retu(See appendix C for survey instruments.) Respiling the tabulations from 154 of the 160 institutidcent. Some institutional responses, however, clidepartments covered in responses to the Surf88.0 percent of the total estimated number of eing departments accounted for 91.2 percent,enrollment in the eligible departments. Similar clscience and engineering fields in table Al,-
percent for botany to 95.8 percent for socit79.7 percent for botany to 96.9 percent for sdenrollment.
Tai addition to presenting data reported bYselected items by (a) departments in private ine(c) departments rated as "distinguished" or usiRoose-Andersen study ,3 (d) the 20 largest restterms of fall 7.973 full-time graduate enrollinell1974 survey and the similar NSF survey done
This report is based primarily on the informalExogenous data are those related to full-time ginstitutional control, and selected items from1969, and 1970. The departmental groupings arjfor the division by institutional control. 1
Data in the report represent only the rdata for nonrespondents. During the editing ofthe parentheses in items 1, 2, and 3, intendednot been used by a substantial number of rprocessing with extensive followup requests,the analysis. Typically, only departmentsmicrobiology, and physiologyindicatedD.Sc.
3 Kenneth D. Roose and Charles J. Andersen. AAmerican Council on Education), 1970. 1
42
among the 229 that granted doctorates in 1970-71titutions that awarded at least one doctorate in a
) all institutions that received at least $1 million int in fiscal year 1972? (The data used were the
tutions was made.) The 160 colleges and univer-survey population of institutions. These 160 in-
466 science and engineering doctorates awardedin total Federal obligations for research and
Institutions granting doctorates in science and
orate-level departments in 15 selected science. The survey fields were biochemistry, biology,economics, electrical engineering, geology,
, psychology, sociology, and z0010gbthirds of all science and engineering doctorates
160 survey institutions was estimated to be ap-full-time graduate students enrolled in the fall ofdepartments in the 160 institutions was prepared
list of departments covered by the Foundation'srt for Fall 1973. Because the Survey of FacultySurvey of Graduate Science Student Support
academic year, and because the 1973 GSSSdepartments, this estimation procedure was
of the population of eligible departments. Onlywere omitted. The estimate of fall 1973 full-
on the 1973 GSSS survey. For the small numberof Faculty Research Activities but not to the
ted using the 1972 GSSS survey and, where971 Survey of Enrollment for Advanced Degrees.1974, to a coordinating official, frequently the
of Education, Survey of Earned Degrees Conferred,
derived from the Government-wide data systemee on Academic Science and Engineering (CASE).
16
graduate dean, at each institution for distribution to heads of doctorate-level departments in the15 selected fields. Separate mailings were made to medical schools to provide coverage of eligi-ble departments. Replies were generally returned to the Foundation by the coordinating official.(See appendix C for survey instruments.) Responses were received in time to be used in prepar-ing the tabulations from 154 of the 160 institutions, for an institutional response rate of 96.3 per-cent. Some institutional responses, however, did not include all eligible departments. The 1,366departments covered in responses to the Survey of Faculty Research Activities represented
.0 percent of the total estimated number of eligible departments. Furthermore, the respond-ing departments accounted for 912 percent of the total estimated fall 1973 full-time graduateenrollment in the eligible departments. Similar comparisons are made for each of the 15 selectedscience and engineering fields in table A-1, which shows that 'sponse rates ranged from 76.0percent for botany to 95.8 percent for sociology in terms of number of departments and from79.7 percent for botany to 96 9 percent for sociology in terms of fall 1973 full-time graduateenrollment.
In addition to presenting data reported by all respondents, there are separate analyses forselected items by (a) departments in private institutions, (b) departments in public institutions,(c) departments rated as "distinguished" or "strong" in terms of graduate faculty quality in theRoose-Andersen study,3 (d) the 20 largest responding departments in each of the 15 fields interms of fall 1973 full-time graduate enrollment, and (e) departments represented in both the1974 survey and the similar NSF survey done in 1968.
This report is based primarily on the information collected through the survey quesfionnaire.Exogenous data are those related to full-time graduate enrollment, quality of graduate faculty,institutional control, and selected items from surveys conducted by the Foundation in 1968,1969, and 1970. The departmental groupings are based on departmental characteristics exceptfor the division by institutional control.
Data in the report represent only the responding departments. There was no imputation ofdata for nonrespondents. During the editing of returned questionnaires, it was determined thatthe parentheses in items 1, 2, and 3, intended to collect data on faculty by kind of doctorate, hadnot been used by a substantial number of respondents. Rather than delay the questionnaireprocessing with extensive followup requests, the decision was made to use total doctorates inthe analysis. Typically, only departments connected with medical schoolsbiochemistry,microbiology, and physiologyindicated faculty holding doctorates other than the PhD. orD.Sc.
3 Kenneth D. !loose and Charles J. Andersen. A Rating of Graduate Programs. (Washington, D.C.:American Council on Education), 1970.
42
Table A-1. Survey population and respondents by number ofdoctorate-level science and engineering departments and fall
B-1. Composition of faculty in doctoratelevel scienceand engineering departments, by years sincedoctorate 1974 (all institutions)
B2. Composition of faculty in doctoratelevel scienceand engineering departments, by years sincedoctorate: 1974 (private institutions)
B3. Composition of faculty in doctorate-level scienceand engineering departments, by years sincedoctorate: 1974 (public institutions)
B-4. Composition of faculty in doctoratelevel scienceand engineering departments, by years sincedoctorate: 1974 (departments rated as "distinguished"or "strong" in RooseAndersen study)
B5. Composition of faculty in doctoratelevel scienceand engineering departments, by years sincedoctorate 1974 (20 largest departments in fall1973 full-time graduate enrollment)
B-6. Composition of faculty in matched doctorate-level science and engineering departments, byyears since doctorate: 1968 and 1974
B7. Proportion of faculty in matched doctoratelevelscience and engineering departments, by yearssince doctorate: 1968 and 1974
TENURE
20
20
21
21
22
23
23
B8. Proportion of faculty with tenure in doctorate.level science and engineering departments:1974 (all institutions) 24
B9. Proportion of faculty with tenure in doctorate-level science and engineering departments:1974 (private institutions) 24
B10. Proportion of faculty with tenure in doctorate-level science and engineering departments:1974 (public institutions) 24
B11. Proportion of faculty with tenure in doctorate-level science and engineering departments:1974 (departments rated as "distinguished" or"strong" in RooseAndersen study) 25
B12. Proportion of faculty with tenure in doctorate-level science and engineering departments:1974 (20 largest departments in fall 1973fulltime graduate enrollment)
RESEARCH ACTIVITY
B13. Composition of faculty in doctoratelevel science andengineering departments spending 20 percent or moreof their time in research: 1974 (all institutions) 26
B14. Composition of faculty in doctoratelevel science andengineering departments spending 20 percent or moreof their time in research: 1974 (private institutions) 26
B15. Composition of faculty in doctoratelevel science andengineering departments spending 20 percent or moreof their time in research: 1974 (public institutions) 27
B-16. Composition of faculty in doctoratelevel science andengineering departments spending 20 percent or moreof their time in research: 1974 (departments rated as"distinguished" or "strong" in RooseAndersenstudy) 27
B-17. Composition of faculty in doctoratelevel science andengineering departments spending 20 percent or moreof their time in research: 1974 (20 largest departmentsin fall 1973 full-time graduate enrollment) 28
B-18. Composition of faculty in matched doctoratelevelscience and engineering departments spending20 percent or more of their time in research:1968 and 1974 28
B19. Proportion of faculty in doctoratelevel science andengineering departments spending 20 percent or moreof their time in research: 1974 (all institutions) 29
B20. Proportion of faculty in doctoratelevel scienceand engineering departments spending 20 percentor more of their time in research: 1974(private institutions) 29
B-21. Proportion of faculty in doctoratelevel scienceand engineering departments spending 20 percentor more of their time in research: 1974(public institutions) 29
B22. Proportion of faculty in doctoratelevel science andengineering departments spending 20 percent or moreof their time in research: 1974 (departments rated as"distinguished" or "strong' in Roose-Andersenstudy) 30
B-23. Proportion of faculty in doctorate-level science andengineering departments spending 20 percent or moreof their time in research: 1974 (20 largest departmentsin fall 1973 full-time graduate enrollment) 30
B24. Proportion of faculty in matched doctoratelevelscience and engineering departments spending20 percent or more of their time in research;
25 1968 and 1974 31
4418
RESEARCHSUPPORTED
B-25. Compelscienclreseakand cc
B26. Compscienciresearcand coi
B27, Compelscienalreseakand ca
B-28. CompssciencgreSeakand caguishe
B29. Compqsciencereseakand col1973 ft
B-30. Compel,ate-level
doing rigrants
B31. Proporisciencereseardcontras
B-32. Proporjsciencereseakand ca
B-33. Propori
scienceresearcland col
B34. Proporlsciencereseargand coguishecl
B35. Proporlscienceresearands
B-36. Proporlatlev4doter!grants
45
ables
hence
e
ience
tinguished"
ienceefall
e-
bY
RESEARCH ACTIVITY
B-13. Composition of faculty in doctoratelevel science andengineering departments spending 20 percent or moreof their time in research: 1974 (all institutions) 26
B-14. Composition of faculty in doctoratelevel science andengineering departments spending 20 percent or moreof their time in research: 1974 (private institutions).. 26
B-15. Composition of faculty in doctoratelevel science andengineering departments spending 20 percent or moreof their time in research: 1974 (public institutions) 27
20 B-16. Composition of faculty in doctorate-level science andengineering departments spending 20 percent or moreof their time in research: 1974 (departments rated as
20 "distinguished" or "strong" in Roose-Andersenstudy) 27
21 B-17. Composition of faculty in doctoratelevel science andengineering departments spending 20 percent or moreof their time in research: 1974 (20 largest departmentsin fall 1973 full-time graduate enrollment) 28
B-18. Composition of faculty in matched doctoratelevelscience and engineering departments spending20 percent or more of their time in research:1968 and 1974 28
21
22B19. Proportion of faculty in doctoratelevel science and
engineering departments spending 20 percent or more23 of their time in research: 1974 (all institutions) 29
B20. Proportion of faculty in doctoratelevel scienceand engineering departments spending 20 percentor more of their time in research: 1974(private institutions) 29
B21. Proportion of faculty in doctorate-level scienceand engineering departments spending 20 percentor more of their time in research: 1974(public institutions) 29
B-22. Proportion of faculty in doctoratelevel science andengineering departments spending 20 percent or more
24 of their time in research: 1974 (departments rated as"distinguished" or "strong" in RooseAndersenstudy) 30
B23 Proportion of faculty in doctorate-level science andengineering departments spending 20 percent or moreof their time in research: 1974 (20 largest departmen*s
or in fall 1973 full-time graduate enrollment) 30
e- B-24. Proportion of faculty in matched doctoratelevelscience and engineering departments spending20 percent or more of their time in research;
25 1968 and 1974 31
levels
23
24
24
25
18
44
RESEARCH CONNECTED WITH FEDERALLYSUPPORTED PROJECTS
B-25. Composition of faculty investigators in doctoratelevelscience and engineering departments who are doingresearch directly connected with Federal project grantsand contracts: 1974 (all institutions) 32
B-26. Composition of faculty investigators in doctorate-levelscience and engineering departments who are doingresearch directly connected with Federal project grantsand contracts: 1974 (private institutions) , 32
B-27. Composition of faculty investigators in doctorate-levelscience and engineering departments who are doingresearch directly connected with Federal project grantsand contracts: 1974 (public institutions) 33
B-28. Composition of faculty investigators in doctorate-levelscience and engineering departments who are doingresearch directly connected with Feciendproject grantsand contracts: 1974 (departments rated as "distin-guished" or "strong" in Roose-Andersen study) 33
B29. Composition of faculty investigators in doctorate-levelscience and engineering departments who are doingresearch directly connected with Federal project grantsand contracts: 1974 (20 largest departments in fall1973 full-time graduate enrollment) 34
B-30. Composition of faculty investigators in matched doctorate-level science and engineering departments who aredoing research directly connected with Federal projectgrants and contracts: 1968 and 1974 34
B-31. Proportion of faculty investigators in doctorate-levelscience and engineering departments who are doingresearch connected with Federal project grants andcontracts: 1974 (all institutions) 35
B-32. Proportion of faculty investigators in doctorate-levelscience and engineering departments who are doingresearch directly connected with Federal project grantsand contracts: 1974 (private institutions) 35
B-33. Proportion of faculty investigators in doctorate-levelscience and engineering departments who are doingresearch directly connected with Federal project grantsand contracts: 1974 (public institutions) 36
B-34. Proportion of faculty investigators in doctorate-levelscience and engineering departments who are doingresearch directly connected with Federal project grantsand contracts: 1974 (departments rated as "distin-guished" or "strong" in Roose-Andersen study) .... 16
B-35. Proportion of faculty investigators in doctorate-levelscience and engineering departments who are doingresearch directly connected with Federal project grantsand contracts: 1974 (20 largest departments in fal11973full-time graduate enrollment) 37
B-36. Proportion of faculty investigators in matched doctor-ate-level science and engineering departments who aredoing research directly connected vith Federal projectgrants and contracts: 1968 and 1974 37
45
SOURCE OF RESEARCH FUNDS
B-37. Proportion of research funds coming to doctorate-level science and engineering departments 'fromsources other than Federal research project funds:1974 (all institutions) 38
APPIZOPRIATENESS OF SPLIT OF RESEARCHFUNDING
B-38. Appropriateness of the split of research fundsbetween young and senior faculty in doctorate-level science and engineering departments: 1974(all institutions) 39
B-39. Appropriateness of the split of research fundsbetween young and senior faculty in doctorate-level science and engineering departments: 1974(private institutions) 39
8-40. Appropriateness of the split of research fundsbetween young and senior faculty in doctorate-level science and engineering departments: 1974(public institutions) 40
8-41. Appropriateness of the split of research fundsbetween young and senior faculty in doctorate-level science and engineering departments: 1974(departments rated as "distinguished" or "strong"in RooseAndersen study) 40
B-42. Appropriateness of the split of research fundsbetween young and senior faculty in doctorate.level science and engineering departments: 1974(20 largest departments in fall 1973 full-timegraduate enrollment) 41
B-43. Appropriateness of the split of research fundsbetween young and senior faculty in matcheddoctoratelevel science and engineering depart-ments: 1968 and 1974 41
B-44. Proportion of all research funds going to youngfaculty in doctoratelevel science and engineeringdepartments: 1974 (all institutions) 42
B-45. Opin: ns of heads of doctorate-level science andengineering departments concerning appropriateproportion of research funds for young faculty:1974 (all institutions)
SUPPORT IN CHOSEN RESEARCH AREA
B-46. Opinions of heads of doctorate-level science andengineering departments concerning creation ofspecial Federal research support programsspecifically limited to young or senior faculty:1974 (all institutions)
46
B-47. Opinions of heads of doctoratelevel science and engi-neering departments concerning ability of facultyinves-tigators generally to secure support in research areasof their own choosing: 1974 (all institutions) 44
B-48. Opinions of heads of doctorate-level science and engi-neering departments concerning ability of facultyinves-tigators generally to secure support in research areasof their own choosing: 1974 (private institutions) . 44
B-49. Opinions of heads of doctoratelevel science and engi-neering departments concerning ability of facultyinves-tigators generally to secure support in research areasof their own choosing: 1974 (public institutions)
B-50. Opinions of heads of doctorate-level science and engi-neering departments concerning ability of facultyinves-tigators generally to secure support in research areasof their own choosing: 1974 (departments rated as"distinguished" or "strong" in Roose-Andersenstudy) 45
B-51. Opinions of heads of doctoratelevel science and engi-neering departments concerning ability of facultyinves-tigators generally to secure support in research areasof their own choosing: 1974 (20 largest departments infall 1973 full-time graduate enrollment) 46
B-52. Proportion of faculty investigators in doctorate-levelscience and engineering departments unable to securesupport in research areas of own choosing: 1974(all institutions) 47
B53. Proportion of faculty investigators unable to securesupport in research areas of own choosing who are indoctoratelevel science and engineering departmentswhere this is considered to be a major problem: 1974(all institutions) 47
45/
PARTICIPATION IN PROJECTS IN INDUSTRIAL ORGOVERNMENT LABORATORIES
B-54. Number of faculty investigators in doctoratelevelscience and engineering departments who partici-pated in research projects at industrial or 9ovem-ment laboratories: 1974 (all institutions)
B-55. Proportion of faculty investigators in doctorate-levelscience and engineering departments who participated
42 in research projects at industrial or governmentlaboratories: 1974 (all institutions)
TIME SPENT IN CLASSROOM TEACHING
48
48
B-56. Changes in time spent in classroom teaching byregular full-time faculty in doctoratelevel scienceand engineering departments: 1970 to 1974 (all
43 institutions) 49
19
CHARACTEIENGINEERIls
B57. Compscienceprivatefall 19/,
B58. Compand eninstitulfull-tim
B-59. Comp(and en"distinistudy II
SradualB-60. Distribl
or "stnB-61. Comp
and enfulltirnmerits
B62. Compand endeparn1963 k
B.63. Averastudenengineiinstitutl
B64. Averagstudenengineinstitutl
B-65. Avera9studentengine
tuB-66. Avera
studenengineratedRoose-
B-67. Avera
B68. Avera
depart
engi
enro
respon
Orate-m
funds:38
te-1974
39
te-1974
39
te-1974
40
te-1974
40
e-
1974
41
41ngring
42and
datety:
42
andof
B-47. Opinions of heads of doctoratelevel science and engi-neering departments concerning ability of facultyinves-tigators generally to secure support in research areasof their own choosing: 1974 (all institutions) 44
B-48. Opinions of heads of doctorate-level science and engineering departments concerning ability of faculty inves-tigators generally to secure support in research areasof their own choosing: 1974 (private institutions) 44
B9. Opinions of heads of doctoratelevel science and engi-neering departments concerning ability of facultyinves-tigators generally to secure support in research areasof their own choosing: 1974 (public institutions) 45
B50. Opinions of heads of doctorate-level science and engi-neering departments concerning ability of facultyinves-tigators generally to secure support in research areasof their own choosing: 1974 (departments rated as"distinguished" or "strong" in RooseAndersenstudy) 45
B51. Opinions of heads of doctorate-level science and engi-neering departments concerning ability of faculty inves-tigators generally to secure support in research areasof their own choosing: 1974 (20 largest departments infall 1973 full-time graduate enrollment) 46
B.52. Proportion of faculty investigators in doctorate-levelscience and engineering departments unable to securesupport in research areas of own choosing: 1974(all institutions) 47
1353. Proportion of faculty investigators unable to securesupport in research areas of own choosing who are indoctoratelevel science and engineering departmentswhere this is considered to be a major problem 1974(all institutions) 47
PARTICIPATION IN PROJECTS IN INDUSTRIAL ORGOVERNMENT LABORATORIES
B-54. Number of faculty investigators in doctoratelevelscience and engineering departments who partici-pated in research projects at industrial or govern-ment laboratories: 1974 (all institutions)Proportion of faculty investigators in doctorate-levelscience and engineering departments who participatedin research projects at industrial or governmentlaboratories: 1974 (all institutions)
TIME SPENT IN CLASSROOM TEACHING
B56. Changes in time spent in classroom teaching byregular full-time faculty in doctoratelevel scienceand engineering departments: 1970 to 1974 (all
43 institutions) 49
48
48
19
46
CHARACTERISTICS OF SCIENCE ANDENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS, 1973.74
1357. Comparison of all responding doctoratelevelscience and engineering departments and those inprivate institutions by number of departments andfall 1973 full-time graduate enrollment
B-58. Comparison of all responding doctoratelevel scienceand engineering departments and those in publicinstitutions by number of departments and fall 1973full-time graduate enrollment 50
B59. Comparison of all responding doctorate-level scienceand engineering departments and those rated as"distinguished" or "strong" in the Roos:- Andersenstudy by number of departments and 48 1973 full-timegraduate enrollment 51
B-60. Distribution of departments rated as "distinguished"or "strong" in RooseAndersen study . 51
B-61. Comparison of all responding doctorate-leA scienceand engineering departments and the 20 largest infull-time graduate enrollment by number of depart-ments and fall 1973 full-time graduate enrollment 52
B-62. Comparison of all responding doctoratelevel scienceand engineering departments and 1968-74 matcheddepartments by number of departments and fall1963 full-time graduate enrollment 52
B-63. Average number of faculty and full-time graduatestudents per doctoratelevel science andengineering department: 1973.74 (allinstitutions) 53
/364. Average number of faculty and full-time graduatestudents per doctoratelevel science andengineering department: 1973.74 (privateinstitutions) 53
1365. Average number of faculty and full-time graduatestudents per doctoratelevel science andengineering department: 1973.74 (publicinstitutions) 54
1366. Average number of faculty and full-time graduatestudents per doctoratelevel science andengineering department: 1973.74 (departmentsrated as "distinguished" or "strong" inRooseAndersen study) 54
B-67. Average number of faculty and full-time graduatestudents per doctoratelevel science andengineering department: 1973.74 (20 largestdepartments in fall 1973 full-time graduateenrollment) 55
1368. Average number of faculty and full-time graduatestudents per doctoratelevel science andengineering department: 1973.74 (departmentsresponding to both 1968 and 1974 surveys)
50
47
55
Table B-1. Composition of faculty In doctorate-level science andengineering departments, by years since doctorate 1974
(An institutions)
Fewer than 3 out of 10 of the faculty in the surveyed departments have held their doc-torates for 7 years or less.
The highest proportion of faculty in the "7 years or less" category is reported forsociology departments, the lowest for physics departments.
Nearly two-thirds of the faculty without doctorates are in departments in four fields:mathematics, electrical engineering, economics, and sociology.
Field Totalnumber
of faculty
Years since doctorate Without doctorate
7 year:. orless
More than 7years
Number PercentNumber Percent Number Percent
All fields 28,638 8,082 28.2 19,405 67.8 1,151 4.0
Table 11-2. Composition of faculty in doctorate-level science andengineering departments, by years since doctorate: 1974
(Private institutions)
Departments in private institutions have a slightly higher proportion of senior doc-torate faculty and a slightly lower proportion of faculty without doctorates than alldepartments combined.
The greatest proportions of young doctorate faculty are in psychology andsociology departments.
Includes botany and zoology departments which are not sepa ately reported because of thesmall number.
Source: National Science Foundation.
49.
Table B-3. Composition of faculty in doctorate-level science andengineering departments, by years since doctorate: 1974
(Public Institutions)
Departments in public institutions have a slightlytower proportion of senior doc-torate faculty and a slightly higher proportion of faculty without doctorates than alldepartments combined.
The proportion of young doctorate faculty ranges from a low of 16.5 percent inphysics departments to a high of 42.6 percent in sociology departments.
Table B-4. Composition of faculty in doctorate-level science andengineering departments, by years since doctorate: 1974
(Departments rated as "distinguished" or "strong" inRoose-Andersen study)
Compared with all departments, the Roose-Andersen-rated departments have alower proportion of young doctorate faculty (25.2 percent versus 28.2 percent), ahigher proportion of senior doctorate faculty (73.0 percent versus 67.8 percent), anda lower proportion of faculty without doctorates (1.8 percent versus 4.0 percent).
' The Roose-Andersen study did not include biology departments as designated In the pros-ent study.
Source: National Science Foundation.
51
Table 13. Composition of faculty in doctorate-level science andengineering departments, by years since doctorate 1974
(20 largest departments In fall 1973 full-time graduate enrollment)
The 300 departments represented by these data, about 22 percent of all respondingdepartments, account for nearly one-third of the faculty reported.
These 300 departments have proportionately fewer young doctorate faculty andproportionately more senior doctorate faculty than reported for all departmentscombined.
Table B-8. Proportion of faculty with tenurein doctorate-level science and engineering
departments: 1974(Ali institutions)
Overall seven out of 10 faculty members in thedepartments reporting are tenured. The proportionof tenured faculty is greatest in chemical engineer-ing departMents, lowest in physiology departments.
Fewer than one-fifth of the young doctorate faculty(i.e., seven years o r less since doctorate) are tenuredcompared with over nine-tenths of senior doctoratefaculty and over one-half of faculty without doc-torates.
More than 30 percent of the young doctorate facultyare tenured in chemical engineering and electricalengineering departments.
More than 95 percent of the senior doctorate facultyare tenured in botany, chemical engineering,economics, electrical engineering, and geologydepartments.
Table B-9. Proportion of faculty with tenurein doctorate-level science and engineering
departments: 1974(Private institutions)
Tenure percents for faculty in private institutions aresubstantially below those for public institutions, 65.2percent compared to 71.9 percent.
Only 10.0 percent of the young doctorate faculty inprivate institutions have tenure compared with 22.5percent for those in public institutions.
In only one field, chemical engineering, do morethan 75 percent of the faculty have tenure.
' Includes botany and zoology departments which are notseparately reported because of the small number.
Source: National Science Foundation.
24
Table B-10. Proportion of faculty with tenure indoctorate-level science and engineering
departments: 1974(Public institutions)
Tenure percents for faculty in public institutions aresubstantially above those for private institutions,and reach 93.7 percent for senior doctorate faculty(i.e., those who have held doctorates for more than 7years).
The percent of young doctorate-tenured faculty inpublic institutions exceeds 30 percent in three fields:chemical engineering, electrical engineering, andeconomics.
In six fields, more than 75 percent of the faculty holdtenured positions: botany, chemical engineering,chemistry, electrical engineering, geology, andphysics.
Table B-11. Proportion of faculty with tenurein doctorate-level science and engineeringdepartments: 1974 (Departments rated as
"distinguished" or "strong" inRoose-Andersen study)
These departments have a somewhat higher overallproportion of tenured faculty than do all respondingdepartments combined, 71.6 percent compared to70.0 percent
The proportion of tenured faculty by field rangesfrom 61.5 percent for sociology to 82.6 percent forbotany. In addition to botany, six other fields report75 percent or more tenured faculty: chemicalengineering, chemistry, electrical engineering,geology, physics, and zoology.
' The Roose-Andersen study did not include biologydepartments as designated in the present study.
Source: National Science Foundation.
25
57
Table B-12. Proportion of faculty with tenurein doctorate-level science and engineeringdepartments: 1974 (20 largest departmentsin fall 1973 full-time graduate enrollment)
These 300 departments have a higher overallproportion of tenured faculty than the average for allresponding departments, 72.4 percent comparedwith 70.0 percent
The proportion of tenured faculty ranges from 63.3percent for sociology to 83.3 percent for chemicalengineering.
More than 75 percent of the faculty is tenured in thefollowing fields: botany, chemical engineering,chemistry, electrical engineering, , eology, andphysics.
Table B-13. Composition of faculty in doctorate-level science andengineering departments spending 20 percent or more of their time
in research: 1974 (All institutions)
Among faculty spending 20 percent or more of their time in research, three-tenthsare young investigators (i.e., 7 years or less since their doctorates).
The proportion of young investigators is lowest for physics departments (19.5 per-cent) and highest for sociology departments (42.5 percent).
Over one-half of the nondoctorate faculty spending 20 percent or more of their timein research are in departments in three fields: sociology, electrical engineering, andeconomics.
Table ir-14. Composition of WAengineering departments spending
in researc(Private in*
Compared with the data for all institutionsslightly tower proportion of young doctgreater proportion of senior doctorate fa(percent or more of their time in research
Table B-14. Composition of faculty in doctorate -level science andengineering departments spending 20 percent or more of their time
in research: 1974(Private institutions)
Compared with the data for all institutions, departments in private institutions have aslightly lower proportion of young doctorate faculty investigators and a slightlygreater proportion of senior doctorate faculty investigators (i.e., those spending 20percent or more of their time in research).
Includes botany and zoology departments which are not separately reported because of thesmall number.
Source: National Science Foundation.
59
Table B-15. Composition of faculty in doctorate-level science andengineering departments spending 20 percent or more of their
time in research: 1974(Public institutions)
Compared with the data for all institutions, departments in public institutions have aslightly greater proportion of young doctorate faculty investigators and a slightlylower proportion of sentx doctorate faculty investigators (i.e., those spending 20percent or more of their time in research).
Table B-16. Composition of faculty in doctorate-level science andengineering departments spending 20 percent or more of their time
in research: 1974 (Departments rated as "distinguished" or"strong" in Roose-Andersen study)
The lower proportion of young doctorate faculty investigators, as compared to thedata for all departments, reflects the overall composition of faculty in the Roose-Andersen-rated departments rather than a lower level of research activity.
' The Roose-Andersen study did not include biology departments as designated in the pres-ent study.
Source: National Science Foundation.
61
Tab
le B
-17.
Com
posi
tion
of fa
culty
in d
octo
rate
-leve
l sci
ence
and
engi
neer
ing
depa
rtm
ents
spe
ndin
g 20
per
cent
or
mor
e of
thei
rtim
e in
res
earc
h: 1
974
(20
larg
est d
epar
tmen
ts In
fall
1973
full
-tim
e gr
adua
te e
nrol
lmen
t)
The
se 3
00 d
epar
tmen
ts a
ccou
nt fo
r on
e-th
ird o
f all
facu
lty in
vest
igat
ors
(Le.
, tho
sesp
endi
ng 2
0 pe
rcen
t or
mor
e or
thei
r tim
e in
res
earc
h), i
n ke
epin
g w
ith th
eir
over
all
prop
ortio
n of
facu
lty.
Fie
ld
Tot
alfa
culty
spen
ding
20 p
erce
ntor
mor
etim
e in
rese
arch
Yea
rs s
ince
doc
tora
teW
ithou
t doc
tora
te
7 ye
ars
orle
ssM
ore
than
7ye
ars
Num
ber
Per
cent
Num
ber
Per
cent
Num
ber
Per
cent
All
field
s7,
966
2,18
827
.55,
674
71.2
104
1.3
Bio
chem
istr
y36
361
16.8
300
82.6
2.6
Bio
logy
640
149
23.3
485
75.8
6.9
Bot
any
326
7623
.324
575
.25
1.5
Che
mic
al e
ngin
eerin
g26
663
23.7
198
74.4
51.
9C
hem
istr
y61
712
620
.449
079
.41
.2E
cono
mic
s49
117
325
.230
461
.914
2.9
Ele
ctric
al e
ngin
eerin
g62
917
427
.743
068
.425
4.0
Geo
logy
307
7223
.522
874
.37
2.3
Mat
hem
atic
s1,
049
352
33.6
696
66.3
1.1
Mic
robi
olog
y32
493
28.7
226
69.8
51.
5P
hysi
cs92
315
717
.076
582
.91
.1P
hysi
olog
y31
984
26.3
229
71.8
61.
9P
sych
olog
y75
426
835
.548
063
.76
.8S
ocio
logy
508
219
43.1
273
53.7
163.
2Z
oolo
gy45
012
126
.932
572
.24
.9
Sou
rce:
Nat
iona
l Sci
ence
Fou
ndat
ion.
Tab
le B
-18.
Com
posi
tion
of fa
culty
in m
atch
ed d
octo
rate
-leve
l sci
ence
and
engi
neer
ing
depa
rtm
ents
spe
ndin
g 20
per
cent
or
mor
e of
thei
rtim
e in
res
earc
h: 1
968
and
1974
In g
ener
al, t
he c
hang
e in
the
com
posi
tion
of fa
culty
The
num
ber
of fa
culty
inve
stig
ator
s in
197
4 is
less
spen
ding
20
perc
ent o
r m
ore
of th
eir
time
in r
esea
rch
than
that
for
1968
in o
nly
two
field
s-ec
onom
ics
and
refle
cts
the
chan
ge in
ove
rall
com
posi
tion
of th
eel
ectr
ical
eng
inee
ring.
facu
lty in
thes
e de
part
men
ts.
Tot
al fa
culty
Num
ber
by y
ears
spen
ding
20
sinc
e do
ctor
ate
I
'Num
ber
7 ye
ars
Mor
e th
anF
ield
Num
ber
perc
ent o
r m
ore
with
out
oftim
e in
res
earc
hor
less
7 ye
ars
doct
orat
e...
..--.
-.db
.- I
al/W
M. _
.-1
. Al.
-.A
M..
I- ..
.am
...L.
--
me
nre
sear
chN
umbe
rP
erce
ntN
umbe
rP
erce
ntN
umbe
rP
erce
ntA
ll fie
lds
7,96
62,
188
27.5
5,67
471
.210
41.
3
Bio
chem
istr
y,
363
6116
.830
082
.62
.6B
iolo
gy64
014
923
.348
575
.86
.9B
otan
y32
676
23.3
245
75.2
51.
5C
hem
ical
eng
inee
ring
266
6323
.719
874
.45
1.9
Che
mis
try
617
126
20.4
490
79.4
1.2
Eco
nom
ics
491
173
25.2
304
61.9
142.
9E
lect
rical
eng
inee
ring
629
174
27.7
430
68.4
254.
0G
eolo
gy30
772
23.5
228
74.3
72.
3M
athe
mat
ics
1,04
935
233
.669
666
.31
.1M
icro
biol
ogy
324
9328
.722
669
.85
1.5
Phy
sics
923
157
17.0
765
82.9
1.1
Phy
siol
ogy
319
8426
.322
971
.86
1.9
Psy
chol
ogy
754
268
35.5
480
63.7
6.8
Soc
iolo
gy50
821
943
.127
353
.716
a 2
Zoo
logy
450
121
26.9
325
72.2
4.9
Sou
rce:
Nat
iona
l Sci
ence
Fou
ndat
ion.
Tab
le B
-18.
Com
posi
tion
of fa
culty
in m
atch
ed d
octo
rate
-leve
l sci
ence
and
engi
neer
ing
depa
rtm
ents
spe
ndin
g 20
per
cent
or
mor
e of
thei
rtim
e in
res
earc
h: 1
968
and
1974
.
In g
ener
al, t
he c
hang
e in
the
com
posi
tion
of fa
culty
The
num
ber
of fa
culty
inve
stig
ator
s in
197
4 is
less
spen
ding
20
perc
ento
r m
ore
of th
eir
time
in r
esea
rch
than
that
for
1968
in o
nly
two
field
s-ec
onom
ics
and
refle
cts
the
chan
ge in
ove
rall
com
posi
tion
of th
eel
ectr
ical
eng
inee
ring.
facu
lty in
thes
e de
part
men
ts.
Fie
ldN
umbe
rof
depa
rtm
ents
Tot
al fa
culty
spen
ding
20
perc
ent o
r m
ore
time
in r
esea
rch
Num
ber
by y
ears
sinc
e do
ctor
ate
Num
ber
with
out
`'
doct
orat
e7
year
sor
less
Mor
e th
an7
year
s
1968
1974
1968
1974
1968
1974
1968
1974
All
field
s'60
211
,749
12,9
815,
032
3,80
26,
375
8,99
434
218
5
Bio
chem
istr
y31
441
527
142
9928
442
415
4B
iolo
gy32
587
661
191
186
384
489
126
Che
mic
al e
ngin
eerin
g52
469
511
177
119
275
377
1715
Che
mis
try
103
2,06
22,
218
776
488
1,27
71,
725
95
Eco
nom
ics
4590
886
237
229
245
353
893
32E
lect
rical
eng
inee
ring
611,
083
1,07
852
529
847
073
388
46M
athe
mat
ics
692,
137
2,41
61,
154
918
954
1,47
829
20M
icro
biol
ogy
2223
626
972
5915
620
78
3P
hysi
cs77
1,95
62,
024
812
394
.1,1
301,
621
149
Phy
siol
ogy
1822
526
374
7413
318
618
3P
sych
olog
y58
1,13
41,
465
510
585
616
872
88
Soc
iolo
gy34
511
687
227
290
243
364
4133
' Bot
any,
geo
logy
, and
zoo
logy
wer
e no
t Inc
' ude
d I n
the
1968
sur
vey
and
th u
s ar
e om
itte
d fr
om th
is ta
ble.
Sou
rce:
Nat
iona
l Sci
ence
Fou
ndat
ion.
Table 8 -19. Proportion of faculty indoctorate-level science and engineering
departments spending 20 percent or moreof their time in research: 1974
(All institutions)
Overall, young doctorate faculty (i.e., those whohue held doctorates for seven years or less) are themost active in research while those without doc-torates are the least active.
In four fields-biochemistry, physiology,microbiology, and physics-more than nine out of10 iactilty are spending 20 percent or more of theirtime in research.
Economics and electrical engineering departmentsreport the lowest proportion of faculty spending 20percent or more of their time in research, just overseven out of 10.
Field
Percent spending 20 perc ent ormore of time in resea ch
Table 13-20. Proportion of faculty indoctorate-level science and engineering
departments spending 20 percent or moreof their time in research: 1974
(Private institutions)
The proportion of faculty spending 20 percent ormore of their time in research is considerably higherfor private institutions than public institutions (88.0percent compared to 81.9 percent).
For most fields in private institutions, greaterproportions of young doctorate faculty than seniordoctorate faculty are spending 20percent or more oftheir time in research. The exceptions are biologyand physiology.
Field
Percent spending 20 percent ormore of time in research
Table 8-20. Proportion of faculty indoctorate-level science and engineering
departments spending 20 percent or moreof their time in research: 1974
(Private institutions)
The proportion of faculty spending 20 percent ormore of their time in research is considerably higherfor private institutions than public institutions (88.0percent compared 1) 81.9 percent).
For most fields in private institutions, greaterproportions of young doctorate faculty than seniordoctorate faculty are spending 20 percent or more oftheir time in research. The exceptions are biologyand physiology.
Field
Percent spending 20 percent ormore of time in research
' Includes botany and zoology departments which are notseparately reported becauso of the small number.
Source: National Science Foundation.
29
Table 8-21. Proportion of faculty indoctorate-level science and engineering
departments spending 20 percent ormore of their time in research: 1974
(Public institutions)
Overall, and in individual fields, the proportions offaculty spending 20 percent or more of their time inresearch are lower for public institutions than forprivate institutions.
In public institutions, greater proportions of youngdoctorate faculty than senior doctorate faculty arespending 20 percent or more of their time in researchfor all fields except sociology.
Field
Percent vending 20 percent ormore of time in research
Table B-22. Proportion of faculty in doctorate-level se miceand engineering departments spending 20 percent or more
of their time in research: 1974 (Departments rated as"distinguished" or "strong" in Roose-Andersen study)
Departments rated as "distinguished" or"strong" in the Roose-Andersen study havegreater proportions of faculty spending 20 percent or more of their time in researchthan other groups of departments.
Table 6-23. Proportion of facutand engineering departments
their time in research: 1974 (fall 1973 full-time g
The overall proportion of faculty spendiresearch is less for these departments thstitutions or for departments rated "diAndersen study but is greater than for all
Field
Percent spending 20 percent or more time in research
All
faculty
Years since doctorate Without
doctorate Field
Percent spendi
7 years or less More than 7 years All Y
All fields' 91.1 95.8 90.3 60.5 faculty 7 years or
Biochemistry 98.7 100.0 98.5 100.0 All fields 84.9 90.1
Table 13-23. Proportion of faculty In doctorate-level scienceand engineering departments spending 20 percent or more of
their time in research: 1974 (20 largest departments Infall 1973 full-time graduate enrollment)
The overall proportion of faculty spending 20 percent or more of their time inresearch is less for these departments than for either all departments in private in-stitutions or for departments rated "distinguished" or "strong" in the Roose-Andersen study but is greater than for all departments in public institutions.
Field
Percent spending 20 percent or more time in research
Table B -24. Proportion of faculty In matched doctorate-level science andengineering departments spending 20 percent or more of their time in research:
1969 and 1974
Compared to 1968, there is a slightly greater overallproportion of faculty spending 20 percent or more oftheir time in research in 1974, but in the followzngfields the 19'4 proportion is less than that for 1968:
biology, chemistry, economics, and physiology. Thefields with tht: greatest increases are chemicalengineering, mathematics, And sociology.
Field Numberof
departments
Percent spending 20 percent or more time in rtxtearch
' Botany, geology, and zor.or.wgy were not includer.i in tha 1968 survey and thus are omitted from this table.Source: National Science Foundation
31
68
Table 8 -25. Composition of faculty investigators' in doctorate-levelscience and engineering departments who are doing research
directly connected with Federal project grants and contracts: 1974(All institutions)
Young faculty (i.e., those who have held doctorates for seven years or less)'tafor one-fourth of those spending at least 20 percent of their time in research an o- )ing research directly connected with Federal project grants and contracts. This issomewhat below the percent of young faculty as a proportion of total faculty.
Departments in five fields-physics, chemistry, mathematics, biochemistry, andelectrical engineering-account for more than one-half (54.5 percent) of the facultyinvestigators doing research directly connected with Federal project grants and con-tracts.
Faculty without doctorates make up only about 1 percent of those doing researchdirectly connected with Federal projects.
Field
Facultyinvesti-gatorsdoing
researchconnected
Years since doctorate Without doctorate
7 years or More than 7withFederal less years
projects Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
2 Includes botany and zoology departments whsmall number.
Source National Science Foundation.
investigators' in doctorate-level.ants who are doing research
ect grants and contracts: 1974)
octorates for seven years or less) accountpercent of their time in research and flo-ral project grants and contracts. This isulty as a proportion of total faculty.
istry, mathematics, biochemistry, andthan one-half (54.5percent) of the faculty
Table B-26. Composition of faculty investigators' in doctorate -levelscience and engineering departments who am doing research directly
connected with Federal project grants and contracts: 1974(Private institutions)
Departments in four fields-physics, mathematics, chemistry, and biology-accountfor more than one-half (51.1 percent) of the faculty investigators doing researchdirectly connected with Federal project grants and contracts.
Field
Facultyinvesti-gatorsdoing
researchconnected
Years since doctorate Without doctorate
with 7 years or More than 7
Federal less years
projects Number Percent Number 'Percent Number Percent
, Those who are soendina 20 percent or more of their time in research
2 Includes botany and zoology departments which are not separately reported because of thesmall number.
Source National Science Foundation.
70
Table B-27. Composition of faculty investigators' in doctorate-levelscience and engineering departments who are doing research directly
connected with Federal project grants and contract= 1974(Public institutions)
Departments in five fields-physics, chemistry, mathematics, biochemistry, andpsychology-account for more than one-half (53.3 percent) of the faculty in-vestigators doing research directly connected with Federal project grants and con-tracts.
Field
Facultyinvesti-gatorsdoing
researchconnected
Years since doct,,rate Without doctorate
with 7 years or More than 7
Federal less years
projects Number) Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Table B -28. Composition of faculty investigators' in doctorate-levelscience and engineering departments who are doing research directly
connected with Federal project grants and contracts: 1974 (Departmentsrated as "distinguished" or "strong" in Roose-Andersen study)
Departments in three fields-physics, mathematics, and chemistry-account fornearly one-half (46.5 percent) of the faculty investigators doi! research directlyconnected with Federal project grants and contracts.
Field
Facultyinvesti-gatorsdoing
researchconnected
wit's
Years since doctorate.
Without doctorate
7 years or More than 7
Fed.ral less years
projects Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1 Those who are soendina 20 percent or more of their time in research.
2 The Roose-Andersen study did not include biology departments as designated in the pres-ent study.
3 Two departments, accounting for 15.3 percent of the faculty investigators in the Roose-A nd ersen-rated sociology departments, did not provide data on the number of their faculty doingresearch connected with federally supported projects.
Source: National Science Foundation.
72
Tab
le B
-29
. Com
posi
tion
of fa
culty
inve
stig
ator
s' In
doc
tora
te -
leve
lsc
ienc
e an
d en
gine
erin
g de
part
men
ts w
ho a
re d
oing
res
earc
h di
rect
lyco
nnec
ted
with
Fed
eral
pro
ject
gra
nts
and
cont
ract
s: 1
974
(20
larg
est d
epar
tmen
ts in
fall
1973
full-
time
grad
uate
enr
ollm
ent)
The
se d
epar
tmen
ts a
ccou
nt fo
r al
mos
t fou
r-te
nths
(38.
7 pe
rcen
t) o
f the
facu
lty in
vest
igat
ors
doin
gre
sear
ch c
onne
cted
with
fede
rally
sup
port
ed p
roj-
ects
. Thi
s is
a h
ighe
r fig
ure
than
thei
r pr
opor
tion
ofal
l fac
ulty
inve
stig
ator
s (3
3.3
perc
ent)
Fie
ld
Fac
ulty
inve
stig
ator
sdo
ing
rese
arch
conn
ecte
dw
ithF
eder
alpr
ojec
ts
.
Yea
rs s
ince
doc
tora
teW
ithou
t doc
tora
te
7 ye
ars
orle
ssM
ore
than
7ye
ars
Num
ber
Per
cent
Num
ber
Per
cent
Num
ber
Per
cent
All
field
s5,
183
1,22
423
.63,
925
75.7
340.
7
Bio
chem
istr
y32
253
16.5
268
83.2
1.3
Bio
logy
454
9621
.135
878
.90
0.0
Bot
any
163
2213
.513
9.85
,32
1.2
Che
mic
al e
ngin
eerin
g18
441
22.3
141
76.6
21.
1
Che
mis
try
455
9520
.936
079
.10
0.0
Eco
nom
ics
190
6433
.712
465
.3.
21.
1
Ele
ctric
al e
ngin
eerin
g49
213
126
.634
670
.315
3.0
Geo
logy
164
3622
.012
777
.41
.6M
athe
mat
ics
649
208
32.0
441
68.0
00.
0M
icro
biol
ogy
250
712&
417
670
.43
1.2
Phy
sics
865
147
17.0
717
82.9
1.1
Phy
siol
ogy
253
6224
.518
773
.94
1.6
Psy
chol
ogy
377
8522
.529
177
.21
.3S
ocio
logy
211
945
37.8
7260
.52
1.7
Zoo
logy
246
6827
.617
872
.40
0.0
.
Tho
se w
ho a
re s
pend
ing
mor
e th
an 2
0 pe
rcen
t of t
heir
time
in r
esea
rch.
,
Sou
rce:
Nat
iona
l Sci
ence
Fou
ndat
ion.
2 In
clud
es d
ata
for
only
18
depa
rtm
ents
. The
two
depa
rtm
ents
not
incl
uded
acc
ount
for
13.6
per
cent
of t
hefa
culty
inve
stig
ator
s in
the
20 s
ocio
logy
dep
artm
ents
.
Tab
le B
-30
. Com
posi
tion
of fa
culty
Inve
stig
ator
s' in
mat
ched
doc
tora
te-le
vel s
cien
ce a
nd e
ngin
eerin
gde
part
men
ts w
ho a
re d
oing
res
earc
h di
rect
ly c
onne
cted
with
Fed
eral
pro
ject
gra
nts
and
cont
ract
s:19
88 a
nd 1
974
The
num
ber
of fa
culty
inve
stig
ator
s do
ing
rese
arch
dire
ctly
con
nect
ed w
ith F
eder
al p
roje
ct g
rant
s an
dco
ntra
cts
decl
ined
by
160
from
196
8 to
197
4 in
spi
teof
the
fact
that
the
num
ber
of fa
culty
inve
stig
ator
s in
-cr
ease
d by
1,2
32 d
urin
g th
is p
erio
d in
thes
e 60
2de
part
men
ts.
The
Incr
ease
for
seni
or 'l
octo
rate
facu
ltyin
-ve
stig
ator
s (i.
e., t
hose
hol
ding
doc
tora
tes
mor
e th
anse
ven
year
s) r
efle
cts
the
over
all c
hang
e in
facu
ltyco
mpo
sitio
n in
thes
e de
part
men
ts.
ci..1
.4
Fac
ulty
inve
stig
ator
sdo
ing
rese
arch
conn
ecte
d w
ith
Num
ber
by y
ears
sinc
e do
ctor
ate
Num
ber
_with
out
___7
_yea
rtor
___
Mor
e M
ani_
All
field
s5,
183
1,22
423
.63,
925
75.7
340.
7
Bio
chem
istr
y32
253
16.5
288
83.2
1.3
Bio
logy
454
9621
.135
878
.90
0.0
Bot
any
163
2213
.513
985
.32
1.2
Che
mic
al e
ngin
eerin
g ...
.18
441
22.3
141
76.6
21.
1
Che
mis
try
455
9520
.936
079
.10
0.0
Eco
nom
ics
190
6433
.712
465
.32
1.1
Ele
ctric
al e
ngin
eerin
g49
213
126
.634
670
.315
3.0
Geo
logy
164
3622
.012
777
.41
.6
Mat
hem
atic
s64
920
832
.044
168
.00
0.0
Mic
robi
olog
y25
071
28.4
176
70.4
31.
2
Phy
sics
865
147
17.0
717
82.9
1.1
Phy
siol
ogy
253
6224
.518
773
.94
1.6
Psy
chol
ogy
377
8522
.529
177
.21
.3
Soc
iolo
gy2
119
4537
.872
60.5
21.
7
Zoo
logy
246
6827
.617
872
.40
0.0
' Tho
se w
ho a
re s
pend
ing
mor
e th
an 2
0 pe
rcen
t of t
heir
time
in r
esea
rch.
k
Sou
rce:
Nat
iona
l Sci
ence
Fou
ndat
ion.
2 In
clud
es d
ata
for
only
18
depa
rtm
ents
. The
two
depa
rtm
ents
not
incl
uded
acc
ount
for
13.6
per
cent
of t
hefa
culty
inve
stig
ator
s in
the
20 s
ocio
logy
dep
artm
ents
.
Tab
le 8
-30.
Com
posi
tion
of fa
culty
inve
stig
ator
s' in
mat
ched
doc
tora
te-le
vel s
cien
ce a
nd e
ngin
eerin
gde
part
men
ts w
ho a
re d
oing
res
earc
h di
rect
ly c
onne
cted
with
Fed
eral
pro
ject
gra
nts
and
cont
ract
s:19
68 a
nd 1
974
The
num
ber
of fa
culty
inve
stig
ator
s do
ing
rese
arch
dire
ctly
con
nect
ed w
ith F
eder
al p
roje
ct g
rant
s an
dco
ntra
cts
decl
ined
by
160
from
196
8 to
197
4 in
spi
teO
f the
fact
that
the
num
ber
of fa
culty
inve
stig
ator
s in
-cr
ease
d by
1,2
32 d
urin
g th
is p
erio
d in
thes
e 60
2de
part
men
ts.
The
incr
ease
for
seni
or d
octo
rate
facu
ltyin
-ve
stig
ator
s (i.
e., t
hose
hol
ding
doc
tora
tes
mor
e th
anse
ven
year
s) r
efle
cts
the
over
all c
hang
e in
facu
ltyco
mpo
sitio
n in
thes
e de
part
men
ts.
Fie
ldN
umbe
rof
depa
rtm
ents
Fac
ulty
inve
stig
ator
sdo
ing
rese
arch
conn
ec e
d w
ithF
eder
al p
roje
cts
Num
ber
by y
ears
sinc
e do
ctor
ate
Num
ber
with
out
doct
orat
e7
year
s or
less
Mor
e th
an 7
year
s
1968
1974
1968
1974
1968
1974
1988
1974
All
field
s=80
27,
596
7,43
62,
942
1,81
34,
524
5,58
513
058
Bio
chem
istr
y31
398
435
122
7928
235
314
3
Bio
logy
3243
642
612
110
131
232
43
1
Che
mic
al e
ngin
eerin
g52
306
344
120
7917
826
08
5
Che
mis
try
103
1,39
31,
284
430
241
959
1,04
34
0
Eco
nom
ics
4520
224
891
7410
317
28
2
Ele
ctric
al e
ngin
eerin
g61
796
778
378
210
380
538
3830
Mat
hem
atic
s69
1,25
41,
152
600
399
844
752
101
Mic
robi
olog
y22
204
209
6145
136
181
73
Phy
sics
771,
531
1,50
559
727
292
41,
229
104
Phy
siol
ogy
1819
821
063
5711
715
018
3
Psy
chol
ogy
5869
565
029
117
940
247
02
1
Soc
iolo
gy34
183
195
6877
107
113
85
Tho
se w
ho a
re s
pend
ing
20pe
rcen
t or
mor
e of
thei
r tim
eIn
res
earc
h.S
ourc
e N
atio
nal S
cien
ce F
ound
atio
n.
Bot
any,
geo
logy
, and
zoo
logy
wer
e no
t inc
lude
d in
the
1968
sur
vey
and
thus
are
om
itted
from
this
tabl
e.
Table B-31. Proportion of faculty investigators' in doctorate-level scienceand engineering departments who are doing research connected with Federal
project grants and contracts: 1974(All institutions)
Overall, a substantially greater proportion of senior doctorate investigators, i.e.,those who have held the doctorate for more than seven years, are doing researchconnected with Federal project grants and contracts compared with their young.doctorate colleagues.
More than seven out of 10 faculty investigators in the following departmental fieldsare doing research connected with federally supported projects: biochemistry,physiology, microbiology, physics, and electrical engineering, compared with fewerthan three out of 10 in departments of economics and sociology.
Table B -32. Proportion of faculty investigators' in doctorate-level scienceand engineering departments who are doing research directly connected
with Federal project grants and contracts: 1974(Private institutions)
Departments in private institutions report a much higher proportion of faculty in-vestigators doing research connected with federally supported projects than dothose in public institutions (67 percent compared to 51.3 percent).
More than five out of six faculty investigators are doing research connected withtederally supported projects in the following fields: biochemistry, microbiology,physics, and physiology.
' Those spending 20 percent or more of their time in research.
2 Includes botany and zoology departments which are not separately reported because of thesmall number.
Source: National Science Foundation.
76
Table B-33. Proportion of faculty investigators' in doctorate-levelscience and engineering departments who are doing research directly
connected with Federal project grants and contracts 1974(Public institutions)
Overall, only slightly more than one-half of the faculty investigators in public in-stitutions are doing research connected with federally supported projects. In termsof individual fields, the highest proportion is in biochemistry, the lowest in sociology.
In all fields except chemical engineering a greater proportion of senior investigatorsthan young investigators are doing research connected with' federally supportedprojects.
Table 6-34. Proportion of faculty investigators' in doctorate-levelscience and engineering departments who are doing research directly
connected with Federal project grants and contracts: 1974(Departments rated as "distinguished" or "strong" in
Roose-Andersen study)
A much greater proportion of faculty investigators in the Roose-Andersen-rateddepartments doing research connected with federally supported projectsthan for alldepartments in general (72.4 percent compared to 55.9 percent).
' Those spending 20 percent or more of their time in research.
2 The Roose-Andersen study did not include biology departments as designated in the pres-ent study.
Source: National Science Foundation.
Tab
le 8
-35.
Pro
port
ion
of fa
culty
inve
stig
ator
s, in
doc
tora
te-le
vel s
cien
ce a
nd e
ngin
eerin
gde
part
men
ts w
ho a
re d
oing
res
earc
h di
rect
ly c
onne
cted
with
Fed
eral
proj
ect g
rant
s an
d co
ntra
cts:
197
4(2
0 la
rges
t dep
artm
ents
in fa
ll 19
73 fu
ll-tim
e gr
adua
te e
nrol
lmen
t)
For
thes
e 30
0 de
part
men
ts th
e pr
opor
tion
of fa
culty
inve
stig
ator
s do
ing
rese
arch
dire
ctly
con
nect
edw
ith fe
dera
lly s
uppo
rted
pro
ject
s is
sub
stan
tially
grea
ter
than
the
figur
efo
ral
lre
spon
ding
depa
rtm
ents
com
bine
d, 6
5.1
perc
ent c
ompa
red
to55
.9 p
erce
nt.
Fic
k!
Per
cent
con
nect
ed w
ith F
eder
al p
roje
cts
Fac
ulty
inve
stig
ator
s
Yea
rs s
ince
doc
tora
te
With
out
doct
orat
e
7 ye
ars
orle
ss(y
oung
)
Mor
e th
an 7
year
s(s
enio
r)
Rat
io(s
enio
r+yo
ung)
All
field
s65
.155
.969
.21.
2432
.7B
ioch
emis
try
88.7
86.9
89.3
1.03
50.0
Bio
logy
70.9
64.4
73.8
1.15
0.0
Bot
any
50.0
28.9
56.7
1.96
40.0
Che
mic
al e
ngin
eerin
g69
.265
.171
.21.
0940
.0C
hem
istr
y73
.775
.473
.5.9
70.
0E
cono
mic
s38
.737
.040
.81.
1014
.3E
lect
rical
eng
inee
ring
78.2
75.3
80.5
1.07
60.0
Geo
logy
53.4
50.0
55.7
1.26
14.3
Mat
hem
atic
s61
.959
.163
.41.
0760
.0M
icro
biol
ogy
77.2
76.3
77.9
1.02
60.0
Phy
sics
93.7
93.8
93.7
1.00
100.
0P
hysi
olog
y79
.373
.881
.71.
1166
.7P
sych
olog
y50
.031
.760
.61.
9116
.7S
ocio
logy
23.4
20.5
26.4
1.29
12.5
Zoo
logy
54.7
56.2
54.8
.98
0.0
1 T
hose
spe
ndin
g 20
per
cent
or
mor
e of
thei
r tim
e in
res
earc
h.S
ourc
e: N
atio
nal S
cien
ce F
ound
atio
n.
Tab
le B
-36
. Pro
port
ion
of fa
culty
inve
stig
ator
s' in
mat
ched
doc
tora
te-le
vel
scie
nce
and
engi
neer
ing
depa
rtm
ents
who
are
doi
ng r
esea
rch
dire
ctly
con
nect
ed w
ith F
eder
alpr
ojec
t gra
nts
and
cont
ract
s:19
68 a
nd 1
974
Com
pare
d w
ith 1
968,
the
data
for
1974
sho
w a
sub
-st
antia
l dec
line
in th
e ov
eral
l pro
port
ion
of fa
culty
inve
stig
ator
s do
ing
rese
arch
dire
ctly
con
nect
ed
with
fede
rally
sup
port
ed p
roje
cts.
How
ever
, in
the
field
s of
che
mic
al e
ngin
eerin
g an
d ec
onom
ics,
the
1974
pro
port
ions
are
gre
ater
than
thos
e fo
r 19
68.
Fie
ldN
umbe
rof
Per
cent
con
nect
ed w
ith F
edet
al p
roje
cts
Fac
ulty
Inve
stig
ator
s
Yea
rs s
ince
doc
tora
te
With
out
doct
orat
e.
7 ye
ars
orle
ss:(
youn
g)
Mor
e th
an 7
;ear
s(s
enio
r)l
Rat
io(S
ad o
r-1-
youn
g)I
I ...
Am
ut
..A
ll fie
lds
65.1
55.9
69.2
1.24
32.7
Bio
chem
istr
y88
.786
.989
.31.
0350
.0B
iolo
gy70
.064
.473
.81.
150.
0B
otan
y50
.028
.956
.71.
96.4
0.0
Che
mic
al e
ngin
eerin
g69
.265
.171
.21.
0940
.0C
hem
istr
y73
.775
.473
.5.9
70.
0E
cono
mic
s31
.737
.040
.81.
1014
.3E
lect
rical
eng
inee
ring
78.2
75.3
80.5
1.07
60.0
Geo
logy
53.4
50.0
55.7
1.26
14.3
Mat
hem
atic
s61
.959
.163
.41.
0760
.0M
icro
biol
ogy
77.2
76.3
77.9
1.02
60.0
Phy
sics
93.7
93.6
93.7
1.00
100.
0P
hysi
olog
y79
.373
.881
.71.
1166
.7P
sych
olog
y50
.031
.760
.61.
9116
.7S
ocio
logy
23.4
20.5
26.4
1.29
12.5
Zoo
logy
54.7
56.2
54.8
.98
0.0
Tho
se s
pend
ing
20 p
erce
nt o
r m
ore
of th
eir
time
in r
esea
rch.
Sou
rce:
Nat
iona
l Sci
ence
Fou
ndat
ion.
Tab
le B
-36.
Pro
port
ion
of fa
culty
inve
stig
ator
s' in
mat
ched
doc
tora
te-le
vel s
cien
ce a
nd e
ngin
eerin
gde
part
men
ts w
ho a
re d
oing
res
earc
h di
rect
ly c
onne
cted
with
Fed
eral
pro
ject
gra
nts
and
cont
ract
s:19
68 a
nd 1
974
Com
pare
d w
ith 1
968,
the
data
for
1974
sho
w a
sub
-st
antia
l dec
line
in th
e ov
eral
l pro
port
ion
of fa
culty
inve
stig
ator
s do
ing
rese
arch
dire
ctly
con
nect
ed
with
fede
rally
sup
port
ed p
roje
cts.
How
ever
, in
the
field
s of
che
mic
al e
ngin
eerin
g an
d ec
onom
ics,
the
1974
pro
port
ions
are
gre
ater
than
thos
e fo
r 19
68.
Fie
ldN
umbe
rof
Per
cent
con
nect
ed w
ith F
eder
al p
roje
cts
Fac
ulty
inve
stga
tors
Yea
rs s
ince
doc
tora
te
With
out
doct
orat
e
7 ye
ars
orle
ss(y
oung
)
Mor
e th
an 7
year
s(s
enio
r)
Rat
io(s
enio
r÷yo
ung)
depa
rtm
ents
1968
1974
1968
1974
1968
1974
1968
1974
1968
1974
All
field
s260
264
.757
.358
.547
.771
.061
.91.
211.
3038
.031
.4
Bio
chem
istr
y31
90.2
82.5
85.9
79.8
92.3
83.3
1.07
1.04
93.3
75.0
Bio
logy
3274
.364
.463
.454
.381
.369
.11.
281.
2725
.018
.7C
hem
ical
eng
inee
ring
5265
.267
.367
.866
.464
.769
.00.
951.
0447
.133
.3C
hem
istr
y10
367
.657
.955
.449
.475
.160
.51.
361.
2244
.40.
0E
cono
mic
s45
22.2
28.8
24.5
25.3
22.7
32.0
1.56
1.26
9.6
6 ':.
Ele
ctric
al e
ngin
eerin
g61
73.5
72.2
72.0
70.5
80.9
73.4
1.12
1.04
43.2
63.0
Mat
hem
atic
s69
58.7
47.7
52.0
43.5
67.5
50.9
1.30
1.17
34.5
5.0
Mic
robi
olog
y22
86.4
77.7
84.7
76.3
87.2
77.8
1.03
1.02
87.5
100.
0P
hysi
cs77
78.3
74.4
73.5
69.0
81.8
75.8
1.11
1.10
71.4
44.4
Phy
siol
ogy
1888
.079
.985
.177
.088
.089
.61.
031.
0510
0.0
100.
0P
sych
olog
y58
61.3
44.4
57.1
30.6
65.3
53.9
1.14
1.76
25.0
12.5
Soc
iolo
gy34
35.8
28.4
30.0
26.6
44.0
31.0
1.47
1.17
19.5
15.2
Tho
se s
pend
ing
20 p
erce
nt o
r m
ore
of th
eir
time
in r
esea
rch.
2 B
otan
y, g
eolo
gy, a
nd z
oolo
gy w
ere
not i
nclu
ded
in th
e19
68 s
urve
y an
d th
us a
re o
mitt
ed fr
om th
is ta
ble.
Sou
rce:
Nat
iona
l Sci
ence
Fou
ndat
ion.
Table 8-37. Proportion of research fundscoming to doctorate-levelscience and engineering departents from sources other
than Federal research project funds: 1974(Ail institutions)
For all but 17 percent of the departments, Federal The greatest proportion of departments reresearch project funds account for more than one- that one-half or more of their research fundhalf of all research funds available. from sources other than Federal research
funds are economics, 35.6 percent; sociololpercent; and botany, 31.6 percent.
Field rind proportion ofresearch funds corning fromsources other than Federal
research project funds
Numberof
departments
All fields '1,361Less than 10 percent 53410 to 29 percent 42230 to 49 percent 173
50 percent or more 232
Biochemistry 112Less than 10 percent 4410 to 29 percent 4430 to 49 percent 11
50 percent or more 13
Biology 75Less than 10 percent 3010 to 29 percent 3230 to 49 percent 5
50 percent or more 8
Botany 38Less than 10 percent 14
10 to 29 percent 630 to 49 percent 650 percent or more 12
Chemical engineering 82Less than 10 percent 810 to 29 percent 3830 to 49 percent 21
50 percent or more 15
Percent
100.039.231.012.717.0
100.039.339.39.8
11.6
100.040.042.76.7
10.7
100.036.815.815.831.6
100.09.8
46.325.618.3
' Five of 1,366 departments did not provide data for this item,and they have been omitted from this analysis.
Source: National Science Foundation.
.A.81
Field and proportion ofresearch funds coming fromsources other than Federal
research project funds
Numberof
departments Percent
Chemistry 128 100.0
Less than 10 percent 24 18.8
10 to 29 percent 59 46.1
30 to 49 percent 26 20.3
50 percent or more 19 14.8
Economics 87 100.0
Less than 10 percent 22 25.3
10 to 29 percent 23 26.4
30 to 49 percent 11 12.6
50 percent or more 31 35.6
Electrical engineering 91 100.0
Less than 10 percent 46 50.5
10 to 29 percent 25 27.5
30 to 49 percent 12 13.2
50 percent or more 8 8.8
Geo/or, 82 100.0
Less than 10 percent 35 42.7
10 to 29 percent 24 29.3
30 to 49 percent 11 13.4
50 percent or more 12 14.6
Mathematics 107 100.0
Less than 10 percent 70 65.4
10 to 29 percent 13 12.1
30 to 49 percent 5 4.7
50 percent or more 19 17.8
38
Field andresearch fundsources other
research pr
MicrobiologyLess than 1010 to 29 perci30 to 49 percr50 percent or
PhysicsLess than 1010 to 29 pert30 to 49 pert50 percent or
Physiology ..,Less than 1010 to 29 perCr30 to 49 pera50 percent or
PsychologyLess than 1010 to 29 pew30 to 49 per°50 percent or
Sociology ...Less than 1010 to 29 pew30 to 49 per°50 percent or
ZoologyLess than 1010 to 29 pont30 to 49 paw50 percent or
Vt.
Table 8-37. Proportion of research funds coming to doctorate-levelscience and engineering departments from sources other
than Federal research project funds: 1974(All institutions)
but 17 percent of the departments, Federalh project funds account for more than one-all research funds available.
The greatest proportion of departments reportingthat one-half or more of their research funds comefrom sources other than Federal research projectfunds are economics, 35.6 percent; sociology, 32.2percent; and botany, 31.6 percent
Field and proportion ofresearch funds coming fromsources other than Federal
Percent research project funds
Numberof
departments
Field and proportion ofresearch funds coming fromsources other than Federal
Percent research project funds
Numberof
departments Percent
100.0 Chemistry 128 100.0 Microbiology 107 100.039.2 Less than 10 percent ...... 24 18.8 Less than 10 percent 46 43.0
31.0 10 to 29 percent 59 46.1 10 to 29 percent 42 39.3
12.7 30 to 49 percent 26 20.3 30 to 49 percent 9 8.417.0 50 percent or more . ..... .. 19 14.8 50 percent or more 10 9.3
100.0 Economics 87 100.0 Physics 126 100.0
39.3 Less than 10 percent 22 25.3 Less than 10 percent 69 54.8
39.3 10 to 29 percent 23 26.4 10 to 29 percent 24 13.0
9.8 30 to 49 percent 11 12.6 30 to 49 percent 13 10.3
11.6 50 percent or more ... ..... 31 35.6 50 percent or more 20 15.3
100.0 Electrical engineering40.0 Less than 10 percent
91
46100.0 Physiology50 5 Less than 10 percent
8439
100.046.4
42.7 10 to 29 percent 25 27.5 10 to 29 percent 22 26.26.7 30 to 49 percent 12 13.2 30 to 49 percent 11 13.1
10.7 50 percent or more 8 8.8 50 percent or more 12 14.3
100.0 Geology 82 100.0 Psychology 111 100.0
36.8 Less than 10 percent 35 42.7 Less than 10 percent 41 36.9
15.8 10 to 29 percent 24 29.3 10 to 29 percent 42 37.8
15.8 30 to 49 percent 11 13.4 30 to 49 percent 10 9.0
31.6 50 percent or more 12 5 50 percent or more 18 16.2
100.0 Mathematics 107 100.0 Sociology 90 103.0
9.8 Less than 10 percent 70 65.4 Less than 10 percent 30 33.3
46.3 10 to 29 percent 13 1Z1 10 to 29 percent 13 14.4
25.6 30 to 49 percent 5 4.7 30 to 49 percent 18 20.0
163 50 percent or more 19 17 8 50 percent or more 29 32.2
Zoology 4'1 100.0
Les:. dean 10 percent 16 39.0
forth is item, 10 to 29 percent 15 36.630 to 49 percent 4 9.850 percent or more 6 14.6
38
82
Table FI-38. Appropriateness of the split of research fundsbetween young and senior faculty' in doctorate-level science
and engineering departments: 1974(All institutions)
For all fields combined, 72.1 percent of the department heads state that the currentsplit of research funds is appropriate for both young and senior faculty. For in-dividual fields, the figures range from a low of 6J.6 percent for mathematics to a highof 80.4 percent for biology.
In general, young faculty are five times as likely as senior faculty to be considereddisadvantaged in the split of research funds.
Senior faculty in chemical engineering, economics, mathematics, and zoology areseen as being somewhat more disadvantaged than their colleagues in other fields.
Includes botany and zoology departmersmall number.
Source: Itlional Sciencs Foundation.
of the split of research fundsfaculty' in doctorate-level science
departments: 1974
of the department heads state that the currentto for both young and senior faculty. For in-a low of 63.6 percent for mathematics to a high
as likely as senior faculty to be consideredh fund&
ng, economics, mathematics, and zoology areantaged than their colleagues in other fields.
ercent of departments indicating-
Splitropriate
72.1
80.464.068.4
Split r.ot appropriate;disadvantaged group is-
74.472.171.3
68.172.063.675.779.473.870.367.078.0
75.228.028.9
15.921.718.4
25.322.024.519.616.722.627.924.214.6
Senior
4.3
3.65.30.0
8.53.98.0
6.62.47.32.83.22.4.9
3.37.3
Percentnot
responding
2.0
.92.72.6
1.22.32.3
0.03.74.51.9.8
1.2.9
5.50.0
doctorates for more than 7 years.
39
Table B-39. Appropriateness of the split of research fundsbetween young and senior faculty' in doctorate -level science
and engineering departmentic 1974(Private institutions)
A somewhat greater proportion of young faculty in private institutions is viewed asdisadvantaged in the split of research funds than is the case for theircounterparts inpublic institutions. The situation for senior faculty is just the reverse with the disad-vantaged proportion being less for private institutions.
Barely more than one-half of the biology department heads view the current split ofresearch funds as appropriate.
Senior faculty are those who have held doctorates for more than 7 years.
2 Includes botany and zoology departments which are not separately reported because of thesmall number.
Source: Nation; I Science Foundation.
84
Table B-40. Appropriateness of the split of research fundsbetween young and senior faculty' in doctwaie-ievel
science and engineering deparbnentt 1974(Public institutions)
The proportioh of department heads viewing the current split of research fundsbetween young and senior faculty as appropriate is somewhat greater for public thanprivate institutions 72.8 percent compared with 70.7 percent
Mathematics departments, more than others, indicate that the current split ofresearch funds is not appropriate. Senior faculty are the disadvantaged group in 10percent of these departments.
Senior faculty are those who hair d doctorates for more than 7 years.
2 The R oose-Andersen study did notW;ludebiologlfdepartments as designated in the preseL 1study.
Source: National Science Foundation.
86
Table B-42. Apprzpdateness of the split of research fundsbetween young and senior faculty' in doctorate-level scienceand engineering deparbeents: 1974 (20 largest departments in
fall 1973 full-time graduate enrollment)
Only a bare majority of departments of botany and electrical engineering see thecurrent split of research funds as appropriate in contrast to departments ofbiochemistry, chemistry, physics, and zoology, where most find the current split ap-propriate.
FieldNumber
ofdepartments
Percent of departments indicating-
Percent
notrespondingappropriate
Split dot appropriate;disadvantaged rdtip i5-isadvan taged g
' Senior faculty are those who have2 Botany, geology. and zoology were not
this table01 the 602 departments represented
supplied information on this topic.Source National Science Foundation..
L
of the spilt of research fundsfeadtr in decimate-Wel science
1074 (20 largest departments ingraduate enrollment)
of botany and electrical engineering see theappropriate in contrast to departments ofzoology, where most find the current split ap-
orcent of departments indicating-
Splitropriate
71.7
Split not appropriate;disadvantaged group is-
Percentnot
responding
85.070.055.0
55.075.065.070.085.065.075.075.085.0
25.010.030.0
35.025.025.025.010.030.025.020.05.0
10.05.00.0
SO0.0
10.0
10.00.05.05.00.00.00.0
2.0
0.00.05.0
0.05.00.0
0.00.05.00.05.05.00.05.00.0
doctorates for more rum 7 y
87
Table B-43. Appropriateness If the split of research funds betweenyoung and senior faculty' in matched doctorate -level science and
engineering department= 1960 and 1974
In general, there has been an increase in the proportion of departments consideringthe split of research funds to be appropriate. The greatest increase is for chemistry.Substantial decre ises are noted in economics and psychology.
' Senior faCulty are those who have held doctorates for more than 7 years.2 Botany, geology, and zoology were not included in the 1968 survey and thusare omitted from
this table.3 Of the 602 departments represented in both 1963 and 1974 surveys, 577 or 95.8 percent
supplied information on this topic.Source: National Science Foundation.
41
v
1
88
A
Lt
Table B-44. Proportion of all research funds going to young'faculty in doctorate-level science and engineering departments: 1974
(All institutions)
More than one-half of the departments report that young faculty are receiving lessthan 25 percent of all research funds.
Field Number ofdepartments
Percent of departments by proportionof research funds going to young faculty
Young faculty are those who have held doctorates for 7 years or less.2 68 departments. or 5.0 percent of the total, have no young faculty. Lack of young faculty ac-
counts in large measure for the high percents reported under "None" for chemical engineering.microbiology, and physics.Source: National Science Foundation.
.142
Table 9-45. Opinions of heads ofdepartments' concerning appropriate
f(All in
In general, departments heads appear,funds going to young faculty shouldfaculty.
Young faculty are those who have held doctorates for 7 years or less68 departments or 5 0 oercent of the total. have no young faculty Lack of young faculty ac-
counts ,n large measure for the high percents reported under "None" for chemical engineering.microbiology. and physicsSource National Science Foundation
42
Table B-45. Opinions of heads of docdepartments' concerning appropriate p
faculty:(All instil
In general, departments heads appear tlfunds going to young faculty should reflEfaculty.
torates for 7 years or less.ve no young faculty. Lack of r ng faculty ac-rted under "None" for chemk i engineering,
42
89
Table B-45. Opinions of heads of doctorate-level science and engineeringdepartments' concerning appropriate proportion of research funds fo r young2
... faculty: 1974(All institutions)
In general, departments heads appear to believe that the proportion of researchfunds going to young faculty should reflect the proportion of young faculty to totalfaculty.
' Opinions were solicited only from department heads who stated that the current split ofresearch funds between young and senior faculty is not appropriate.
2 Young faculty are those who have held doctorates for 7 years or less.Source: National Science Foundation.
9')o
Table B-46. Opinions of heads of doctorate-level 'science and engineeringdepartments' concerning creation of special Federal research support
programs specifically limited to young2 or senior faculty: 1974(All institutions)
For all fields combined, a majority of department heads favor the creation of specialFederal programs limited to young faculty. There is little support for similarprograms limited to senior faculty.
Seven out of 10 of those favoring creation of special Federal programs believe thatsome funds should be earmarked for special equipment.
' Opinions were solicited only from departmenkeads who stated tfult the current split ofarch funds between young and slnior faculty is not appropriate.
ForYnda on.;
I2 Young faculty arethose wh ha te held doctorites for 7 years or le*.
irce: National St.lenclk s ;1 1
I
43
91
Tab
le B
-47.
Opi
nion
s of
hea
ds o
f doc
tora
teJi
mel
sci
ence
and
eng
inee
ring
depa
rtm
ents
con
cern
ing
abili
ty o
f fac
ulty
inve
stig
ator
s' g
ener
ally
to s
ecur
e su
ppor
t in
rese
arch
are
as o
f the
ir ow
nch
oosi
ng: 1
974
(All
inst
itutio
ns)
Ove
ralt
1114
11T
Irm
ore
than
one
-hal
f of t
he d
epar
t-m
oatle
adst
apor
t tha
t fac
ulty
inve
stig
ator
s ge
nera
l-..-
.4"*
".1;
are
abl
e to
sec
ure
supp
ort i
n re
sear
ch a
reas
of
thei
r ow
n ch
oosi
ng, w
ith y
oung
inve
stig
ator
s do
ing
a lit
tle b
ette
r th
an th
eir
seni
or c
olle
ague
s.
In m
athe
mat
ici t
he s
ituat
ion
is p
artic
ular
ly a
cute
,w
ith r
igar
ly..t
wow
third
s of
the
depa
rtm
ents
rep
ortin
g
t
that
facu
lty in
vest
igat
ors
gene
rally
are
not
abl
e to
Sec
ure
supp
ort i
n re
sear
ch a
reas
of t
heir
own
choo
s-in
g.
Acr
oss
the
boar
d, d
epar
tmen
t hea
ds c
onsi
der
the
in-
abili
ty o
f fac
ulty
inve
stig
ator
s to
sec
ure
supp
ort i
nre
sear
ch a
reas
of t
heir
own
choo
sing
to L
a a
maj
orpr
oble
m.
Fie
ld
.00-
Num
ber
ofde
part
men
tsw
ith-
Abl
e to
sec
ure
supp
ort i
nre
sear
ch a
reas
of o
wn
choo
sing
NO
T a
ble
to s
ecur
e su
ppor
t in
rese
arch
are
a of
ow
n ch
oosi
ngP
erce
nt o
fde
part
men
tsno
tre
spon
ding
You
ngS
enio
r
Per
cent
con
sloo
ring
this
to b
e a
maj
orpr
oble
m fo
r-
You
ng2
Sen
ior
You
ngS
enio
rY
oung
Sen
ior
You
ngS
enio
r
All
field
&1,
292
1,35
755
.554
.842
.643
.988
.483
.21.
91.
3
Bio
c,ac
erni
stry
105
112
69.5
66.1
25.7
32.1
96.3
91.7
4.8
1.8
Bio
logy
.....
.rew
7475
73.0
65.3
27.0
33.3
85.0
88.0
0.0
1.3
Bot
any
3638
50.n
65.8
44.4
31.6
75.0
91.7
5.6
2.6
Che
rnjw
/ong
inee
ring
7382
53.4
50.0
43.8
48.8
87.5
80.0
2.7
1.2
Che
mis
try
...6
127
129
51.2
41.9
48.0
58.1
88.5
82.7
.80.
0E
cono
mic
s84
8557
.161
.241
.736
.582
.974
.21.
22.
4E
lect
rical
eng
inee
ring
8788
55.2
54.5
43:7
45.5
79.0
80.0
1.2
0.0
Ceo
logy
.76
8248
.758
.550
.039
.084
.278
.11.
32.
4M
athe
mat
ics
107
110
36.4
37.3
62.6
60.9
85.1
.76
.1.9
1.8
Mic
robi
olog
y...
9710
656
.757
.540
.241
.594
.990
.93.
1.9
Phy
stcs
,4.
,.;,..
116
126
60.3
42.9
37.9
57.1
86.4
81.9
1.7
0.0
'?tiy
-slo
logy
7784
61.0
64.3
37.7
35.7
96.6
80.0
1.3
0.0
rzyc
.:-11
0117
...10
510
951
.459
.646
.739
.403
.G86
.11.
9.9
Soc
icrlo
gy89
9051
.757
.844
.938
.990
.091
.43.
43.
3Z
oolo
gy39
4161
.561
.038
.534
.193
.392
.90.
04.
9.-
----
i.....
- --
41`t
are
spen
ding
20
perc
ent o
r m
ore
Of t
heir
time
in;r
esea
rch.
2 Y
oung
inve
stig
ator
s ar
e th
ose
who
hav
e he
lddo
ctor
ates
for
7 ye
ars
or le
ss.
Fou
ndat
ion.
Sou
rce:
Nat
iona
l Sci
ence
ble
B-4
8. O
pini
ons
of h
eads
of d
octo
rate
-leve
l sci
ence
and
eng
inee
ring
depa
rtm
ents
:='
abili
ty o
f fac
ulty
inve
stig
ator
s' g
ener
ally
to s
ecur
e su
ppor
t in
rese
arch
area
s of
thei
r ow
n ch
oosi
ng: 1
974
(Priv
ate
inst
itutio
ns)
10-7
.5et
ipar
tmen
ts in
priv
ate
inst
itutio
ns r
epor
t slig
htly
less
diff
icul
ty th
an th
ose
in p
ublic
inst
itutio
ns in
the
abili
ty o
f fac
ulty
inve
stig
ator
s to
sec
ure
supp
ort i
nre
sear
ch a
reas
of t
heir
own
choo
sing
.
For
priv
ate
inst
itutio
ns, t
he g
roup
s ha
ving
the
grea
test
diff
icul
ties
in s
ecur
ing
supp
ort i
n re
sear
char
eas
of th
eir
own
choo
sing
are
you
ng fa
culty
in-
vest
igat
ors
in c
hem
ical
eng
inee
ring
and
seni
orfa
culty
inve
stig
ator
s in
che
mis
try.
...
i
Fie
ldN
umbe
r of
depa
rtm
ents
with
-
Abl
e to
sec
ure
.su
ppor
t In
'rese
arch
are
asof
ow
n ch
oosi
ng
NO
T a
ble
to s
ecur
e su
ppor
t In
rese
arch
are
a of
ow
n ch
oosi
ngP
erce
nt o
f1
depa
rtm
ents
not
resp
ondi
ng
You
ngS
enio
r
Per
cent
con
side
ring
this
to b
e a
maj
orpr
oble
m fo
r-Y
oung
2S
enio
rY
oung
Sen
ior
You
ng*
I Sen
ior
You
ngS
enio
r
0 ow
n c
oo n
gY
oung
Sen
ior
You
ng'
Sen
ior
You
ngS
enio
rY
oung
Sen
ior
You
ngS
enio
r
All
field
r.1,
292
1,35
755
.554
.842
.643
.988
.483
.21.
91.
3
Bio
chem
istr
y10
511
269
.566
.125
.732
.196
.391
.74.
81.
8
Bio
logy
7475
7a0
65.3
27.0
33.3
85.0
88.0
0.0
1.3
Bot
any
3638
50.0
65.8
44.4
31.6
75.0
91.7
5.6
2.6
Che
mic
al e
ngin
eerin
g73
8253
.450
.043
.848
.887
.580
.02.
71.
2
Che
mis
try
127
.129
51.2
41.9
48.0
58.1
88.5
82.7
.80.
0E
cono
mic
s84
8557
.161
.241
.736
.582
.974
.21.
22.
4
Ele
ctric
al e
ngin
eerin
g87
8855
.254
.543
.745
.579
.080
.01.
20.
0G
eolo
gy76
8248
.758
.550
.039
.084
.278
.11.
32.
4M
athe
mat
ics
107
110
36.4
37.3
62.6
60.9
85.1
76.1
.91.
8M
icro
biol
ogy
9710
656
.757
.540
.241
.594
.990
.93.
1.9
Phy
sics
116
126
60.3
42.9
37.9
57.1
86.4
81.9
1.7
0.0
Phy
siol
ogy
7784
.61
.064
.337
.735
.796
.680
.01.
30.
0P
sych
olog
y10
510
951
.459
.646
.739
.498
.086
.11.
9.9
Soc
iolo
gy89
9051
.757
.844
.938
.990
.091
.43.
43.
3
Zoo
logy
3941
61.5
61.0
38.5
34.1
93.3
92.9
0.0
4.9
Tho
se s
pend
ing
20 p
erce
nt o
r m
ore
of h
eir
time
inre
sear
ch.
2 Y
oung
inve
stig
ator
s ar
e th
ose
who
hav
e he
lddo
ctor
ates
for
7 ye
ars
or le
ss.
Sou
rce:
Nat
iona
l Sci
ence
Fou
ndat
ion.
Tab
le B
-48.
Opi
nion
s of
hea
ds o
f doc
tora
te-le
vel s
cien
ce a
nd e
ngin
eerin
gde
part
men
ts.
conc
erni
ng a
bilit
y of
facu
lty in
vest
igat
ors,
gen
eral
ly to
sec
ure
supp
ort I
nre
sear
char
eas
of th
eir
own
choo
sing
: 197
4 (P
rivat
ein
stitu
tions
)
Dep
artm
ents
in p
rivat
e in
stitu
tions
rep
ort s
light
lyle
ss d
iffic
ulty
than
thos
e in
pub
lic in
stitu
tions
in th
eab
ility
of f
acul
ty in
vest
igat
ors
to s
ecur
e su
ppor
t in
rese
arch
are
as o
f the
ir ow
n ch
oosi
ng.
For
priv
ate
inst
itutio
ns, t
he g
roup
s ha
ving
the
grea
test
diff
icul
ties
in s
ecur
ing
supp
ort-
in r
esea
rch
area
s of
thei
r ow
n ch
oosi
ng a
re y
oung
facu
ltyjn
-ve
stig
ator
s in
che
mic
al e
ngin
eerin
g an
d se
nior
facu
lty in
vest
igat
ors
in c
hem
istr
y.
..... F
ield
Num
ber
ofde
part
men
tsw
ith-
Abl
e to
sec
ure
supp
ort i
n1
rese
arch
are
asof
ow
n ch
oosi
ng
NO
T a
ble
to s
ecur
e su
ppor
t in
rese
arch
are
a of
ow
n ch
oosi
ngP
erce
nt o
fde
part
men
tsno
tre
spon
ding
You
ngS
enio
r
Per
cent
.con
side
ring
this
to b
e a
maj
orpr
oble
m fo
rY
oung
'S
enio
rY
oung
Sen
ior
You
ngS
enio
rY
oung
Sen
ior
All
field
s'41
042
155
.657
.442
.441
.090
.285
.62.
01.
6
Bio
chem
istr
y33
3566
.777
.127
.320
.010
0.0
85.7
6.1
2.9
Bio
logy
3435
70.6
65.7
29.4
31.4
90.0
100.
00.
02.
9C
hem
ical
eng
inee
ring
2124
33.3
50.0
61.9
45.8
92.3
81.8
4.8
4.2
Che
mis
try
4345
46.5
31.1
53.5
68.9
82.6
83.9
0.0
0.0
Eco
nom
ics
3030
40.0
53.3
56.7
43.3
94.1
92.3
3.3
3.3
Ele
ctric
al e
ngin
eerin
g26
2753
.851
.948
.248
.275
.084
.80.
00.
0G
eolo
gy25
2748
.055
.652
.040
.784
.672
.70.
03.
7M
athe
mat
ics
3840
55.3
62.5
44.7
37.5
94.1
80.0
0.0
0.0
Mic
robi
olog
y26
2961
.562
.134
.637
.910
0.0
100.
03.
80.
0P
hysi
cs40
4567
.548
.930
.051
.183
.382
.62.
50.
0P
hysi
olog
y25
3168
.074
.232
.025
.810
0.0
87.5
0.0
0.0
Psy
chol
ogy
3840
50.0
60.0
47.4
37.5
90.4
80.0
2.6
2.5
Soc
iolo
gy28
2957
.162
.139
.334
.590
.990
.03.
63.
4
' Tho
se s
pend
ing
20 p
erce
nt o
r m
ore
of th
eir
time
inre
sear
ch.
2 Y
oung
facu
lty in
vest
igat
ors
are
thos
e w
hoha
ve h
eld
doct
orat
e fo
r 7
year
s or
less
.In
clud
es b
otan
y
and
zool
ogy
depa
rtm
ents
whi
ch a
re n
ot s
epar
atel
y re
port
edbe
caus
e of
the
smal
l num
ber.
Sou
rce:
Nat
iona
l Sci
ence
Fou
ndat
ion.
Tab
le B
-49.
Opi
nion
s of
hea
ds o
f doc
tora
te-le
vel s
cien
ce a
nd e
ngin
eerin
g de
part
men
tsco
ncer
ning
abi
lity
of fa
culty
inve
stig
ator
s, g
ener
ally
to s
ecur
e su
ppor
t in
rese
arch
area
s of
thei
r ow
n ch
oosi
ng: 1
974
(Pub
lic in
stitu
tions
)
Sen
ior
facu
lty in
vest
igat
ors
in p
ublic
inst
itutio
nsap
pear
to b
e ha
ving
som
ewha
t mor
e di
fficu
lty th
anth
eir
colle
ague
s in
priv
ate
inst
itutio
ns in
sec
urin
gsu
ppor
t in
rese
arch
are
as o
f the
ir ow
n ch
oosi
ng.
Nea
rlyth
ree-
four
ths
ofth
e m
athe
mat
ics
depa
rtm
ents
in p
ublic
inst
itutio
ns r
epor
t tha
t the
irfa
culty
inve
stig
ator
s, b
oth
youn
g an
d se
nior
, are
not
able
to s
ecur
e re
sear
ch s
uppo
rt in
are
as o
f the
irow
nch
oosi
ng.
Fie
ldN
umbe
r of
depa
rtm
ents
with
-
Abl
e to
sec
ure
supp
ort i
nre
sear
ch a
reas
of o
wn
choo
sing
NO
T a
ble
to s
ecur
e su
ppor
t in
rese
arch
are
a of
ow
n ch
oosi
ngP
erce
nt o
fde
part
men
tsno
tre
spon
ding
You
ngS
enio
r
Per
cent
con
side
ring
this
to b
e a
maj
orpr
oble
m fo
r-Y
oung
2S
enio
rY
oung
Sen
ior
You
ngS
enio
rY
oung
Sen
ior
All
field
s88
291
655
.453
.642
.645
.387
.582
.21.
91.
2B
icth
emis
try
72n
70.8
61.0
,25
.037
.794
.493
.14.
21.
3B
iolo
gy40
4075
.065
.025
.035
.080
.078
.60.
00.
0B
otan
y35
3648
.663
.945
.733
.375
.091
.7t5
.72.
8C
hem
ical
eng
inee
ring
5258
61.5
- 50
.036
.550
.084
.279
.31.
90.
0C
hem
istr
y84
8453
.647
.645
.252
.492
.181
.81.
20.
0E
cono
mic
s54
5566
.765
.533
.332
.772
.261
.10.
01.
8E
lect
rical
eng
inee
ring
e.61
55.7
55.7
42.6
44.3
80.8
77.8
1.6
0.0
Geo
loi
5155
49.0
60.0
49.0
38.2
84.0
81.0
2.0
1.8
Mat
hem
atic
s69
7026
.122
.972
.574
.382
.075
.01.
42.
9M
icro
biol
ogy
7177
54.9
55.8
42.3
42.9
93.3
87.9
2.8
1.3
Phy
sics
7681
56.6
39.5
42.1
60.5
87.5
81.6
1.3
0.0
Phy
siol
ogy
5253
57.7
58.5
40.4
41.5
95.2
77.3
1.9
0.0
Psy
chol
ogy
6769
52.2
59.4
46.3
40.6
100.
089
.31.
50.
0S
ocio
logy
6161
49.2
55.7
47.5
41.0
89.7
92.0
3.3
3.3
Zoo
logy
3739
64.9
64.1
35.1
30.8
92.3
91.7
0.0
5.1
Tho
sl s
pend
ing
20 p
erce
nt o
r m
ore
of th
eir
time
inha
ve h
eld
doct
orat
es fo
r 7
year
s or
less
.re
sear
ch.
2 Y
oung
facu
lty in
vest
igat
ors
are
thos
e w
hoS
cien
ce F
ound
atio
n.S
ourc
e N
atio
nal
Tab
le B
-50.
Opi
nion
s of
hea
ds o
f doc
tora
te-le
vel s
cien
ce a
nd e
ngin
eerin
g de
part
men
tsco
ncer
ning
abi
lity
of fa
culty
inve
stig
ator
s' g
ener
ally
to s
ecur
e su
ppor
t in
rese
arch
area
s of
thei
r ow
n ch
oosi
ng: 1
974
(Dep
artm
ents
rat
ed a
s "d
istin
guis
hed"
or
"str
ong"
in R
oose
-And
erso
n st
udy)
Ove
rall,
nea
rly tw
o-th
irds
of th
e de
part
men
ts in
this
grou
p re
port
that
thei
r fa
culty
inve
stig
ator
s ar
ege
nera
lly a
ble
to s
ecur
e su
ppor
t in
rese
arch
are
as o
fth
eir
own
choo
sing
.
You
ng fa
culty
inve
stig
ator
s in
bot
any
and
seni
orfa
culty
inve
stig
ator
s in
che
mic
al e
ngin
eerin
g ap
pear
to b
e ha
ving
sub
stan
tial d
iffic
ultie
s in
sec
urin
g su
p-po
rt in
res
earc
h ar
eas
of th
eir
own
choo
sing
.
NO
T a
ble
to s
ecur
e su
ppor
t in
Abl
e to
sec
ure
rese
arch
are
a of
ow
n ch
oosi
ngP
erce
nt o
fN
umbe
r of
supp
ort i
nP
erce
nt c
onsi
derin
gde
part
men
tsF
ield
depa
rtm
ents
with
-re
sear
ch a
reas
of c
wn
choo
sing
this
to b
e a
maj
orpr
oble
m fo
r-no
tre
spon
ding
You
ne2
I Sam
arY
aw=
I S
anin
rIfn
i' ne
t-
Sani
nrle
naus
etV
AR
biam
aan
I
You
ng2
Sen
ior
You
ngS
enio
rY
oung
Sen
ior
Yor
ing
Sen
ior
You
ngS
enio
r
All
field
s88
291
655
.4"
53.5
42.6
,45
.387
.582
.21.
91.
2
Bio
chem
istr
y72
7770
.861
.025
.037
.794
.493
.14.
21.
3
Bio
logy
4040
75.0
65.0
25.0
35.0
80.0
78.6
0.0
0.0
Bot
any
3536
48.6
63.9
45.7
33.3
75.0
91.7
5.7
2.8
Che
mic
al e
ngin
eerin
g52
5861
.5-
50.0
36.5
50.0
84.2
79.3
1.9
0.0
Che
mis
try
8484
53.6
47.6
45.2
52.4
92.1
81.8
1.2
0.0
Eco
nom
ics
5455
66.7
65.5
33.3
32.7
72.2
61.1
0.0
1.8
Ele
ctric
al e
ngin
eerin
g61
6155
.755
.742
.644
.380
.877
.81.
80.
0G
eolo
gy51
5549
.060
.049
.038
.284
.081
.02.
01.
8M
athe
mat
ics
6970
26.1
22.9
72.5
74.3
82.0
75.0
1.4
2.9
Mic
robi
olog
y71
7754
.955
.842
.342
.993
.387
.92.
81.
3
Phy
sics
7681
56.6
39.5
42.1
60.5
87.5
81.6
1.3
0.0
Phy
siol
ogy
5253
57.7
58.5
40.4
41.5
95.2
77.3
1.9
0.0
Psy
chol
ogy
6769
52.2
59.4
46.3
40.6
100.
089
.31.
50.
0
Soc
iolo
gy61
6149
.255
.747
.541
.089
.792
.03.
33.
3Z
oolo
gy37
39f:-
4.9
64.1
35.1
30.8
92.3
91.7
0.0
5.1
Tho
se s
pend
ing
20 p
erce
nt o
r m
ore
of th
eir
time
inre
sear
ch.
2 Y
oung
facu
lty in
vest
igat
ors
are
thos
e w
hoS
cien
ce F
ound
atio
n.ha
ve h
eld
doct
orat
es fo
r 7
year
s or
less
.S
ourc
e N
atio
nal
Tab
le 8
-50.
Opi
nion
s of
hea
ds o
f doc
tora
te-le
vel s
cien
ce a
nd e
ngin
eerin
g de
part
men
tsco
ncer
ning
abi
lity
of fa
culty
inve
stig
ator
s' g
ener
ally
to s
ecur
e su
ppor
t in
rese
arch
area
s of
thei
r ow
n ch
oosi
ng: 1
974
(Dep
artm
ents
rat
ed a
s "d
istin
guis
hed"
or
"str
ong"
in R
oose
-And
erso
n st
udy)
Ove
rall,
nea
rly tw
o-th
irds
of th
e de
part
men
ts in
this
grou
p re
port
that
thei
r fa
culty
inv9
stig
ator
s ar
ege
nera
lly a
ble
to s
ecur
e su
ppor
t in
rese
arch
are
as o
fth
eir
own
choo
sing
.
You
ng fa
culty
inve
stig
ator
s in
bot
any
and
seni
orfa
culty
inve
stig
ator
s in
che
mic
al e
ngin
eerin
g ap
pear
to b
e ha
ving
sub
stan
tial d
iffic
ultie
s in
sec
urin
g su
p-po
rt in
res
earc
h ar
eas
of th
eir
own
choo
sing
.
Fie
ldN
umbe
r of
depa
rtm
ents
with
-
Abl
e to
sec
ure
supp
ort i
nra
sear
ch a
reas
of o
wn
choo
sing
NO
T a
ble
to s
ecur
e su
ppor
t in
rese
arch
are
a of
ow
n ch
oosi
ngP
erce
nt o
fde
part
men
tsno
tre
spon
ding
You
ngS
enio
r
Per
cent
con
side
ring
this
to b
e a
maj
orpr
oble
m fo
r-
You
ng'
Sen
ior
You
ngS
enio
rY
oung
Sen
ior
You
ngS
enio
r
All
field
s'30
231
364
.663
.632
.134
.584
.580
.63.
31.
9
Bio
chem
istr
y26
2869
.275
.015
.417
.910
0.0
100.
015
.47.
1
Bot
any
1213
33.3
61.5
50.0
30.8
66.7
100.
018
.77.
7C
hem
ical
eng
inee
ring
1616
62.5
37.5
37.5
62.5
83.3
80.0
0.0
0.0
Che
mis
try
3434
52.9
55.9
47.1
44.1
93.8
86.7
0.0
0.0
Eco
norr
1/4:
s16
1668
.862
.525
.031
.310
0.0
100.
06.
36.
3E
lect
rical
eng
inee
ring
2323
60.9
52.2
39.1
47.8
77.8
90.9
0.0
0.0
Geo
logy
1820
55.6
55.0
44.4
40.0
87.5
62.5
0.0
0.0
Met
hem
atic
s24
2470
.866
.729
.233
.357
.175
.00.
00.
0M
icro
biol
ogy
2425
62.5
80.0
29.2
20.0
85.7
60.0
8.3
0.0
Phy
sics
2829
82.1
62.1
17.9
37.9
60.0
54.5
3.0
0.0
Phy
siol
ogy
1822
66.7
68.2
33.3
31.8
63.3
85.7
0.0
0.0
Psy
chol
ogy
3030
63.3
70.0
36.7
30.0
90.9
66.7
0.0
0.0
Soc
iolo
gy20
2070
.070
.025
.025
.010
0.0
100.
05.
05.
0Z
oolo
gy13
1376
.961
.523
.138
.510
0.0
100.
00.
00.
0
Tho
seen
ding
20
perc
ent o
r m
ote
of h
eir
time
inA
nder
sen
stud
y di
d no
t inc
ude
biol
ogy
depa
rtm
ents
as
rese
arch
.ou
ng fa
culty
inve
stig
ator
s ar
e th
ose
who
held
doc
tora
tes
for
7 ye
ars
or le
ss.
3 T
he R
oose
-fi
desi
gnat
ed in
the
pres
ent s
tudy
.S
ourc
e: N
atio
nal S
cien
ceF
ound
atio
n.
Table B.51. Opinions of heads of doctorate-level science and engineering departmentsconcerning ability of faculty Investigators' generally to secure support in research areas
of their own choosing: 1974 (20 largest departments in fall 1973 full-time graduate enrollment)
Nearly two-thirds of these departments indicate thatfaculty investigators are generally able to securesupport in research areas of their own choosing.There do appear to be problems for some groups, in
particular, young faculty investigators in botanydepartments, and senior faculty investigators inchemical engineering and mathematicsdepartments.
FieldNumber of
departmentswith-
Able to securesupport in
research areasof own choosing
NOT able to secure support inresearch area of own choosing Percent of
departmentsnot
responding
Young Senior
Percent consideringthis to be a major
problem for-Young? Senior Young Senior Young Senior Young /Senior
' Those spending 20 percent or more of, heir time in research.2 Young faculty investigators are those who have held doctorates for 7 years or less.
Source: National Science Foundation.
46
96
Table B-52. Proportion of faculty investigators' in ductorate-level scienceand engineering departments unable to secure support in research area of
own choosing: 1974(All Institutions)
More than one-half of the young investigators and more than one-third of the seniorinvestigators in the responding departments have been unable tosecure support inresearch areas of their own choosing in the 12-month period ending in May 1974.
Field
Departments reporting younginvestigators generally notable to secure support in
research areas of own choosing
Departments reporting seniorinvestigators generally notable to secure support in
' Those soendino 20 percent or more of 9Source: National Science Foundation.
rs' in doctorate-level science Table B-53. Proportion of faculty investigators' unable to secure supportto secure support in research areas of in research areas of own choosing who are in doctorate-level science and
1974 engineering departments where this is considered to be a major problem 1974) (All institutions)
ators and more than one-third of the senioris have been unable to secure support in
in the 12-month period ending in May 1974.
onerting youngrally not
support inown choosing
Departments reporting seniorinvestigators generally notable to secure support in
More than nine out of 10 young faculty investigators and nearly nine out of 10seniorfaculty investigators who are unable to secure support in research areas of their ownchoosing are in departments where this is considered to be a major problem.
Mathematics departments account for more than one-fcurth of all young in-vestigators and almost one-fifth of all senior investigators who have been unable tosecure support in research areas of their own choosing.
Number of Number ofdepart- Percent of depart- Percent of
.
mentsreporting Number of
younginvesti-
mentsreporting Number of
senior,investi-
that young young gators that senior senior gatorsinvesti- investi- in depart- investi- investi- in depart-
Field gators gators ments gators gators meritsare unable unable considering are unable unable consideringto secure to secure this a major to secure to secure this a majorsupport support problem support support problem
' Those spending 20 percent or more of their time in research.Source: National Science Foundation.
98
Table 8 -54. Number of faculty investigators' in doctorate-levelscience and engineering departments who participated In research
projects at industrial or government laboratories: 1974(AU InatituUons)
Doctorate faculty investigators in electrical engineering, chemical engineering, andchemistry departments account for over one-half of those participating in researchprojects in industrial laboratories.
Physics departments have by far the largest number of participants in research proj-ects in government laboratories, accounting for almost one-half of the total.
Three departments-physics, electrical engineering, and chemistry-account fornearly 70 percent of the participants in research projects in governmentlaboratories.
Participation in research projects ingovemment laboratories is substantially greaterthan that for industrial laboratories.
Field Alldoctorate
investigators
Industrial laboratory Government laboratory
Total
Years sincedoctorate
Total
Years sincedoctorate
7 yearsor less
More than7 years
7 years More thanor less 7 years
All fields 23,548 689 171 518 1,179 349 830
Biochemistry 1,456 4 1 3 . 11 1 10
Biology 1,616 14 4 10 26 8 18
Botany 516 3 0 3 6 2 4
Chemical engineering 739 112 34 78 53 18 35
Chemistry 2,634 108 19 89 114 30 84
Economics 1,407 15 5 10 30 16 14
Electrical engineering 1,394 176 47 129 140 52 88
Geology 944 35 8 27 53 13 40
Mathematics 3,290 26 7 19 52 18 34
Microbiology 1,086 38 2 36 33 5 28
Physics 3,013 79 10 69 563 145 418
Physiology 1,005 2 0 2 6 0 6
Psychology 2,318 64 29 35 44 18 26
Sociology 1,370 10 3 7 19 9 10
Zoology 760 3 2 1 29 14 15
Those who are spending 20 percent or more of their time in research.Source: National Science Foundation.
9948,
Table B-55. Proportion of facilliy Iscience and engineering
projects at industrial or(All in
Overall, only a small proportion of doctoprojects at industrial or government lab
In general, the participation of senior docheld the doctorate for more than seven yyounger colleagues.
Doctorate investigators in chemical andticipate to a much greater extent in reseado faculty in other fields.
Physics departments report by far the higvestigators in research projects at governticipation in projects at industrial labora
Table B-55. Proportion of faculty Investigators' in doctorate-levelscience and engineering departments who participated in research
projects at industrial or government laboratories: 1974(All institutions)
Overall, only a small proportion of doctorate investigators particpate in researchprojects at industrial or government laboratories.
In general, the participation of senior doctorate investigators (i.e., those who haveheld the doctorate for more than seven years) is somewhat greater than that for theiiyounger colleagues.
Doctorate investigator. in chemical and electrical engineering departments par-ticipate to a much greater extent in research projects at industrial laboratories thando faculty in other fields.
Physics departments report by far the highest rat, of participation by doctorate in-vestigators in research projects at government laboratories, but below average-par-ticipation in projects at industrial laboratories.
' Those spending 20 pe cent or more of their time in research.Source: National Science Foundation.
NO
Table 8 -56. Change in time spent in classroom teaching by regular full-timefaculty in doctorate-level science and engineering departments: 1970 to 1974
(All institutions)
For all fields combined, about two-thirds of thedepartments report little change from 1970 to 1974intime spent in classroom teaching by regularfull-timefaculty. For those departments reporting changes of10 percent or more in classroom teaching time, morethan four out of five have increases.
Fields showing the greatest increases arebiochemistry, biology, microbiology, physiology,
and physics. CheMical engineering, electrical'engineering, and zoology have the largestdecreases.
In general, changes in Federal funding are seen asbeing primary causes of changes in classroomteaching time by one-fourth of the affecteddepartments.
-Field
Numberof
departments
Percent of departments in which classroomteachir.g time in 1974 compared to 1970 is-
Percent of departmentswith changes of 10 percent
or more that attributethese primarily to
changes in Federal fundingAbout the
same'
Greater by10 percent
or more
Lesser by10 percent
or more
Young2 Senior Young Senior Young Senior Young Senior
Change of less than 10 percent.2 Yoling faculty are those who have held doctorates for 7 years or less.
Source: National Science Foundation.
49
101
Table 8-57. Comparison of all responding doctorate-level scienceand engineering departments and those in private institutions
by number of departments and fall 1973 full-time graduate enrollment
Departments in private institutions, although nearly one-third of all respondents, ac-count for only slightly more than one-fourth of the full-time graduate enrollment.
Field
All departments Departments in private institutions
Numberof
departments
Full-timegraduate
enrollment
Departments Graduate enrollment
Number Percent Number PercentAll fields 1,366 67,106 444 32.5 19,171 28.6
' The Roose-Andersen study did not include biology departments as designated in the pres-ent study.2 Five institutions listed in the Roose-Andersen study under "botany" submitted reports forbiology departments. If these five departments were excluded from the base, the percent ofrespondents would be 76.5 for botany.3 Fifteen institutions listed in the Roose-Andersen study under "zoology" submitted reportsfor biology departments. If these 15 departments were excluded from the base, the percent ofrespondents would be 76.5 for zoology.4 If the base were adjusted downward by 20 to take Into account the changes for botany andzoology departments, the percent of respondents would be 87.7.
Source: National Science Foundation.
105
Table 841. Comparison of all responding doctorate -level science andengineering departments and the 20 largest in full-time graduate
enrollment by number of departments and fall 1973full-time graduate enrollment
These 300 departments, although less than onv-fourth of the respondents, accountfor almost one-half of the full-time graduate enrollment.
Field
All departments 20 largest departments ingraduate enrollment
Table 0-112. Comparison of all responding doctorate-Wet scienceand engineering departments and 1960-74 matched departntents bynumber of departments and fail 1973 full-time graduate enrement
The matched departments, accounting for just one-half of all respondents,enroll nearly two-thirds of the graduate students in these 12 fields.
Botany, geology, and zoology were not included in the 1988 survey and thus are or ,,a1.1.:d inthis table.Source: National Science Foundation.
107
Table 13-63. Average number of faculty and full-time graduate studentsper doctorate-level science and engineering department 1973-74
(All institutions)
Mathematics departments have, on the average, the largest number of faculty whilepsychology departments have the largest average full-time graduate enrollment.
Table B-64. Average number of faculty and full-time graduatestudents per doctorate-level science and engineering department 1973-74
(Private institutions)
Electrical engineering departments have the largest average full-time graduateenrollment and the largest unadjusted ratio of graduate students to faculty.
Table 8-66. Average number of faculty and full-time graduate studentsper doctorate-level science and engineering department 1973-74
(Departments rated aedistinguished" or "strong" inRoose-Andersen study)
Mathematics departments have the largest average number of full-time faculty, elec-trical engineering departments have the largest full-time graduate enrollment, andchemical engineering departments have the largest unadjusted ratio of graduatestudents to faculty.
' The Roote-Andersen study did not include biology departments as designated in the pros-ent study.
Source: National Science Foundation.
111
Table B-67. Average number of faculty and full-time graduate studentsper doctorate-level science and engineering department 1973-74(20 largest departments in fail 1973 full-time graduate enrollment)
Mathematics departments have the largestaverage number of full-time faculty butthe lowest unadjusted ratio of graduate students to faculty.
Table B-68. Average number of faculty and full-time graduate studentsper doctorate-level science and engineering department 1973-74
(Departments responding to both 1968 and 1974 surveys)
The matched departments have, on the average, somewhat greater numbers offacul-ty and graduate students than do all other departments included in the 1974 survey.
' Botany, geology and zoology were not included in the 1968 survey and thus are omitted inthis table.
Source National Science Foundation.
113
APPENDIX C
Survey Instruments
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATIONWASHINGTON. D.C. 20550
Dear Colleague:
The National Science Foundation periodically has conducted surveysto gain information abcut research activities of faculty in collegeand university science and engineering departments. The status ofyounger faculty members in research activities is of special andcontinuing interest. Quantitative information on academic researchactivities was last collected in 1968. Since that time, majorchanges in Federal and non-Federal funding of academic science havetaken place. Thus, it seems important to obtain up-to-date data.and to determine changes that have occurred since 1968 so that thisinformation can be provided to those involved in the formulation of
science policy.
We ask that you request heads of departments granting doctorates inthe following disciplines to complete a questionnaire: biochemistry,biology, botany, chemical engineering, chemistry, economics,electrical engineering, geology, mathematics, microbiology, physics,physiology, psychology, sociology, and zoology. Please see GeneralInstructions for more detail concerning selected science departmentswhich are to be covered. The Cover Sheet is for your use inreturning the completed questionnaire forms. Copies of thesematerials have been mailed separately to medical school representa-tives in order to provide coverage of eligible departments.
The information gathered in this survey will be used only fordeveloping statistical information for use in connection with policydevelopment and program planning. Individual institutions ordepartments will not be identified with the data they report.
We urgently request the cooperation of all institutions in completingthe questionnaire and returning it by June 3, 1974, to the Divisionof Science Resources Studies, National Science Foundation, 1800 GStreet, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20550. If you cannot meet the abovedate, please let us know. if you have any questions concerning theinformation requested or if you need additional copies of thequestionnaire, please write to me or call the Science EducationStudies Group of this Division: Area Code 202, 282-7730.
11557
We appreciate your helpfulcompleted and returned toWe will provide copies of
Enclosures
CE FOUNDATION 2
N. D.C. 20550
periodically has conducted surveysh activities of faculty in collegering departments. The status of
rch activities is of special andve information on academic research1968. Since that time, major
al funding of academic science havertant to obtain up-to-date datave occurred since 1968 so that thisse involved in the formulation of
departments granting doctorates inlete a questionnaire: biochemistry,ring, chemistry, economics,mathematics, microbiology, physics,, and zoology. Please see Generalerning selected science departmentsver Sheet is for your use inmire forms. Copies of thesetely to medical school representa-
ge of eligible departments.
survey will be used only foron for use in connection with policy. Individual institutions ored with the data they report.
ion of all institutions in completingit by June 3, 1974, to the Divisiontional Science Foundation, 1800 G20550. If you cannot meet the above
have any questions concerning theneed additional copies of the
or call the Science EducationArea Code 202, 282-7730.
57
We appreciate your helpfulness in having the questionnairecompleted and returned to the National Science Foundation.We will provide copies of the final report to all respondents.
Enclosures
Sincerely yours,l
AL, 4212.'Charles E. FalkDirector, Division of ScienceResources Studies
115 116
0.M.11:14umbet MS 74005Approve Emerge June 1015
Dols of Approve: 3/21/74
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNCATIONwessusare, D.C. MOM
SURVEY OF FACULTY RESEARCH ACTIVITIES, SPRING 1974
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
The National Science Foundation isconducting this survey to develop a better under-standing of faculty research activities and toprovide currant information for academic sciencepolicy formulation. Questionnaires for obtainingthe information are being sent to a sample ofinstitutions granting doctorates in the sciences.
Information gathered in this survey Will be usedwily for developing statistical information forpolicy development and program planning.indlvidusi Institutions or departments will not beidentified with the rate they reporL
Please obtain sonspieted questionnaires for therapeseed depadmenN, package them together,and return to the National Science Foundation byJune 3, 974. Pleas* provide all availablequestionnaires June3 and submit otherquation-naires as soon as possible thereafter. In order toassist us in maintaining a control on all question-naires submitted or expected, please indicate onthe Cover Sheet enclosed (I) the selected sciencedepartments for which questionnaires are sub-mitted and (2) those designated science depart-ments for which questionnaires are not includedin the initial submission. A postage-fres, self-addressed return envelope is enclosed.
Except for the Cover Sheet. there is no Institu-tion-wide item. The individual questionnaires areto be completed by heads of departments grant-ing doctorates in the following selected sciencedisciplines:
al....wisers. Wry. Include departments of bio-chemistry or biological chemistry.
Biology. Include only departments designatedas biology or biological science. Do notinclude departments covering onlyspecialized fields such as cellular biology ormolecular biology.
Botany. Include depirtments of botany orbotany and other subjects, e.g., botany andplant pathology.
Chemical engineering
Chemistry
Economics. Do not include departments ofagricultural economics.
Electrical engineering
Geology. Include only departments designatedas geology or geological science.
Mathematics. Do not include departmentslimited to applied mathematics, computerscience, or statistics.
Microbiology. Include only departmentsdesignated as microbiology or bacteriology.
Physics. Include only departments designatedas physics or physics and astronomy. Do notinclude highly specialized departments suchas molecular physics or 010010PhYllia.
Physiology. Include departments of physiologyor physiology and other subjects, e.g.,physiology and biophysics.
Psychology. Do not include highly specializeddepartments or fields of education such asdepartments of child development, childstudies, educational psychology, orcounseling.
lodolOgy. Include departments designated associology or sociology and anthropology.
Zoology. Include departments of zoology orzoology and other subjects, e.g., zoology andentomology.
11758.
NATIONAL
SURVEY OF FACULTY RESEAR
COVER
Reports are requested only fordegree. Please cross out departmentsinstitution, and make appropriateto be submitted. Indicate departmentsusing an asterisk (*).
Biochemistry
Biology
Botany
Chemical engineering
Chemistry
Economics
Electrical engineering
Geology
Mathematics
Microbiology
Physics
Physiology
Psychology
Sociology
Zoology
Person to be called regarcung dripsforms to be submitted at a later date
OM& Nun**, OM 74005Approval Coins Juno 1075
MO of OPOrovol. 3/26/14
SCE FOUNDATIONo.c.
lCH ACTIVITIES, SPRING 1374
IITRUCTIONS
Sollny. Include departments of botany orbotany and other subjects, e.g.. botany andplant pathology.
Chemical engineering
'Chemistry
Ecenemlee. Do not include departments ofagricultural economics.
Elochical engineering
Geology. Include only departments designatedas geology or geological science.
Malhematics. Do not include departmentslimited to applied mathematics, computerscience, or statistics.
Microbiology. Include only departmentsdesignated as microbiology or bacteriology.
Physics. Include only departments designatedas physics or physics and astronomy. Do notinclude highly specialized departments suchas molecular physics or eiectrophysics.
Physiology. Include departments of physiologyOr physiology and other subjects. e.g.,physiology and biophysics.
Psychology. Do not include highly specializeddepartments or fields of education such esdepartments of child development, childstudies, educational psychology, orcounseling.
!Adelina. Include departments designated associology or sociology and anthropology.
Zoology. Include departments of zoology orzoology and other subjects. e.g., zoology andentomology.
0.41.11. Number OM 74006Moon! Explfoo Juno 174
Onto of Aporovol: 3/26/74
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATIONWasik*" D.C. MIS
SURVEY OF FACULTY RESEARCH, ACTIVITIES, SPRING 1974
COVER SHEET
Reports are remarried on:y for department'. granting the doctorsdegree. Please cross out departments not granting doctorates in yourinstitution, and make appropriate notations for reports submitted orto he submitted. Indicate departments located in the medical school byusing an =Wrist. (').
Biochamistry
Biology
Botany
Chemical engineering
Chemistry
Economics
Electrical engineering
Geology
Mathematics
Microbiology
Physics
Physiology
Psychology
Sociology
Zoology
Submitted To be submittal byherewith (check) (indicate da:e)
Name of institution
Person to be called regarding departmental Phone numberforms to be submitted it a later date
5a118
O.M.B. Number OM 74006Approval Expires June 1975
Oats of Approval: 3126174NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
wataragton, D.C. 20660
SURVEY or FACULTY RESEARCH ACTIVITIES, SPRING 1974
Information for Deparbmmt Head
r. e Nation/1' Science Foundation periodically has conducted surveys to
gain information about research activities of faculty in college and university3ciente and engineering departments. The status of younger faculty membersin research activities is of special and continuing interest. Quantitativeinternat.' t on n Adernic research activities was last collected in 1968. Sincethat time. major changes in Federal and non-Federal funding of academicscience, nave taken place. Thus, it seems important to obtain up-to-date dataand to determine changes that have occurred since 1968 so that thisintorrnstion can be provided to those involved in the formulation of academicscience policy.
, The enclosed questionnaire is being sent to you and to heads of other'. selected departments in a sample of institutions granting doctorates in the
sciences. Sinck., the number of departments queried is not large, it is quiteimportant that your answers be included along with others in your field. Yourhelpfulness in assisting us in this endeavor by completing the questionnairepromptly will be appreciated. In the summarization of this study, theinformation obtained from individual departments or institutions will not beidentified in published material.
If there are any questions concerning the information requested, pleasewrite or call the Science Education Studies Group, Division Of ScienceProems Studies, National Science Foundation, 1800 G Street, KW.,Washington, D.C. 20550, Area Code 202, 282-7730.
Please indicate on your copy of the questionnaire the name of yourdepartment and institution. Replies should be sent to your institution'scoordinator for this survey for forwarding to the National Science Foundation.
1 We will provide copies of the final report to all respondents.
Instructions
The questions herein relate to research activities of regular full-timefaculty assigned to your department. Include only persons who serve at aprofessional level in your department as faculty at all ranks, includinginstructor and assistant professor. Please do not include the following as aregular full-time fadulty: visiting professors, postdoctorates and researchassociates, graduate students, orothers who are not regular fu II-tirne faculty ofyour department. Include yourself.
59
1 1.9
In pnviding information aboutleast half time In your department andconsider the following: C pies of thisheads of doctorate -level departmentsbiology, botany, chemical engineeriengineering, geology, mathematics.Psychology, sociology, and zoology. Iftime in your department also serve paabove, please confer with the head ofprovide the information. The reportingas if the individual were assigned
You should not include in thisless than half time in your departmeninstitution should also be excluded f
Data are requested separately ontime since the doctorate was earned. Fdoctorate after July 1,1967, should be csince doctorate. For purposes of this s"young" faculty.
In some departments, particularlya substantial number of regular full-tithan the Ph.D. or D.Sc. This surveycomparison with a similar survey cafaculty research activity. Thus, therenumbers of Ph.D.'s and D.Sc.'s but aConsequently, we ask that for questionsfor each item concerning doctorate fthan the Ph.D., or D.Sc., e.g., M.D., D.
The assumption made in questresearch is for the purpose of this studyamount of research funds are intended.
If additional space is needed for expan additional sheet of naper.
Definitions
Fiscal year (abbreviation FY) meansand ending the following June 30, e.g.,June 30, 1974.
The term tenured should be interpwho have completed a probationarycontinuous appointments.
Please Note
To avoid the impression that aplease use none, not applicable (or Nassist in the interpretation of replies.
Please use the reverse of thequestion numbers) to extend remarks.
CE0.c.FOUNOATIONSilts
O.M.B. Number 099S 74005Approval Expires June 1975
Dale of Approval: 3/26/74
CH ACTIVITIES, SPRING 1974
t Heed
periodically has cor tutted surveys toles of faculty in college and university
The status of younger faculty membersand continuing interest. Quantitative
was last collected in 1968. Sinceand non-Federal funding of academic
important to obtain up-to-date dataoccurred since 1988 so that this
evolved in the formulation of academic
ng sent to you and to heads of otherinstitutions granting doctorates in the
is queried is not large, it is quitealong with others in your field. Your
by completing the questionnairesummarization of this study, the
departments or institutions will not be
ing the information requested. pleaseStudies Group, Division of ScienceFoundation, 1800 G Street, N.W.,
282.7730.
the questionnaire the name of yourshould be sent to your institution'sng to the National Science Foundation.
to all respondents.
rch activities of regular full-timeInclude only persons who serve at at as faculty at all ranks, including
do not include the following as a. postdoctorates and research
who are not regular full-time faculty of
59
11.9
In providing information about regular full-time faculty who may serve atleast half time in your department and part time in another department, pleaseconsider the following: Copies of this questionnaire have been distributed toheads of doctorate-level departments in the following fields: biochemistry,biology, botany, chemical engineering, chemistry, economics, electricalengineering, geology, mathematics, microbiology, physics, physiology.psychology, sociology, and zoology. If any full-time faculty sewing at least half,time in your department also serve part time in one of the departments listedabove, please confer with the head of the other department to decide who willprovide the information. The reporting department should provide informationas if the individual were assigned solely to that department.
You should not include in this report any regular full-time faculty servingless than half time in your department. Faculty employed pail time at yourinstitution should also be excluded.from this report.
Data are requested separately on full-time faculty according to length oftime since the doctorate was earned. Faculty members who were awarded thedoctorate after July 1,1987, should be counted in the category "7 years or less"since doctorate. For purposes of this study, these individuals are considered"young" faculty. - -4
In some departments, particularly those associated with medical schools,a substantial number of regular full-time faculty may hold doctorates otherthan the Ph.D. or D.Sc. This survey is expected to provide the basis forcompanion with a similar survey carried out in 1968 and should reflect overallfaculty /march activity. Thun, there is a need not only for information onnumbors of Ph.D.'s and D.Sc.'s but also on faculty with other doctorates.C-Jnsequently, we ask that for questions 1,2, and 3 you indicate in parenthesesfor each item concerning doctorate faculty the number with doctorates otherthan the Ph.D., or D.Sc., e.g., M.D., D.D.S., D.V.M.
The assumption made in question 6 of no change in total furvls forresearch is for the purpose of this study only. No implications as to the ft.eureamount of research funds are intended.
If additional space is needed for explanations or comments, please attachen additional sheet of paper.
DefinitionsFiscal year (abbreviatio, , FY) means the 12 month period beginning July 1
and ending the following June 30, e.g., FY 1974 is the period July 1,1973 toJune 30, 1974.
The term tenured should be interpretid as referring to faculty memberswho have completed a probationary period of service and hold permanent orcontinuous appointments.
Please Note
To avoid the impression that a response has been omitted inadvertently,please use none, not applicable (or N.A.), or other appropriate notations towaist in the interpretation of replies.
Please use the reverse of the questionnaire pages (with identifyingquestion numbers) to extend remarks.
120
O.M.S. Number MS 74006Approval Expires June 1575
Date of Approval: 3/26/74
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATIONWee *MN% MC. $1115
SURVEY OF FACULTY RESEARCH ACTIVITIES, SPRING 1974
Institution (name and location)
Name and title of person to contact about this survey
Address aver; telephone number of the person named above .
( ) Please check this item 11 this departmsnt is part of a medical school.
1. How many regular full-time faculty members hold appointments in your departmentat the present time? How many of these faculty are tenured? How many are nontenured?Please enter the totals and numbers according to length of time *ince doctorate(e.g., include those whose doctorates were granted after July 1, 1987, under"7 years or less"). See Instructions regarding inclusions, exclusions, and useof parentheses for reporting faculty holding doctorates other than the Ph.D. orD.Sc.
a. Total regular full-time faculty(sum of lines b and c)
b. Tenuredc. Nontenured
Number of doctoratesby years since award
7 yesn!. More thanTotal or teas 7 years
(( )+ I 1+
)+ )+
Numberwithout
doctorate
2. How many of the regular full-time faculty members in your department (as reportedin item 1.a. above) spend 20 percent or more of their time in research activities?(Calerviaryear basia.) How many of these fac.ity are tenured? How many are nontenured?
a. Total regular full-time faculty spending20 percent or more of timeon research (sum of lines b and c)
b. Tenuredc. Nontenured
Number of doctoratesby years since award Number7 years More than without
Total or less 7 years doctorate
.=.
I I+( )+( I+
( ) +I ) +I)+
60
3. How many of the regular full-time facultyleast 20 percent of their time on research'research directly connected with prefectagendes?
Number of doctoratesby year since award Number,7 years More than without
Total or less 7 years doctoral"
( ) +
4. Please estimate the proportion of ale rsldepartment in the current fiscal yearother then Federal research project hand&
Please answer questions 5 through 9 ondoctorates.
5a. Taking into account ale the research duidepartment in the current fiscal year."young" faculty (7 years or less since doct
b. Considering 611 the research funds awlcurrent fiscal year, is there, in youravailable to 'Voting" faculty (7 years ce(more than 7 years since doctorate)?
(1) If "no," which group do you consider"Young"
O.M.B. Number 099S 74005Approval Expires Am 1975
Date of Approval: 3/26/74
FOUNDATIOND.C. IMMO
CH ACTIVITIES, SPRING 1974
a pert of a medical school.
hold appointments in your departmentIty are tenured? How many are nontenured?
according- to length of time since doctoratewere granted after July 1, 1967, under
regarding inclusions, exclusions, and useholding doctorates other than the Ph.D. or
Number of doctoratesby years since award
7 years More thanTotal or less 7 years
Numberwithout
doctorate
3. How many of the regular full-time faculty members in your department spending atleast 20 percent of their time on research (as reported in item 2.a. above) are doingresearch directly connected with project grants and contracts awarded by Federalagencies?
Number of doctoratesby year since award
7 years More thanTotal or less 7 years
= ( ( )4.
Numberwithout
doctorate
4. Please estimate the proportion of all research funds available to faculty of yourdepartment in the current fiscal year (i.e., July 1, 1973-June 30, 1974) coming fromother than Federal research project funds. (Check one.)
Less than 10% 0 (1) 30 - 49% 0 (3)10 - 29% 0(2) 5094 or room, 0 (4)
Please answer questions 5 through 9 only for regular full-time faculty with earneddoctorates.
5a. Taking into account. all the research funds available to faculty members in yourdepartment in the current fiscal year, please estimate the proportion going to"young" faculty (7 years or less since doctorate). (Check one.)
None CI (1)1% to 24% 0 (2)
25% to 49% 0 (3)50% to 74% 0 (4)
75% to 100% 0 (5)
b. Considering all the research funds available to faculty in your department in thecurrent fiscal year, is there, in your opinion, an appropriate spilt between fundsavailable to "young" faculty (7 years or less since doctorate) and "senior" faculty(more than 7 years since doctorate)?
( )4. ( )4.
( )4. ( )4. Yes 0 (1) No 0 (2)( )4. )4.
(1) If "no," which group do you consider to be at a disadvantage?.Ity members in your department (as reportedor more of their time in research activities?faculty are tenured? How many are nontenured?
Number of doctoratesby years since award
7 years More thanTotal Or ieaS 7 years
121
Numberwithout
doctorate
( )4. ( )4.( )4. ( )4.( )4. ( )4.
60
"Young" faculty 0 (1) "Senior" faculty 0 (2)
2
122
It If your answer to 5.b. is "no," please complete the following:
a. What would you consider to be an appropriate proportion of funls for "young"faculty (7 years or less since doctorate) in your department?
b. For purposes of this question, please assume that the total amount of Federalresearch funds available to members of your department would remain constant.
.Under these circumstances, would you then favor the creation of special Federalresearch support programs specifically limited to faculty in either the "young" or"senior" croup? (Check one.)
Yes, for "young" group only 0 (1)Yes, for "senior" group only 0 (2)
No 0 (3)
(1) If "yes" for either of the above, do you think it important that some of thesupport provided through these programs be earmarked for special equipment?
Yes o (1) No o (2)
7a. During the past 12 months, in your opinion, have the regular full-time facultyin your department who are spending at least 20 percent of their time doing researchgenerally been able to receive support in research area of their own choosing?(Answer both parts.)
"Young"faculty
Yes 0 (1) No 0 (2)
"Senior"faculty
Yes 0 (3) No 0 (4)
b. If "no" for either:
(1) What percentage of the above faculty members have been unable tosecure supportin research areas of their own choosing during the past 12 months? (Answer bothparts if applicable.)
"Young" faculty _%(1) "Senior" faculty
(2) Do you consider this to be a major problem? (Answer both parts if applicable.)"Young"faculty
Yes 0 (1) No 0 (2)
"Senior"faculty
Yes 0 (3) No 0 (4)
3
12361
8. How many of your full-time faculty mtheir time on research have also papast 12 months? (Answer all that appt
a. Research project in industrial laborb. Research project in government lab
9a. Have regular full-time faculty in yourlesser, or about the same proportionFY 1974 as compared wNh FY 1970?
Greater by 10% or more in FY 1974Lesser by 10% or more in FY 1974About the same (i.e., less than
10% change)
b. If a greater or lesser proportion ofprimarily from changes In Federal fund
"Young"faculty"
Yes 0 (1) No 0 (2)
"Senior"faculty
Yes 0 (3) No 0 (4)
c. If "no" for either, please indicate diboth parts if applicable).
Change in non-Federal fundingChange in number of teaching
assistantsAdministrative or legislative decisio
requiring standard teaching loadOther, specify
complete the following:
an appropriate proportion of funds for "young"te) in your department?
MUM* that the total amount of Federalof your department would remain constant.
you than favor the creation of special Federallimited to faculty In either the "young" or
Yes, for "young" group only 0 (1)Yes, for "senior" group only 0 (2)
No 0 (3)
do you think it important that some of theprograms be earmarked for special equipment?
Yes 0 (1) No 0 (2)
your opinion, have the regular full-time facultyat least 20 percent of their time doing researchin research areas of their own choosing?
members have been unable to secure supportfag during the past 12 months? (Answer both
"faculty _16(1) "Senior" faculty %(2)
major problem? (Answer both parts If applicable.)
3
12361
8. How many of your full-time faculty members who are spending at least 20 percent oftheir time on research have also participated in the following activities during thepast 12 months? (Answer all that apply.)
a. Research project in industrial laboratory:b. Research project in government laboratory:
"Young" "Senior"faculty faculty_(1) _(2)_(1) (2)
9a. Have regular full-time faculty in your department spent on the average a greater, alesser, or about the same proportion of their time engaged In classroom teaching inFY 1974 as compared with FY 1970? (Answer both parts.)
"Young" "Senior"faculty faculty
Greater by 10% or more In FY 1974 0(1) 0(2)Lesser by 10% or more In FY 1974 , 0(3) 0(4)About the same (I.e., less than 1
10% change) 0(5) 0(8)
b. If a greater or lesser proportion of time is indicated In (a), did this change resultprimarily from changes In Federal funding? (Answer both parts If applicable.)
"Young"faculty"
Yes 0 (1) No 0 (2)
"Senior"faculty
Yes 0 (3) No 0 (4)
c. If "no" for either, please indicate the principal reasons for the change (answerboth parts if applicable).
Change in nonFederal fundingChange In number of teaching
assistantsAdministrative or legislative decision
requiring standard teaching loadOther, specify
4
124
"Young"faculty0(1)
0(3)
0(5)
"Senior"faculty0(2)
0(4)
0(8)
Other Science Resources Publications
REPORTS NSF No. Price
Research and Development in State GovernmentAgencies, Fiscal Years 1972 and 1973 75-304 In press
Projections of Science & Engineering DoctorateSupply & Utilization, 1980 and 1985 75-301 $1.30
Detailed Statistical Tables, Manpower Resourcesfor Scientific Activities at Universities andColleges, January 1974
Resources for Scientific Activities at Univeties and Colleges, 1971
A Price Index for Deflation of Academic RExpenditures
Scientific Human Resources: Profiles and-Issues
J
Unemployment Rates and Employment Cfor Scientists and Engineers, 1971
Papers and Proceedings of a ColloquiumDevelopment and Economic Growl
HIGHLIGHTS
"20-Percent Increase in Energy Activity P75-300-A Industrial R&D Spending in 1973" ....
Federal Funds for Research, Development, and OtherScientific Activities, Fiscal Years 1973, 1974,and 1975, Vol. XXIII 74-320 $1.70
Detailed Statistical Tables, Federal Funds forResearch, Development, and Other ScientificActivities, Fiscal Years 1973, 1974, and 1975,Vol. XXIII 74-320-A
Reviews of Data on Science Resources, No. 22,"The Federal Role in the Support of GraduateScience and Engineering Education"
An Analysis of Federal R&D Funding by Function,Fiscal Years 1969-1975
Research and Development in Industry, 1972
National Patterns of R&D Resources. Funds &Manpower in the United States, 1953-1974
Immigrant Scientists and Engineers in the UnitedStates. A Study of Characteristics andAttitudes
1 ,15
74-317 $0.25
74-313 $2.25
74-312 $2.05
"Federal Scientific and Technical PersoDecline in 1973"
"Employment of Life Scientists Up in 197Accounts for Nearly All Growth ofand Engineers in Doctorate-Grantingtions"
"R&D Expenditures of Independent Nontions Approach $1 Billion in 1973" ....
"Immigration of Scientists and EngineersSharply in FY 1973; Physician Inflow SNear FY 1972 Peak"
"Selected Characteristics of Five Enand Scientific Occupational Groups, 1
"NSF Forecasts Rise in Company-Funded74-304 $1.00 and Development and R&D
"Total Scientific and Technical PersonnelIndustry Remains Level, R&D Person.
73-302 $2.50 in 1970"
Resources 'Publications
NSF No. Price
75-304 In press
torate75-301 $1.30
urcesand
75-300-A
t, and Other,1974,
74-320 $1.70
fortific
1975,74-320A
No. 22,raduate
74-317 $0.25
Function,74.313 $2.25
1972 74-312 $2.055
&1974 74-304 $1.00
United
73-302 $2.50
1 95
Resources for Scientific Activities at Universi-ties and Colleges, 1971 72-315 $1.95
A Price Index for Deflation of Academic R&DExpenditures 72-310 $025
Scientific Human Resources: Profiles andIssues 72-304 $0.25
Unemployment Rates and Employment Characteristicsfor Scientists and Engineers, 1971 72-307 $1.75
Papers and Proceedings of a CoHoquium on Research andDevelopment and Economic Growth/Productivity 72303 $.75
HIGHLIGHTS
"20-Percent Increase in Energy Activity PacesIndustrial R&D Spending in 1973" 74-319
"Federal Scientific and Technical PersonnelDecline in 1973" 74-316
"Employment of Life Scientists Up in 1974Accounts for Nearly All Growth of Scientistsand Engineers in Doctorate-Granting Institu-tions" 74.315
"R&D Expenditures of Independent Nonprofit Institu-tions Approach $1 Billion in 1973" 74-309
Immigration of Scientists and Engineers Drop;Sharply in FY 1973; Physician Inflow StillNear FY 1972 Peak"
"Selected Characteristics of Five Engineeringand Scientific Occupational Groups, 1072"
74-302
73-306
=MOE,
"NSF Forecasts Rise in Company.Funded Researchand Development and R&D Employment" 73-301