On the demographical changes of U.S. research doctorate awardees and corresponding trends in research fields
Article
First Online:
Received:
- 196 Downloads
- 1 Citations
Abstract
The demographical data of the National Science Foundation on research doctorate awardees in the United States is studied in this article. While the overall growth rate of research doctorate awardees is approximately the same as the growth rate of the whole population in the U.S. there are considerable changes in the sub-populations of research doctorate awardees. The demographic data is evaluated/discussed in more detail with respect to gender and research fields of the doctorate awardees. In particular the notion of the primacy of technology over science in the postmodern era is examined and found to be justified.
Keywords
Science Technology Demography Research doctorates Research fieldsReferences
- Abraham, P. (2000). Duplicate and salami publications. Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, 46, 67–69.Google Scholar
- Andersen, J. P., & Hammarfelt, B. (2011). Price revisited: On the growth of dissertations in eight research fields. Scientometrics, 88, 371–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Arbesman, S. (2011). Quantifying the ease of scientific discovery. Scientometrics, 86, 245–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Baird, L. L. (1990). Disciplines and doctorates: The relationships between program characteristics and the duration of doctoral study. Research in Higher Education, 31, 369–385.Google Scholar
- Behrens, H., & Luksch, P. (2011). Mathematics 1868–2008: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 86, 179–194.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Best, S., & Kellner D. (1997). The postmodern turn. New York: The Guilford Press. Google Scholar
- Bradbury, K., & Katz, J. (2002). Women’s labor market involvement and family income mobility when marriages end. New England Economic Review, 4, 41–74.Google Scholar
- Britt, R. (2008). Academic R&D expenditures: FY 2008, 2010. National Science Foundation. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf10311/pdf/nsf10311.pdf.
- Conger, D., & Long, M. C. (2010). Why are men failing behind? Gender gaps in college performance and persistence. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 627, 184–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Colliver, J. A. (1996). Science in the postmodern era: Postpositivism and research in medical education. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 8, 10–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cotter, D. A., Hermsen, J. M., & Vanneman R. (2001). Women’s work and working women—the demand for female labor. Gender & Society, 15, 429–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cronin, B. (2001). Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices?. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology , 52, 558–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Eckersley, R. (2001) Postmodern science: The decline or liberation of science? In S. Stocklmayer, M. Gore, & C. Bryant (Eds.), Science communication in theory and practice (pp. 83–94). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
- Falkenheim, J. C., & Fiegener, M. K. (2007) Records fifth consecutive annual increase in U.S. doctoral awards, 2008. National Science Foundation, Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf09307/.
- Fiegener, M. K. (2008). S&E Degrees: 1966–2006, 2008. Special Report, National Science Foundation, Document NSF 10-309, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf10309/.
- Fiegener, M. K. (2009). Doctorate recipients from U.S. universities. Summary Report 2007–08, 2009, National Science Foundation, Document NSF 08-321, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf08321/.
- Fiegener, M. K. (2010). Numbers of doctorate awarded continue to grow in 2009; indicators of employment outcomes mixed, 2010. National Science Foundation, Document NSF 11-305, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf11305/.
- Forman, P. (2007). The primacy of science in modernity, of technology in postmodernity, and of ideology in the history of technology. History and Technology, 23, 1–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Frank, D. J., & Gabler, J. (2006). Reconstructing the university worldwide shifts in academia in the 20th century. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- Green, B. (2009). Challenging perspectives, changing practises: Doctoral education in transition. In D. Boud & A. Lee (Eds.), Changing practices of doctoral education (pp. 239–250). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Han, C.-S., Lee, S. K., & England, M. (2010). Transition to postmodern science—related scientometric data. Scientometrics, 84, 391–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Harvey, D. (1990). The condition of postmodernity. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
- Hoffer, T. B., & Welch, V. (2006). Time to degree of U.S. research doctorate recipients, 2006. National Science Foundation, Document NSF 06-312, http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/issues/docdata.htm.
- Jones, B. F. (2009). Burden of knowledge and the death of the renaissance man: Is innovation getting harder? Review of Economic Studies, 76, 283–317.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jones, B. F. (2010). Age and great invention. Review of Economics and Statistics, 92, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kim, D., & Otts, C. (2010). The effect of loans on time to doctorate degree: Differences by race/ethnicity, field of study, and institutional characteristics. The Journal of Higher Education, 81, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kumar, N. A. (2004). Comparative analysis of shifting of doctorates. Current Science, 86, 33–36.Google Scholar
- Lariviere, V., Archambault, E., & Gingras, Y. (2008). Long-term variations in the aging of scientific literature: From exponential growth to steady-state science (1900–2004). Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 288–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Leydesdorff, L., & Wagner, C. (2009). Is the united states losing ground in science? A global perspective on the world science system. Scientometrics, 78, 23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Leydesdorff, L., & Zhou, P. (2005). Are the contributions of China and Korea upsetting the world system of science? Scientometrics, 63, 617–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lima, A., Vasconcelos, C., Flix, N., Barros, J., & Mendonta, A. (2010). Field trip activity in an ancient gold mine: Scientific literacy in informal education. Public Understanding of Science, 19, 322–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Mansfield: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
- Price, D. de Solla (1961). Science since babylon. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Rip, A. (1996). The post-modern research system. Science and Public Policy, 23, 343–352.Google Scholar
- Rip, A. (2004). Strategic research, post-modern universities, and research training. Higher Education Policy, 17, 153–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Stephan, P., & Levin, S. (1993). Age and the Nobel Prize revisited. Scientometrics, 28, 387–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tuckman, H., Coyle, S., & Bae, Y. (1990). On time to the doctorate; a study of the increased time to complete doctorates in science and engineering. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- Thurgood, L., Golladay, M. J., & Hill, S. T. (2006). U.S. doctorates in the 20th century, 2006. Special report, National Science Foundation, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf06319/start.cfm.
- United Nations. (2009). World population prospects: The 2008 revision. In \({Population\; Newsletter}\), Number 87, June 2009, United Nations, Population Division, http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/popnews/Newsltr-87.pdf.
- Ziman, J. M. (1994). Prometheus bound —science in a dynamic steady state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Copyright information
© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2011