Abstract
Public universities reflect the aspirations a state or society has for its young people and for itself. In this study we examine the level of public funding for universities and its relation to quality. We analyze funding data for British universities and a sample for American universities. Additionally, we examine data on the production of science by faculty at the institutions in our American sample. The data permit an analysis of the relation between investment in higher education and quality. We compare these data with the recent efforts to fund British universities based on measures of scholarship and scientific achievement. We conclude by examining the nature of the relationship between funding and research quality at British universities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Advisory Board for the Research Councils (1987).A Strategy for the Science Base: A Discussion Document Prepared for the Secretary of State for Education and Science. H.M.S.O., Chairman: Sir David Phillips, London.
Anderson, R. C., Narin, F., and McAllister, M. (1978). Publication rating versus peer rating of universities.Journal of the American Society for Information Science 3: 91.
Bok, D. (1990, October 15). Personal quote. In M. Elfin, Getting back to basic.U.S. News and World Report 109: 106.
Brand, M. (1989). A university second to none.Inside Oregon, Special Inauguration Issue, November 13, 1.
Brookes, H. F., and Frainkel, C. E. (1987).Life in Britain. London: Heinemann Educational Books.
Cartter, A. M. (1966).An Assessment of Quality in Graduate Education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Cole, S., and Cole, J. (1973).Social Stratification in Science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Commonwealth Universities Yearbook (1988).A Directory of the Universities of the Commonwealth and the Handbook of their Association, volume 1. London, 1988.
Diamond, Jr., A. J. (1986). What is a citation worth?The Journal of Human Resources 21: 200.
Garfield, E. (1977). The 250 most-cited primary authors, 1961–1975. Part 3: Each author's most-cited publication.Current Contents 51: 5.
Gove, S. E., and Beyle, T. (eds.) (1988).Governors and Higher Education. Denver: Education Commission of the States.
Hagstrom, W. O. (1971). Inputs, outputs, and the prestige of university science departments.Sociology of Education 44: 375.
Holton, G. (1978). Can science be measured? In Y. Elkana et al.,Toward a Metric of Science. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Jauch, L. R., and Glueck, W. F. (1976). Evaluation of university professor's research performance.Management Science 22: 66.
Jones, L. V., Lindzey, G., and Coggeshall, P. E. (1982).An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Social and Behavioral Sciences. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Keniston, H. (1959).Graduate Study in the Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania Press.
Kiley, S. (1989). Low research rating could force college departments to close.The London Times (August 26, 1989), p. 4.
Lindsey, D. (1978a). The corrected quality ratio: A composite index of scientific contribution to knowledge.Social Studies of Science 8: 349–354.
Lindsey, D. (1978b).The Scientific Publication System in Social Science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lindsey, D. (1980). Production and citation measures in the sociology of science.Social Studies of Science 10: 145–162.
Lindsey, D. (1989). Using citation counts as a measure of quality in science.Scientometrics 15: 189–203.
Lindsey, D. (1991). The relation between performance indicators for academic research and funding: Developing a measure of return on investment in science.Scientometrics 20: 221–234.
MacRoberts, M. H., and MacRoberts, B. R. (1986). Quantitative measures of communications in science: A study of the formal level.Social Studies of Science 16: 151.
MacRoberts, M. H., and MacRoberts, B. R. (1987). Testing the Ortega Hypothesis: Facts and artifacts.Scientometrics 12: 293.
Merton, R. K. (1973).The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Moed, H. F., Burger, W. J. M., Frankfort, J. G., and Van Raan, A. F. J. (1985). The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance.Research Policy 14: 131.
National Center for Education Statistics (1988).State Higher Education Profiles 1988 Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Newman, F. (1987).Choosing Quality: Reducing Conflicts Between the State and the University. Denver: Education Commission of the States.
Roose, K. D., and Andersen, C. J. (1970).A Rating of Graduate Programs. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Shattock, M. L. (1990). Personal communication, July 19, 1990.
Slosson, E. E. (1910).Great American Universities. New York: MacMillan, 1910.
Straughn, C., and Straughn, B. (1987).Lovejoy's College Guide, 18th edition. New York: Monarch Press.
University Grants Committee (1988).University Statistics, volume 1: Students and Staff; Volume 3: Finance. Cheltenham: Universities Statistical Record. Annual Edition.
Vinkler, P. (1988). An attempt of surveying and classifying bibliometric indicators for scientometric purposes.Scientometrics 13: 239.
Volkwein, J. F. (1989). Changes in quality among public universities.Journal of Higher Education 60: 136.
Webster, D. S. (1981). Methods of assessing quality.Change (October), 20.
Zuckerman, H. A. (1977).The Scientific Elite. New York: Free Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lindsey, D. Building a great public university: The role of funding at British and American universities. Res High Educ 32, 217–244 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00974438
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00974438