The Role of Undergraduate Colleges in Research. Part 1. Highest Output, Most-Cited, and Highest Impact Institutions, 1981-1992
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Current Comments@ I EUGENE GARFIELD INSTITUTE FOR SCIENTIFIC INFORMATIO?U$ I S501 MARKET ST., %M-ADELPHIA, PA 191 Cd The Role of Undergraduate Colleges in Research. Part 1. Highest Output, Most-Cited, and Highest Impact Institutions, 1981-1992 Number 23 June 7, 1993 Abstract A citation analysis of researeh publications of 74 primarily liberal arts colleges, based on 14,510 lSl@- indexed papers publisbed and cited from 1981 through 1992, is presented. Part 1of this essay identifies the highest output, most-cited, and highest impact colleges in all fields of science. Separate impact rankings in the life sciences, agriculture and biology, and clinical medicine are also included, Part 2 will identify the highest impact colleges in the physical and chemical sciences as well as engineering and technology. In addition, their highest impact papers will be identified. Introduction ence base has not been appreciated and deserves wider recognition. In April I participated in a meeting co- sponsored by the Council on Undergradu- Undergraduate Colleges: A Key ate Research (CUR) and the National Insti- Pipeline of Research Scientists tutes of Health (NIH) entitled “Dialogue with NIH and NSF.”] Founded in 1978, Ithas been well documented that liberal CUR is a nonprofit association of 600 pri- arts colleges are an important training marily undergraduate colleges and univer- ground for students who go on to earn sities with 2,000 member teachem, admirris- graduate and doctoral science degrees. In- trators, and researchers. Its putpose is to deed, certain select liberal arts colleges promote and provide information on scientilc have produced a disproportionate share of mea.rch at the nation’s primarily liberal arts science graduates and PhDs, compared with colleges. larger comprehensive universities having It has been several years since we dis- more extensive science curricula, better- cussed in Current Contents@ (CC@) the con- equipped labs, and far greater levels of re- tribution of undergraduate colleges to re- search funding. search.z And that essay foeused on their These findings were extensively docu- role as a major “pipeline” of the nation’s mented in the 1985 and 1987 Oberlin re- future science graduate and doctoral stu- ports on the role of liberal arts colleges in dents. However, the CUR meeting gave us educating America’s scientists.M The re- the opportunity to do something different— ports focused on 50 so-called “science ac- that is, to provide a citationist perspective tive” colleges. They demonstrated that these on scientific research conducted at under- smal Ier, primat-d y undergraduate institu- graduate colleges. tions ranked among the leaders on a vari- The data we prepared demonstrated that ety of criteria-baccalaureates who went liberal arts colleges have a significant im- on to earn PhDs in mathematics, physical pact as research institutions. This aspect of sciences, life sciences, and other fields; their overall contribution to the nation’s sci- membership in the National Academy of 310 Table 1: Primarily undergraduate liberal arts colleges included in the study. Asteriska indicate those included in the origirt~ Oberli; Group reports (see references 3 and 4). *Albion CoIl. *DePauw Univ. *Middlebury Co]]. Albion, MI Greencastle, IN Middlebury, VT Allegheny CoIl. Dickinson CoII, Montclair State CoIl. Meadville, PA Carlisle, PA Upper Montclair, NJ *Alma COIL *Earlharn COIL *Mt. Holyoke Coil. Alma, MI Richmond, IN South Hadley, MA *Amherst Coil. Fort Lewis CoIl. *Oberlin Coil, Amherst, MA Durango, CO Oberlin, OH *Antioch Coil. *Franklin & Marshall CoIl. *Occidental Coil. Yellow Springs, OH Lancaster, PA Los Angeles, CA Augustana CoIl. *Grinnell Coil. *Ohio Wesleyan Univ. Rock Island. IL Gnnnell, IA Delawme, OH *Barnard COIL *Hamilton CoIl. ‘Pomona Coil. New York, NY Clinton, NY Claremont, CA *Bates Coil, *Hampton Univ. *Reed Coil, Lewiston, ME Hampton, VA Portland, OR *BeIoit CoIl. *Hsrrvey Mudd CoIl. Rhodes Coil. Beloit, WI Claremont, CA Memphis, TN Birmingham Southern COIL *Haverford Coil. Skidmore COIL Birmingham, AL Haverford, PA Saratoga Springs, NY *Bowdoin CoIl. Hendrix Cnll. *Smith CcdL Bmnswick, ME Conway, AR Northampton, MA *Bryn Mawr CoIl. Hobart & Wm. Smith CO]]. *St. Olaf COIL Bryn Mawr, PA Geneva, NY Northfield, MN *Bucknell Univ. *Hope CoIl. *Swarthmore CoIl. Lewisburg, PA Holland, Ml Swartbmore, PA CaIvin Coil. Ithaca Call. *Trinity CoIl. Grand Rapids, MI Ithaca, NY Hartford, CT *CarletOn CoIl. Juniata CoIl. *Union CoIl. Northtield, MN Huntingdon, PA Schenectady, NY Colby CoIl. *KaIamazuo Colt. Ursinus COIL Waterville, ME Kalamazoo, Ml Collegeville, PA *COlgate Univ. *Kenyon Coil, *vassar Coil. Hamilton, NY Gambler, OH Poughkeepsie, NY CoIl. Charleston Knox CO]]. *Wabash COIL Charleston, SC Galesburg, IL Crawfordsville, IN *CO1l.Holy Cross *Lafayette Coil. *Wellesley Coil. Worcester, MA Easton, PA Wellesley, MA Coil. William & Mary Lewis & Clark CoIl. *We51eyan Univ. Williamsburg, VA Portland, OR Middletown, CT *COILWooster Luther CoIl. Westmont COIL Wooster, OH f3ecorah, 1A Santa Barbara, CA *Colorado CoIl. Lycoming CoIl. *Wlreaton Coil. Colorado Springs, CO Williamsport, PA Wheaton, IL Connecticut Coil. *Macalester Co]1. *Whitrmur CoIl. New London, CT St. Paul, MN Walla WaUa, WA *Davidson CoIl. *Manhattan CoIl. *Wllliams COIL Davidson, NC Bronx, NY WMiamstown, MA *Denisen Univ. Mary Washington CoIl. Granville. OH Fredericksburg, VA . 311 Sciences; NSF grantees; the 1,000 most- stitutions in terms of number of papers, cited scientists of 1965- 1978;5 and so on. citations, average citations per paper, pro- More recently, the 1991 Project Kalei- portion of papers actually cited, and so on. doscope analysis has confirmed these find- Keep in mind that the data cover all fields ings and extended them beyond the 50 in- of science as well as the social sciences stitutions in the Oberlin Group.b Supported and the arts and humanities. This study fo- by the NSF and private foundations, the cuses on the sciences, but it should be analysis ranked US institutions both by ab- stressed that liberal arts colleges no doubt solute number and proportion of graduates have even greater impact in the social sci- receiving bachelor’s degrees in a variety of ences and humanities. scientific fields. The results consistently The following analysis is based on 74 showed that liberal arts colleges ranked high undergraduate institutions shown in Table in producing a substantial number of re- 1. All of the 50 institutions participating in search scientists. the Oberlin Report have been included and The Oberlin and Kaleidoscope reports, are indicated by asterisks. But the Project as well as other published studies,T.g pro- Kaleidoscope report shows that many other vide a wealth of quantitative and qualita- liberal arts colleges rank high in terms of tive data on the pipeline value of under- producing science graduates. Thus, 24 ad- graduate colleges to US science. Typically, ditional institutions that were not among this success is attributed to the students’ the original Oberlin Group have also been hands-on experience in actual research included, They were selected on the basis projects under faculty mentors. As an im- of their CUR membership-each had at portant source of the nation’s future re- least five individual members. Many of search professionals, select liberal arts col- them have appe~ed in the Project Kalei- leges ought to receive NSF and NIH fund- doscope rankings of leading producers of ing at a size-adjusted leve i at least compa- science graduates in various fields, rable to the leading comprehensive research In the 1981-1992 Science Ci[ation fn- universities. dex@ (.SC/@) database, these 74 colleges But there are other critical roles that col- produced 14,500 papers which received leges play in US research. For example, about 90,000 citations. Thus, dividing num- liberal arts colleges also contribute to ad- bers of citations by papers, the average 12- vances in scientific knowledge. While the year impact for the CUR colleges was 6.2. faculty are committed to teaching, they also do research and publish review articles. As HighestOutput and Mint-Cited Colleges the data presented below indicate, select lib- Table 2 lists 25 institutions that produced eral arts colleges have a substmtial impact at least 200 papers. The College of Wil- in the international scientific literature, liam & Mary had the highest output with about 1,500 papers. Wesleyan University The Impact of Undergraduate Colleges is the only other institution that produced on Research over 1,000 papers. ISI@’sdatabases are uniquely suited to h is interesting that the College of Wil- indicate this impact in quantitative terms. liam & Mary was not among the original They include bibliographic information on Oberlin Group institutions. The only other about 15 miIlion papers published in thou- non-Oberlin Group institution on this list sands of journals since 1945, and more than is Ithaca College, with 287 papers. 215 million references they cited. From Table 3 lists 25 institutions that received these data, one can derive rankings of in- N least 1,300 citations to their 1981-1992 312 Table 2: Highest output liberal arts colleges, 1981-1992 Table3: Most-cited liberal mtscollegca, 1981-1992 sc[@. sc[~. 1981.92 1981-92 l>Yr. 1981-92 1981-92 12Yr. aarrk tmatutsnrr Papers Ue5 tmpact Rank Institution Cites Papers Impact 1. Coil.Wm.&Mary 1471 11,326 7.7 1. Coil.Wm.&Mary 11,326 1471 7.7 2, Wesleyan Univ. 1003 7688 7,7 2. Wesley an Univ. 7688 1003 7.7 3. Wellesley CoIl. 476 5212 11.0 3. Wellesley CO1l. .5212 476 11.0 4. Amherst COIL 450 3683 8.2 4. Amherst Coil. 3683 450 S.2 5. Lafayette COIL 432 1908 4.4 5. lthaca Coil. 2912 287 10.2 6. Bryn Mawr Co]]. 429 2565 6.0 6. Smith Coil, 2624 36 I 7.3 7. Williams CO]]. 415 2528 6.1 7. Bryn Mawr Coil. 2565 429 6.0 8. Bucknell Univ. 402 1513 3.8 8.