Essays on PhD Output at U.S. Undergraduate Institutions

This dissertation focuses on the production of knowledge that contributes to economic growth through the accumulation of human capital and technological change. More specifically, I look at the proclivity and effectiveness of different types of universities and colleges to send individuals on to pursue a doctoral degree in science or engineering (S&E) and how PhD attainment relates to characteristics of students who attend these institutions and the faculty who teach at these institutions. A tobit estimation is employed to test for institution effects, the effect of student and faculty characteristics, and also the impact of economic factors. To partially control for selection, survey results from the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) are used to determine students’ desire for a PhD when entering and exiting college. I find that student and faculty characteristics matter, as do economic variables. Unobservable and/or un-measureable characteristics affecting PhD output, which differ systematically by type of institution, however, remain even after controlling for the aforementioned variables. Based on the analysis in this dissertation, I conclude that much of what are typically regarded as tier effects on PhD output are in fact due to the selective matching between students and their undergraduate institutions. By adding measures for selective matching and proxies for individual opportunities, we see that ability, faculty characteristics and accomplishments, and peer effects maintain significant, positive effects on rates of PhD output. Finally, rates vary not only by institution type, but also by field

Using theory to inform capacity-building: Bootstrapping communities of practice in computer science education research

In this paper, we describe our efforts in the deliberate creation of a community of practice of researchers in computer science education (CSEd). We understand community of practice in the sense in which Wenger describes it, whereby the community is characterized by mutual engagement in a joint enterprise that gives rise to a shared repertoire of knowledge, artefacts, and practices. We first identify CSEd as a research field in which no shared paradigm exists, and then we describe the Bootstrapping project, its metaphor, structure, rationale, and delivery, as designed to create a community of practice of CSEd researchers. Features of other projects are also outlined that have similar aims of capacity building in disciplinary-specific pedagogic enquiry. A theoretically derived framework for evaluating the success of endeavours of this type is then presented, and we report the results from an empirical study. We conclude with four open questions for our project and others like it: Where is the locus of a community of practice? Who are the core members? Do capacity-building models transfer to other disciplines? Can our theoretically motivated measures of success apply to other projects of the same nature

Missed Connections: a case study of the social networks of physics doctoral students in a single department

Gender disparity is an issue among the many science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. Although many previous studies examine gender issues in STEM as an aggregate discipline, there are unique issues to each of the fields that are considered STEM fields. Some fields, such as physics, have fewer women graduating with degrees than other fields. This suggests that women's experiences vary by STEM field. The majority of previous research also examines gender and other disparities at either the nationwide or individual level. This project entailed social network analysis through survey and interview data to examine a single physics department's doctoral students in order to provide a comprehensive look at student social experiences. In addition to examining gender, other demographic variables were studied to see if the results are truly associated with gender; these variables include race/ethnicity, year in program, student type, relationship status, research type, undergraduate institute, and subfield. Data were examined to determine if there are relationships to social connections and outcome variables such as persistence in completing the degree and the time to degree. Data collected on faculty were used to rank faculty members; data such as h-indices and number of students graduate over the past 5 years were collected. Fifty-five (55) of 110 possible participants completed the survey; forty-three are male, and twelve are female. Twenty-eight of the fifty-five survey participants were interview; twenty-three are male, and five are female. Findings for peer networks include that peer networks are established during the first year and do not change drastically as one progresses in the program. Geographic location within the campus affects socializing with peers. Connections to fellow students are not necessarily reciprocated; the maximum percentage of reciprocated connections is 60%. The number of connections one has varies by network purpose, with students having more connections for the more social purposes. Students are isolated when working on their research, even in their early years. Research discussion does not occur, unless one is providing casual updates to a peer. Findings for student-faculty networks indicate that these relationships are important but complicated. Advisor selection is often done casually, even when one is switching advisors. Faculty have a lot of influence on the doctoral students such as motivating research collaborations among students or aiding in the job search. Most doctoral students feel as though there is a power dynamic that hinders them from socializing with faculty and thus, are not close to the faculty. Opportunities to develop stronger relationships and for professional development are often missed. The total number of peer and faculty ties has significant relationships to whether a student considers leaving the program. Analyzing the qualitative and quantitative data through demographic variables showed how complex these experiences are. All demographic variables indicated there are statistically significant differences in social experience among the groups, though the extent varies. The year in program variable showed the most differences among cohort years, primarily with those in the fifth year. While gender showed few differences, women tended to have more homophilous peer networks than men and women tended to have more connections to higher prestige faculty. The race/ethnicity, student type, undergraduate institute, subfield, and relationship status variables produced few statistically significant results. Peer networks have statistically significant differences in homophily when examining research type. The regression model suggests that being female, having a higher year in the program, and/or completing undergraduate studies from a liberal arts college increases the time to degree. Being in a relationship (dating or married) and/or working on experimental research decreases the time to degree. Only research peer network and departmental information network variables remain in this model. Suggestions for further research for both physics/STEM education and social network analysis are included. Suggestions for ways in which the Jonas University physics department can improve its climate are also included. Although these suggestions are written based upon the Jonas University data, they may be applicable to other physics/STEM graduate programs