Big Data
An unprecedented growth occurred in the number of US colleges and universities during the past century. By the 1920s, academic leaders interested in recruiting talented faculty were compelled to consider the comparative “quality” of doctoral training programs given this expansion.
Ensuing surveys invited faculty to register their judgment of departmental and/or program quality through the practice of “informed peer review” – that is, a method of providing information about program characteristics thought to be related to perceived quality even as faculty scored various programs.
Now that the number of higher education institutions and programs has essentially stabilized, PsySiP is pursuing a “back-to-basics” approach by exploring the factors that give rise to contemporary reputational ratings of doctoral training. We are focusing our efforts on peer views of research training programs in psychology in the United States. We previewed our efforts at the August 2014 annual meeting of the American Psychological Association.
Downloads
“Tools, Teams, and Training,” August 3, 2017, Symposium on Connecting the Dots, American Psychological Association, Washington DC
“Psychology as Science at APA: Transitioning to the Future,” August 5, 2017, Symposium on 125 Years of Psychology as a Science Within APA, American Psychological Association, Washington DC
"Analysis of Interdisciplinary Research Grants Reveals Key Role(s) for Research Psychologists" P. Flattau, American Psychological Association, Annual Meeting, August, 2016. Denver.
"US Psychology's Research Doctorate Program Infrastructure in the 21st Century." P. Flattau, American Psychological Association, Annual Meeting, August 6 - 9, 2015. Toronto.
"The White House BRAIN Initiative Has the Potential to Further Strengthen Multidisciplinary Research and Training in Psychology."
P. Flattau, American Psychologist, December 2014.
Ensuing surveys invited faculty to register their judgment of departmental and/or program quality through the practice of “informed peer review” – that is, a method of providing information about program characteristics thought to be related to perceived quality even as faculty scored various programs.
Now that the number of higher education institutions and programs has essentially stabilized, PsySiP is pursuing a “back-to-basics” approach by exploring the factors that give rise to contemporary reputational ratings of doctoral training. We are focusing our efforts on peer views of research training programs in psychology in the United States. We previewed our efforts at the August 2014 annual meeting of the American Psychological Association.
Downloads
“Tools, Teams, and Training,” August 3, 2017, Symposium on Connecting the Dots, American Psychological Association, Washington DC
“Psychology as Science at APA: Transitioning to the Future,” August 5, 2017, Symposium on 125 Years of Psychology as a Science Within APA, American Psychological Association, Washington DC
"Analysis of Interdisciplinary Research Grants Reveals Key Role(s) for Research Psychologists" P. Flattau, American Psychological Association, Annual Meeting, August, 2016. Denver.
"US Psychology's Research Doctorate Program Infrastructure in the 21st Century." P. Flattau, American Psychological Association, Annual Meeting, August 6 - 9, 2015. Toronto.
"The White House BRAIN Initiative Has the Potential to Further Strengthen Multidisciplinary Research and Training in Psychology."
P. Flattau, American Psychologist, December 2014.