Appendix E 



RANK-ORDER TABLES OF ISSUES 



MENTIONED MOST FREQUENTLY 



This appendix contains four tables, each listing the 

 issues reported most frequently by one of the sectors. 

 On each table there are also columns representing 

 different classes of respondents in that sector. The 

 numbers in the columns represent the prominence 

 that that class of respondents gave to each issue; "1" 

 stands for the issue most frequently mentioned by 

 that class of respondents in that sector, etc. In some 

 cases, a column shows the same number for more 

 than one issue. This indicates that all issues assigned 

 the same number were mentioned with the same 

 frequency. When a number is duplicated in a column, 

 the next higher number does not appear. 



The numbers so assigned are the rank-orders of 

 each issue with respect to each class of respondents. 

 Some columns represent various combined classes of 

 respondents, and each sector has a column that 

 represents all respondents from that sector com- 

 bined. 



In some columns only a few issues are given rank 

 orders, while other columns assign numbers to many 

 more issues. The general rule for this, outside the 

 university sector, was to assign a rank order to each 

 issue whose frequency was at least a third of the 

 frequency of the first-ranked issue in that column. 

 This rule was modified in the case of columns 

 representing relatively small groups of respondents, 

 in which the cut-off was one half the frequency of the 

 first-ranked issue. The rule was also modified 

 slightly to leave a fairly large gap, when possible, 

 between frequencies of the issues that were 

 numbered and those that were not. 



A simpler rule was used in the university sector. 

 There, each column shows the eight issues mentioned 

 most frequently by each class of respondent. The 

 exception was the mathematical sciences, where 

 there were not enough respondents to allow eight 

 significant issues to be distinguished. 



In the university sector, the respondents are 

 divided according to their title and the Carnegie 

 Research University classification of their institu- 

 tion. In addition, the department chairmen are 

 classified according to the academic disciplines that 

 they represent. Five broad classifications are used: 

 engineering, mathematical sciences, physical 

 sciences, life sciences, and social and behavioral 

 sciences. All the responding chairmen's departments 

 were classified under these headings, with the aid of 

 the Final Department Code Book of the 1974 Graduate 

 Science Student Support and Postdoctoral Survey. 

 This is a listing of names of university departments 

 that has been used for many years by the NSF's 

 Division of Science Resources Studies. 



Many observations can be made about the different 

 interests of the different classes of university 

 respondents. For example, the presidents and the vice 

 presidents for research seem to have had much the 

 same interests, except that vice presidents were more 

 concerned about the supply of research manpower. 

 However, there are major differences between 

 Research Universities I and II. The latter expressed a 

 relatively high interest in institutional support, but a 

 low interest in national coordination and planning. 

 The Universities II also seem to have been more 

 concerned about governmental and public attitudes 

 toward science. 



Chairmen showed a lower interest in national 

 planning, institutional support, or governmental and 

 public attitudes. Rather, they were concerned about 

 the problems relating to tenure and opportunities for 

 younger faculty, as well as obtaining money for 

 graduate education, and problems of their individual 

 fields. Chairmen at Universities I expressed more 

 interest in maintaining the supply of research 

 manpower than did those at Universities II. At the 

 same time, the latter were more interested in the 



139 



