8/7/2019 Development of Doctoral Education in Brazil and Nicaragua: A Comparative Study
1/27
Running head: MEASURING IMPACT 1
Measuring Impact of Fellowship Recipients on the Enhancement of Quality in Higher Education
Systems: A Comparative Study of Brazils CAPES and Nicaraguas SIDA/SAREC Program
By
John William Medendorp
For
Dr. James Fairweather
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for EAD 991B
May 2, 2010
8/7/2019 Development of Doctoral Education in Brazil and Nicaragua: A Comparative Study
2/27
Running head: MEASURING IMPACT 2
In this paper I propose a study to compare the impact of two programs to increase the
number of postgraduates in Brazil and Nicaragua. In each instance, the purpose of the program is
to increase the research and teaching capacity of the higher education system of their respective
countries by investing in promising individuals. The broader goal is to support national
socioeconomic development through increases in research and teaching capacity.
The first program I will study, known as the National Post-Graduate Plan (Plano
Nacional de Ps-Graduao - PNPG), is Brazils program for accelerating the formation of
human resources needed for teaching and for research activities (Leta, Lannes, & De Meis,
1998). It is funded by two governmental entities: the National Council for Scientific and
Technological Development (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnolgico -
CNPq) and by the National Program for Personnel Development in High Education
(Coordenao de Aperfeioamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior- CAPES).
In Nicaragua, I propose to examine the SIDA/SAREC program (The Swedish Research
Council Formas, 2010). The SIDA/SAREC program is the initiative of the Swedish Research
Council Formas. The program is funded by the Swedish government. It is the only such program
operating in Nicaragua. The program works with specific universities in Nicaragua to increase
research capacity. Part of the program is to fund individuals for advanced degrees. Initially only
Ph.D.s were financed. Eventually the program was expanded in order to include Masters
degrees. As of 2001, the program had financed 55 Masters and Ph.D. students of which 25 had
graduated (Bautista, Velho, & Kaplan, 2001).
The Usefulness of a Comparative Framework
In light of these similarities and key differences, I have chosen to conduct a comparative
study of the two postgraduate funding programs in Nicaragua and Brazil. A comparative study
8/7/2019 Development of Doctoral Education in Brazil and Nicaragua: A Comparative Study
3/27
Running head: MEASURING IMPACT 3
can have one or more of three distinct purposes: to provide insight into our own systems of
education, to identify and analyze similarities and differences in educational systems, processes
and outcomes in order to solve identified problems and/or suggest educational policy and
practice, to better understand the nature of the relationships between education and the broader
social, political and economic sectors of society, or promoting improved international
understanding, co-operation and goodwill (Crossley & Broadfoot, 1992, p. 106). In this study I
will focus on the second of these purposes, namely, to analyze similarities and differences for the
purpose of suggesting both policy and practice, or as Noah describes it to help in decision
making (Noah, 1984). The usefulness of comparative studies is that they can identify the
potentials and the limits of international borrowing and adaptation (Noah, 1984, p. 556). If done
properly, this study should serve as a vital tool for the government of Nicaragua in determining
where to invest future support for higher education. Currently, the Nicaraguan government
devotes 6% of the annual budget to higher education. These funds are spread widely and
indiscriminately across the system (Bernheim, 2009). This study will help to answer the question
whether the investment of those funds in the development of a cadre of scholars and a culture of
research would have a significant impact on the academic and research capacity of the higher
education system in Nicaragua.
According to Theisen and Adams, there are four types of comparative study: analytical,
descriptive, evaluative, exploratory (1990). The particular type of study I will undertake will be
evaluative. The distinguishing feature of an evaluative study is that it is used to test a particular
socia1 science hypothesis or a principle of professional practice. Evaluative research investigates
the issues concerning the merit, value, or worth of educational techniques or programs (Borg &
Gall, 1989; Theisen & Adams, 1990, p. 282). It may also be undertaken to assess the
8/7/2019 Development of Doctoral Education in Brazil and Nicaragua: A Comparative Study
4/27
Running head: MEASURING IMPACT 4
appropriateness of program changes (Theisen & Adams, 1990). In the evaluative study that I am
proposing, it will be used to test a principle of professional practice, namely, the use of funding
of individual scholars in postgraduate programs for the purpose of quality enhancement of the
professoriate. I will analyze and evaluate the relative impact of the Brazilian and Nicaraguan
programs.
Rationale for the Study
Although both countries are on the path of socioeconomic development, they find
themselves at different stages of that process, making a comparison potentially useful for
Nicaragua, which finds itself at the more primitive stage. A research oriented professoriate
makes two significant contributions to socioeconomic development. First, it supports the effort
of expansion of access to the higher education system as part of the transition to mass higher
education in pursuit of the knowledge society (Drucker, 1992, 1993, 2001) by training the
faculty of the future. Second, it provides the platform for the generation of new knowledge
through research that drives the new economy and provides solutions to intractable
socioeconomic problems (Altbach, 2007a; Antony & Knaus, 2002; Velho, 2004). In what
follows, I will explain the critical juncture at which Nicaragua finds itself in the reform of its
higher education system. I will then explain why Brazil may provide insight and potential
solutions to the problems Nicaragua is facing. Finally, I will describe a research design for a
comparative study of these two programs in order to explore their potential to inform and reform
each other.
The Nicaraguan Problem
Like many Latin American countries, Nicaragua has experienced explosive growth in
higher education, primarily in private education (Arocena & Sutz, 2005; Olivares, 2006b; Torres
8/7/2019 Development of Doctoral Education in Brazil and Nicaragua: A Comparative Study
5/27
Running head: MEASURING IMPACT 5
& Schugurensky, 2002). This growth has been both accommodated by and driven by private
education (Bernheim, 2009; Olivares, 2006b). Until the 1960s, higher education in Nicaragua
was represented by a single institution, the National Autonomous University of Nicaragua
(UNAM, formerly the University of Len), located in the second largest city, Leon. In the 1960s
the first private universities were licensed: the Central American University (UCA), the Central
American Business Administration University, and the Polytechnic University of Nicaragua
(Arnove, 1995; Bernheim, 2009).
In 1990, the outgoing administration of Daniel Ortega pushed through the Nicaraguan
National Assembly (NNA) a comprehensive law of university autonomy (Law 89). Although
intended to protect the universities from ideological influence by the incoming neo-liberal
regime of Violeta Chamorros, the law had the effect of opening the university market to private
providers (Arnove, 1995; Bernheim, 2009; Olivares, 2006b). In the decade after the approval of
the law, 21 private universities were licensed. Then again, between 2001 and 2006, a further 23
were licensed for a total of 44 private institutions. Since the date of Oliveres publication
(Olivares, 2006b), four additional private universities have been approved by the Consejo
Nacional de Universidades (CNU) for a total of 52 institutions (Consejo Nacional de
Universidades, 2010b).
As of 2006, these new universities together enrolled 65,500 students (Olivares, 2006b).
Since the 1980s, the sole public university had been expanded to four campuses. In 2006 the
four campuses together enrolled 49,900 students. Another 22,060 students are enrolled in what
are known as the "old privates," i.e., those that were founded before the passage of law 89. The
new private sector now outstrips public enrollments and rivals the public/old private sector as the
largest provider of higher education.
8/7/2019 Development of Doctoral Education in Brazil and Nicaragua: A Comparative Study
6/27
Running head: MEASURING IMPACT 6
Unfortunately, although the law of autonomy protected the universities from heavy-
handed state intervention, it also shielded them from public accountability. The result has been a
rapidly expanding higher education sector with very low quality. Few university professors hold
doctoral degrees. Most universities function at the periphery of the international scientific
community, unable to produce and adapt the knowledge needed to confront the most urgent
economic and social problems of the country (Olivares, 2006b, p. 13).
Attempted Solutions
The volatile and indiscriminate proliferation of institutions of few resources, low
capacity, and low quality prompted an effort by the Nicaraguan government, in collaboration
with the InterAmerican Development Bank (IDB), to rein in some of the blanket autonomy of the
universities through the elaboration of a legal framework for evaluating universities. As part of
this effort, in the year 2000, the IDB approved a loan to the government of Nicaragua for the
improvement of the tertiary education systems. The goals of the program were three:
In its internal architecture the Project consisted of three components. Component
I: A process of evaluation of tertiary education (with a total of $1.1 million).
Component II: A program to improve links between tertiary education and the
business sector as well as with secondary and technical education ($1.0 million).
Component III: Institutional stabilization through efficient and modern university
administration (1.2 million). (Olivares, 2006a).
The project was completed in 2006. In that same year, a second law, Law 582, known as
the Ley General de Educacin, or general law of education created the Consejo Nacional de
Evaluacin y Acreditacin, or the National Council for Evaluation and Accreditation (CNEA) as
a state agency with powers to evaluate and accredit institutions of higher education (Olivares,
8/7/2019 Development of Doctoral Education in Brazil and Nicaragua: A Comparative Study
7/27
Running head: MEASURING IMPACT 7
2006a, p. 8). Although this second law created the agency, it did not define the authority of the
agency or mechanisms for applying that authority to the higher education sector.
This lack was supplied by a third law, Law 704, passed by the NNA in November of
2009. The third law mandates an evaluation and accreditation system that mirrors, in many ways,
the processes of the North American accrediting agencies self-evaluation based on a set of
general (but as of yet undefined) criteria, followed by the visit of external evaluators, and the
issuance of a dictamen or declarative report recommending accreditation or indicating
shortfalls in one or more of the criteria. Due to legal challenges by the universities to the
encroachment of the state on university autonomy represented by the legislation, however, the
law remains unsigned on the President Ortegas desk. In the meantime, the university sector
continues to grow while fundamental issues of university quality remain unaddressed, most
importantly, the lack of a qualified professoriate.
Law 704 calls for a qualified professoriate (Chapter I. Article 10.Paragraphs 4, 5). These
two paragraphs form part of a longer list of requirements for universities. Paragraph four requires
that professors have attained the degree level at which they are teaching and in the area in which
they are teaching. For example, if a professor is teaching mathematics in a Bachelors degree
program, he or she must have attained a Bachelors degree in mathematics before teaching.
Paragraph five requires that each university undertake at least one research project per year in
each one of the areas in which degrees are granted. The question remains, however, whether this
approach to developing a qualified professoriate will in fact achieve the goal and lend much
needed improvement to the higher education system of Nicaragua. It is surprising, in fact, that, in
light of the recognized lack of qualified scholars in the Nicaraguan higher education system
8/7/2019 Development of Doctoral Education in Brazil and Nicaragua: A Comparative Study
8/27
Running head: MEASURING IMPACT 8
(Bernheim, 2009; Olivares, 2006a), neither the IDB loan criteria nor the ensuing legal structure
make any provision for the development of a qualified professoriate.
Brazilian Results
When considering possible answers to the question of an unqualified professoriate, Brazil
would seem to be a natural point of comparison. Although facing many of the same development
challenges that Nicaragua does, unlike Nicaragua, the Brazilian graduate education system is the
most prolific in Latin America, boasting the most masters and doctoral programs. In 2001 alone
it awarded 6,000 doctoral degrees and 30,000 masters degrees (Altbach, 2007a; S.
Schwartzman, 2006). According to a study using the National Science Indicators database,
organized by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), from 1981 to 1993 Latin Americas
scientific publications rose from 1.3% to 1.8% of the world scientific output (Krauskopf, Vera,
Krauskopf, & Welljams-Dorof, 1995). During that same period, Brazilian publications rose from
0.29% to 0.56% of the total but composed 37.1% of all Latin American publications. This was
accompanied by an increase in Brazil's citation impact-relative to the world (Leta, et al., 1998).
Even more striking have been recent gains. The number of Brazilian publications indexed by the
Institute for Scientific Information (lSI, now Thomson Scientific) increased both in absolute
number and in worldwide share in the period from 1981 to 2002 from 1,887 to 11,285 and from
0.44 per cent to 1.55 per cent, respectively (Leta, 2005).
Like Nicaragua, Brazil went through a remarkable period of higher education system
expansion in roughly the same time period. Total system undergraduate enrollment in Brazil
increased from 1.5 million in 1992 to over 3.8 million in 2003 (Sobrinho & Brito, 2009). Like
the Nicaraguan government, the Brazilian government is currently in the process of reforming
8/7/2019 Development of Doctoral Education in Brazil and Nicaragua: A Comparative Study
9/27
Running head: MEASURING IMPACT 9
its higher education system under considerable pressure to bring a further increase in
enrollment (McCowan, 2007).
The greatest difference comes in the sheer scope of the Brazilian system. As of 2008,
Brazil had 257 public institutions of higher education (federal, state and municipal) and 2,141
private institutions. Like Nicaragua, the private institutions are divided between non-profit and
for-profit. Unlike Nicaragua, the higher education classification system identifies three types of
institutions: universities (poly-disciplinary, with a teaching, research, and service mission, and
postgraduate degree programs), university centers (without the research component), and
integrated learning institutions or colleges devoted to teaching only (McCowan, 2007; Mello,
Maculan, & Renault, 2008). Nicaragua only distinguishes between universities and higher
technical institutes, which are roughly equivalent to the technical institutes in Brazil (without the
quality and prestige) and probably more akin to community colleges in the United States.
Ninety-two percent of the total 2,398 institutions in Brazil are small institutions dedicated solely
to teaching and are aimed at providing rapid degrees to the students, with the objective of
facilitating their integration into the labor market (Sobrinho & Brito, 2009). In other words,
Brazil faces some of the same quality challenges that Nicaragua does.
In order to be classified as a university, institutions must have at least 12 undergraduate
degree programs in at least three different disciplines and have a viable institutional outreach
program. They must also have graduate programs in at least three fields of study at the Masters
level and one program at the PhD. level. In addition, at least one third of the faculty must be
contracted on a full-time basis and at least 50% of the academic faculty must possess a Masters
or Ph.D. degree. In order to be classified as a university center, the institution must offer at
least six undergraduate degree programs in at least two disciplines. It must an institutional
8/7/2019 Development of Doctoral Education in Brazil and Nicaragua: A Comparative Study
10/27
Running head: MEASURING IMPACT 10
outreach program, have 25% of the faculty contracted full-time and at least one third of the
faculty must possess Masters or Ph.D. degrees. Integrated leaning centers must offer at least
one undergraduate degree program and must have prior government approval before opening
new programs. (McCowan, 2007; Mello, et al., 2008).
The Brazilian Professoriate
The very real, detectable difference, however, between the Brazilian and Nicaraguan
systems comes in the area of faculty. Schwartzman and Balbachevsky divide the professoriate
into three discernable levels (1996). The elite consist of about 28,000 faculty with doctoral
degrees or equivalent titles, and about 100,000 students in M.A. and Ph.D. programs in the best
public universities, mostly in the south eastern sector of Brazil. Faculty salaries are relatively
high and additional income can be earned through fellowships and research grants. The
postgraduate students are selected through a competitive process, pay no tuition, and typically
receive scholarships.
The next level consists of approximately 92,000 professors in public universities,
servicing approximately one million undergraduate students. Those members of the faculty who
teach in postgraduate programs in public institutions must also teach undergraduates. The
credentials of this group have been improvingin 2001, 36% held Ph.D.s, and 30% held a
Masters degree. Faculty in public universities is usually contracted full-time and are considered
civil servants, meaning they also receive government benefits. Although contracts forbid it,
many members of this group earn additional income through consulting work and teaching at
private institutions (Ribeiro, 2007, 2008; E. Schwartzman & Balbachevsky, 1996; S.
Schwartzman, 2006).
8/7/2019 Development of Doctoral Education in Brazil and Nicaragua: A Comparative Study
11/27
Running head: MEASURING IMPACT 11
The lowest level consists of 150,000 professors serving about 2.5 million students in
private institutions. Most of them work on term contracts, are not well qualified, and take on
multiple teaching contracts at a time in order to make ends meet. In 2002, according to
Schwartzman (2006) only 11% possessed a Ph.D., 38% a Masters degree; and only 16% had full-
time contracts. Another 56% had no contract at all, working on a per-class basis. Some are public
university employees moonlighting in private schools; others are retired from the public sector
(S. Schwartzman, 2006). They are not unionized as public sector employees are (Ribeiro, 2007,
2008; E. Schwartzman & Balbachevsky, 1996; S. Schwartzman, 2006).
Even at this lowest level the Brazilian system outpaces the eleven elite institutions of
higher education in Nicaragua, where only 6% of the faculty hold doctoral degrees, 44% hold
Masters, and the rest hold bachelors degrees (Consejo Nacional de Universidades, 2010a). Even
these numbers for Nicaragua are deceiving, however, since many of the Masters degrees are not
in the discipline in which professors are teaching. Rather, they are general education degrees,
focusing on university teaching, learning, research, and administration, for the purpose of
improving faculty credentials in anticipation of further state demands for advanced degrees for
Nicaraguan faculty members. These efforts are, of course, not wasted, since they improve the
teaching and research skills of university faculty. They do little, however, to advance the
knowledge base and research output of the various disciplines.
Conceptual Framework
The model for evaluating these two programs plays out across the continuing debate over
higher education as a public or private good (Altbach, 2007b; Altbach, Reisberg, & Rumbley,
2009; Levy, 1982, 1986; Marginson, 2007). Although one of the programs examined is under the
auspices of a government sponsored international development agency, the goals of both
8/7/2019 Development of Doctoral Education in Brazil and Nicaragua: A Comparative Study
12/27
Running head: MEASURING IMPACT 12
programs clearly place them on the public good side of this debate. There are four prevailing
models of doctoral program assessment: reputational assessment, student assessment, statistical
assessment, and external review assessment (Golde, Jones, Bueschel, & Walker, 2006). Each of
them has its strengths and weaknesses.
Reputational assessment, such as that used by the National Research Council, polls the
impressions of other members of the academic community to rank the institutions and
individuals, but does not take into account other elements in the quality of faculty
performance, such as contributions to teaching of graduate and undergraduate students or
contributions to the welfare of the departments, the institution, or the larger academic community
(Goldberger, et al., 1995, pp. 22-23).
Student assessment, as the name implies, refers to evaluations done by students of their
own doctoral programs. These types of assessment measure the value of the program from the
perspective of the students goals. It does not measure the contribution of the program to the
development of the academy, society, or the economy.
Statistical assessment does measure program outcomes, but the most widely collected
and reported measures are graduation/attrition rates and average time to degree as well as
program placements (Golde, et al., 2006, p. 56). Such evaluations focus on institutional success,
but, again, do little to measure the impact of the program on the university system as a whole, on
society, or on the economy. As a measure, it falls short of what I am trying to accomplish in this
study.
A final form of assessment is the external review assessment. As the name implies, it
consists of a visiting team of experts who evaluate the program and make recommendations for
its improvement. This type of evaluation could be useful if it selected the right criteria.
8/7/2019 Development of Doctoral Education in Brazil and Nicaragua: A Comparative Study
13/27
Running head: MEASURING IMPACT 13
Nevertheless, there are very few institutions or external review teams that focus on the criteria
that would be of help in understanding how the program impacts the academy, society, or the
economy.
In lieu of these approaches, the Carnegie Foundation has devised an assessment tool that
begins with the end in mind. It first posits a purpose for higher education: the purpose of
doctoral education is to develop students as stewards of the discipline (Golde, et al., 2006, p.
59). It then asks three questions around that purpose:
1. What is the purpose of the doctoral program? What does it mean to develop
students as stewards of the discipline? What are the desired outcomes of the
program?
2. What is the rationale and educational purpose of each element of the doctoral
program? Which elements of the program should be retained and affirmed?
Which elements could usefully be changed or eliminated?
3) How do you know? What evidence aids in answering those questions? What
evidence can be collected to determine whether changes serve the desired
outcomes. (Golde, et al., 2006, p. 60).
The Carnegie model could prove useful if the appropriate purpose for doctoral education were
defined and if the appropriate criteria were applied for gathering evidence. Yet, for the purposes
of this study, there is no model in existence to structure the assessment of the impact of
individually trained Masters and Ph.D. recipients in terms of their contribution to academic
excellence and growth and to the growth of society and the economy. In order to develop these
criteria, I turn to methodology.
8/7/2019 Development of Doctoral Education in Brazil and Nicaragua: A Comparative Study
14/27
Running head: MEASURING IMPACT 14
Research Question
In an effort to get at the comparative issue, I will focus on a single researchable question:
What gains have Brazils Coordenao de Aperfeioamento de Pessoal de Nvel Superior
(CAPES) and Nicaraguas collaboration with the Swedish Agency for Research Cooperation
with Developing Countries (SIDA/SAREC) produced for the quality enhancement of the
professoriate in their respective higher education systems? CAPES is a program established in
1951 by the Brazilian government in order to, among other program goals, increase the number
of students receiving Masters and doctoral degrees (Mello, et al., 2008; Ribeiro, 2007, 2008; S.
Schwartzman, 2006). The Nicaraguan government has no corresponding program, but has
entered into international agreement with SIDA/SAREC in order to increase the number of
advanced degree holders in its higher education system. This program has been in existence for
twenty years (Bernheim, 2009; Velho, 2004).
Methodology
Although I am not currently trained in quantitative methods, in what follows I will
attempt to describe the components of a quantitative model for an inductive study (Kogan, 1996),
measuring the impact of fellowship recipients on the quality enhancement of the higher
education system of their respective countries. Since there is currently no model designed
precisely for this end, I will construct my own model, justifying each component through the
existing literature. In order to construct this model, I propose defining the impact on quality
enhancement in terms of four variables, which will serve as my units of analysis (Wirt, 1980):
number of graduate degrees attained, research output of program graduates, number of students
taught, and number of new scholars produced. I will define each of these variables further below.
8/7/2019 Development of Doctoral Education in Brazil and Nicaragua: A Comparative Study
15/27
Running head: MEASURING IMPACT 15
The first variable, number of graduate degrees issued, will be calculated on the total
number of degrees attained by recipients of scholarships from the two programs minus the rate of
attrition. Graduation versus attrition has long been a standard part of graduate program
assessment (Golde, et al., 2006; Wulff & Nerad, 2006). The purpose of this approach is to take
into account both quantity and efficiency in calculating the impact of investment in degree
attainment. I did not take into account time to degree, another standard criteria for measuring
graduate education, since it will be taken into account in the fourth variable, listed below.
The second variable, research output, will take into account three factors: the number of
scholarly works presented, published, and cited, as well as the number of dollars won through
research grants, and a scale to measure extension impact, including patents. Hirschs index for
research output is often considered the standard (Hirsch, 2005). Hirsch has been critiqued for
focusing exclusively on publications. Scientific research usually, but not necessarily, ends in
publication. Especially in developing countries, where technological advance is as important or
more important than scholarly publication, a citation index does not accurately portray a
researches contribution to socioeconomic advance. In order to fully measure the outcome of
scientific research in developing contexts, such results as extension, patents, and grants should be
included (Gustafson, 2009; Marginson, 2008). For that reason, we will use instead a modified
form of the Faculty Scholarly Productivity Index (Academic Analytics, 2010; Piper, 2007),
expanded to include extension and patents (Gustafson, 2009; Marginson, 2008).
The third variable, number of students taught, is intended to be a measure of influence of
fellowship recipients in the higher education system as a whole. There is disagreement on
whether teaching is a scholarly output or scholarly function and, therefore, whether it should be
included in scholarly productivity measures (Townsend & Rosser, Fall, 2007). In the
8/7/2019 Development of Doctoral Education in Brazil and Nicaragua: A Comparative Study
16/27
Running head: MEASURING IMPACT 16
development of a higher education system, however, teaching is an indispensable part of the
growth of the scientific culture. For that reason it is included here as part of the measure of
scholarly output. The different degree levels will be weighted in order to give greatest
importance to doctoral students and lesser importance to Masters and undergraduate students.
Also, the number of graduate assistants supervised will be included in this calculation.
The final variable, number of scholars produced, will measure the number of times that
the funding recipient has either supervised or participated in a committee for the dissertation, or
Masters research project, of a successful graduate student, since this too is a significant
contribution to the system as a whole. Several studies have detailed the impact of the dissertation
advisor on the research productivity (C. E. Hilmer & M. J. Hilmer, 2007), publication (Hilmer &
Hilmer, 2009), and job placement (M. J. Hilmer & C. E. Hilmer, 2007). Clearly the role of
dissertation advising and, by extension, project mentoring, impacts the growth of new scholars.
For that reason, I will include this measure as well.
For the purposes of this study, a formula weighting each of these four variables on a
composite scale of 100 points will be devised and a composite score produce for the two country
approaches. The A perfect score on all four variables would render, then, a composite score of
100. The ideal end of each scale will be based on output for the worlds leading
academic/research industries, in most cases, the United States (Altbach, 2007a). The relative
weight of each variable will have to be determined. Greater weight will be given to publications
as the gold standard of research output, with lesser proportions given to the other three. One
possible weighting of the variables could be, for example: research productivity 40 points,
graduates 20 points, extension 20 points, dissertation/project oversight 20 points. The exact
proportions of this scale would have to be worked out and justified through a wider study. The
8/7/2019 Development of Doctoral Education in Brazil and Nicaragua: A Comparative Study
17/27
Running head: MEASURING IMPACT 17
composite score produced by the addition of the four variables will then be multiplied by the
total student population divided by the total population. The resulting figure will define a
percentage of the total population who are enrolled in university. The rationale for this latter
calculation is that the more students enrolled in higher education, the greater the benefit to
society (Schofer & Meyer, 2005; Sperling, 2001; Trow, 2006). The resulting formula,
rudimentally described, will be:
In order to frame the analysis for comparative purposes, I will use figures from the last five years
only.
Data Collection and Data Analysis
Data collection will take three forms. First, a survey instrument will be prepared and will
be distributed to a scientifically selected representative sample of program participants in both
countries. The survey will test for the four variables mentioned above. Second, the data will be
triangulated with statistical information available through CEPAS and SAREC as well as
through the CNU. Follow-up interviews with select participants will further determine the
reliability of the data. Although the government ministries of Brazil keep meticulous records on
program participants, the collection of data in Nicaragua will be hampered somewhat by the fact
that extensive records have not been kept on the SIDA/SAREC program. I will have to generated
and assembled most of the data myself. Once the data sets have been compiled, the results will
be run through an SSPS program specially designed for analysis and the results will be displayed
graphically.
8/7/2019 Development of Doctoral Education in Brazil and Nicaragua: A Comparative Study
18/27
Running head: MEASURING IMPACT 18
Contextual Information
Noah identifies three abuses of comparative research that can render it misguided,
irrelevant or even dangerous: making a case, misinterpreting results, and ethnocentrism (Noah,
1984, pp. 558-561). I will use his categories in order to frame the question of contextualization
of the study.
Under making a case, Noah cautions against hastily applying one countrys results in
another countrys context. As he describes it, The authentic use of comparative study resides
not in wholesale appropriation and propagation of foreign practices but in careful analysis of the
conditions under which certain foreign practices deliver desirable results, followed by
consideration of ways to adapt those practices to conditions found at home. In the case of this
study, it might be easy to conclude that the impressive results displayed by the Brazilian
development efforts should be easily duplicated in Nicaragua.
There are, however, very important differences in the contexts of these two programs
that will warrant consideration. First, although Brazils research output is impressive by Latin
American standards, the measure used is volume. Under the circumstances, where Brazils total
population is nearly four times that of Nicaragua, an adjusted expectation should, at a minimum,
expect a research output that is at least four times that of Nicaragua.
Moreover, Brazil has the unique advantage of possessing rich and plentiful natural
resources. These resources have made Brazil one of the most developed nations in Latin America
with one of the lowest poverty indices in the region. Nicaragua, by way of contrast is among the
poorest and least developed of the Latin American nations (Perry, Lpez, Maloney, Arias, &
Servn, 2006).
8/7/2019 Development of Doctoral Education in Brazil and Nicaragua: A Comparative Study
19/27
Running head: MEASURING IMPACT 19
Also, Brazil has benefited from large scale, post World War II, European immigration.
This flow delivered to Brazil an entire generation of intellectuals and scholars trained extensively
in the Humboltian university tradition into the ranks of Brazils government and universities. It
explains, in part, the early development of the research focus in the Brazilian higher education
system fostered by the presence of these same influences in government. It is highly questionable
whether these historical patterns can be set aside in examining the prospects of Nicaragua to
surmount its chronic quality issues.
Finally, the fact that Brazils program is government sponsored and Nicaraguas program
is agency sponsored is telling. It highlights the fact that Brazils appreciation of research is
embedded in government culture. Such embedded appreciation means that Brazils government
has been willing to take the long view of investment in research and scholarship. Absent such
culture in Nicaragua, can a similar program survive the demands of impatient politicians,
overwhelmed by pressing social need, and themselves recipients of little and inferior education,
to produce immediate results? Unless there is an enculturation of such values in the Nicaraguan
leadership, the answer is predictable.
Under misrepresenting results, Noah cautions, explanatory models are not overly
strong, data are often defective, and criteria for confidence in making inferences are subject to
dispute (p. 559). It will be important to include in the results of the study not only limitations
but also warnings about their possible use and abuse. Already at the stage of the proposal, I see
enormous problems in data collection, analysis and dissemination. The definition of the weighted
scale, the forcing of uncooperative data into predefined categories, the display of raw data that
not only invites interpretation, but also misinterpretation each of these will demand a lengthy
caveat as to the possible errors in the calculations.
8/7/2019 Development of Doctoral Education in Brazil and Nicaragua: A Comparative Study
20/27
Running head: MEASURING IMPACT 20
Under ethnocentrism, Noah makes several points about the tendency to extrapolate use
results as part of an assumed agenda of modernization. In contemporary terminology, we might
substitute the term globalization for modernization. In both cases, the assumption seems to
be that entrance into the global economy is to the advantage of each nation. These are
assumptions that critical scholars have challenged (Hyslop-Margison & Sears, 2006; UNESCO
Forum on Higher Education Research and Knowledge, International Association of Universities,
Srlin, & Vessuri, 2007). I quote Noah at length here:
A great deal of work has been done in comparative education to trace the process
and correlates of the so-called modernization process. Special attention has been
paid to the contribution that schooling has made to those changes that mark the
transformation from a "traditional" to a "modernized" society. Patterns of change
that describe well what happened to European and North American societies are
assumed to be generalizable to other societies at a later date. Perhaps they are
generalizable; perhaps they are not. Although this is a matter for empirical
inquiry, the tendency has been to take their generalizability for granted and to go
on from there. (p. 560).
The question is, ultimately, not What can move Nicaragua into the global economy, but
rather, What is best for the Nicaraguan people? Ethnocentrically, one might assume
that globalization is the best path for the Nicaraguan people. But our humanizing selves
should be cautious about making that assumption. In suggesting policy, we do well to
respect the right to self-determination.
8/7/2019 Development of Doctoral Education in Brazil and Nicaragua: A Comparative Study
21/27
Running head: MEASURING IMPACT 21
References
Academic Analytics. (2010). About Academic Analytics. Retrieved April 12, 2010, from
http://www.academicanalytics.com/About/AboutUs.aspx
Altbach, P. (2007a). Doctoral education: Present realities and future trends. In J. J. F. Forest & P.
G. Altbach (Eds.), International handbook of higher education (pp. 65-81). Dordtrecht,
The Netherlands: Springer.
Altbach, P. (2007b). Peripheries and centres: Research universities in developing countries.
Higher Education Management and Policy, 19 (2), 1-25. Retrieved from
http://oberon.sourceoecd.org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/vl=18163874/cl=50/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-
bin/fulltextew.pl?prpsv=/ij/oecdjournals/16823451/v19n2/s6/p106.idx
Altbach, P., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. E. (2009). Trends in global higher education: Tracking
an academic revolution: A report prepared for the UNESCO 2009 World Conference on
Higher Education. Paris, France: UNESCO.
Antony, J. S., & Knaus, C. (2002). Graduate education. In J. Forest & K. Kinser (Eds.), Higher
education in the United States: An encyclopedia (Vol. 2). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-
CLIO.
Arnove, R. F. (1995). Education as contested terrain in Nicaragua. Comparative Education
Review, 39(1), 28-53.
Arocena, R., & Sutz, J. (2005). Latin American universities: From an original revolution to an
uncertain transition. Higher Education, 50(4), 573-592.
Bautista, M. C. R. B., Velho, L., & Kaplan, D. (2001). Comparative study of the impact of
donor-initiated programmes on research capacity in the south: International Report (pp.
8/7/2019 Development of Doctoral Education in Brazil and Nicaragua: A Comparative Study
22/27
Running head: MEASURING IMPACT 22
129). The Hague: Directorate General of Development Cooperation (DGIS) Research and
Developing Countries Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of The Netherlands.
Bernheim, C. T. (2009). Higher Education in Nicaragua. In F. L. Segrera, C. Brock & J. D.
Sobrinho (Eds.), Higher education in Latin American and the Caribbean 2008 (pp. 71-
91). Caracas, Venezuela: UNESCO/IESALC.
Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational research : An introduction (5th ed.). New York:
Longman.
Consejo Nacional de Universidades. (2010a). Personal docente de planta por nivel de formacion
profesional y sexo. Retrieved April 20, 2010, from
http://www.cnu.edu.ni/documentos/estadisticas/PERSONAL%20DOCENTE%202.4.pdf
Consejo Nacional de Universidades. (2010b). Universidades. Retrieved April 20, 2010, from
http://www.cnu.edu.ni/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=96:universidad
es&catid=34:cnu
Crossley, M., & Broadfoot, P. (1992). Comparative and international research in education:
Scope, problems and potential. British Educational Research Journal, 18(2), 99-112.
Drucker, P. F. (1992). The age of discontinuity : Guidelines to our changing society. New
Brunswick (U.S.A.): Transaction Pubs.
Drucker, P. F. (1993). Post-capitalist society (1st ed.). New York, NY: HarperBusiness.
Drucker, P. F. (2001, November 3, 2001). The next society. The Economist, 3-5.
Goldberger, M. L., Maher, B. A., Flattau, P. E., National Research Council (U.S.). Committee
for the Study of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States., Conference Board of
the Associated Research Councils., & National Research Council (U.S.). Office of
Scientific and Engineering Personnel. Studies and Surveys Unit. (1995). Research-
8/7/2019 Development of Doctoral Education in Brazil and Nicaragua: A Comparative Study
23/27
Running head: MEASURING IMPACT 23
doctorate programs in the United States : Continuity and change. Washington, D.C.:
National Academy Press.
Golde, C. M., Jones, L., Bueschel, A. C., & Walker, G. E. (2006). Doctoral program assessment:
Lessons from the Cargegie Initiative on the Doctorate. In P. Maki & N. A. Borkowski
(Eds.), The assessment of doctoral education : Emerging criteria and new models for
improving outcomes (1st ed., pp. 53-82). Sterling, Va.: Stylus.
Gustafson, C. R. (2009). Role of extension in a research university. Paper presented at the
Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia.
Hilmer, C. E., & Hilmer, M. J. (2007). On the relationship between the student-advisor match
and early career research productivity for agricultural and resource economics Ph.D.s.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 89(1), 162-175. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
8276.2007.00970.x
Hilmer, M. J., & Hilmer, C. E. (2007). Dissertation advisors and initial job placements for
economics PhD recipients. Applied Economics Letters, 14(5), 311-314.
Hilmer, M. J., & Hilmer, C. E. (2009). Fishes, ponds, and productivity: Student-advisor
matching and early career publishing success for economics PhDs
Economic Inquiry, 47(2), 290-303.
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An Index to Quantify an Individual's Scientific Research Output.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
102(46), 16569-16572.
Hyslop-Margison, E. J., & Sears, A. M. (2006). Neo-liberalism, globalization and human capital
learning : Reclaiming education for democratic citizenship. Dordrecht: Springer.
Kogan, M. (1996). Comparing higher education systems. Higher Education, 32(4), 395-402.
8/7/2019 Development of Doctoral Education in Brazil and Nicaragua: A Comparative Study
24/27
Running head: MEASURING IMPACT 24
Krauskopf, M., Vera, M., Krauskopf, V., & Welljams-Dorof, A. (1995). A citationist perspective
on science in Latin America and the Caribbean, 19811993. Scientometrics, 34(1), 3-25.
Leta, J. (2005). Human resources and scientific output in Brazilian science: Mapping astronomy,
immunology and oceanography. Aslib Proceedings, 57(3), 217.
Leta, J., Lannes, D., & De Meis, L. (1998). Human resources and scientific productivity in
Brazil. Scientometrics, 41(3), 313-324.
Levy, D. (1982). Private versus public financing of higher education: U.S. policy in comparative
perspective. Higher Education, 11(6), 607-628.
Levy, D. (1986). Higher education and the state inL
atin America : Private challenges to public
dominance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Marginson, S. (2007). The public/private divide in higher education: A global revision. Higher
Education, 53(3), 307-333.
Marginson, S. (2008). A funny thing happened on the way to the k-economy: The New World
Order in higher education: Research rankings, outcomes measures and institutional
classifications. Paper presented at the Outcomes of higher education: Quality relevance
and impact, Paris, France.
McCowan, T. (2007). Expansion without equity: An analysis of current policy on access to
higher education in Brazil. Higher Education, 53(5), 579-598.
Mello, J. M. C. d., Maculan, A.-M., & Renault, T. B. (2008). Brazilian universities and their
contribution to innovation and development. Developing Universities. Retrieved from
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:-
7OE7i3E2WMJ:scholar.google.com/+Brazilian+universities+and+their+contribution+to+
innovation+and+development&hl=en&as_sdt=80000000
8/7/2019 Development of Doctoral Education in Brazil and Nicaragua: A Comparative Study
25/27
Running head: MEASURING IMPACT 25
Noah, H. J. (1984). The use and abuse of comparative education. Comparative Education
Review, 28(4), 550-562.
Olivares, C. (2006a). Informe de terminacin de proyecto. Managua, Nicaragua: La Republica
de Nicaragua Retrieved from
http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=844150.
Olivares, C. (2006b). Nicaragua: New private versus old private and public. International Higher
Education(45).
Perry, G. E., Lpez, J. H., Maloney, W. F., Arias, O. S., & Servn, L. (2006). Poverty reduction
and growth: Virtuous and vicious circles. Washington D.C.: The World Bank.
Piper, F. (2007). A new standard for measuring doctoral programs. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 53(19), A.8.
Ribeiro, R. J. (2007). Doctoral education in Brazil. In S. Powell & H. Green (Eds.), The
doctorate worldwide (pp. 143-154). Maidenhead: Society for Research into Higher
Education & Open University Press.
Ribeiro, R. J. (2008). Brazil. In M. Nerad & M. Heggelund (Eds.), Toward a global PhD? :
Forces and forms in doctoral education worldwide (pp. 131-145). Seattle: Center for
Innovation and Research in Graduate Education In association with University of
Washington Press.
Schofer, E., & Meyer, J. W. (2005). The Worldwide Expansion of Higher Education in the
Twentieth Century. American Sociological Review, 70(6), 898-920.
Schwartzman, E., & Balbachevsky, B. (1996). The academic profession in Brazil. In P. G.
Altbach & Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (Eds.), The
international academic profession : portraits of fourteen countries (pp. 231-280).
8/7/2019 Development of Doctoral Education in Brazil and Nicaragua: A Comparative Study
26/27
Running head: MEASURING IMPACT 26
Princeton, N.J.: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching: A Special
Report.
Schwartzman, S. (2006). Brazil. In J. J. F. Forest & P. G. Altbach (Eds.), International handbook
of higher education (Vol. 2, pp. 613-626). Dordrecht: Springer.
Sobrinho, J. D., & Brito, M. R. F. d. (2009). Higher education in Brazil: Main trends and
challenges. In F. L. Segrera, C. Brock & J. D. Sobrinho (Eds.), Higher education in Latin
American and the Caribbean 2008 (pp. 235-253). Caracas, Venezuela:
UNESCO/IESALC.
Sperling, G. B. (2001). Toward Universal Education: Making a Promise, and Keeping It.
Foreign Affairs, 80(5), 7-13.
The Swedish Research Council Formas. (2010). Joint Formas Sida/SAREC funded program for
research on sustainable development in developing countries Retrieved April 14, 2010,
from http://www.formas.se/formas_templates/Page____556.aspx
Theisen, G., & Adams, D. (1990). Comparative education research: What are the methods and
uses of comparative education research? In R. M. Thomas (Ed.), International
comparative education : Practices, issues & prospects (1st ed., pp. 277-300). Oxford
[England] ; New York: Pergamon.
Torres, C. A., & Schugurensky, D. (2002). The political economy of higher education in the era
of neoliberal globalization: Latin America in comparative perspective. Higher Education,
43(4), 429-455.
Townsend, B. K., & Rosser, V. J. (Fall, 2007). Workload issues and measures of faculty
productivity. Thought and Action, 7-20.
8/7/2019 Development of Doctoral Education in Brazil and Nicaragua: A Comparative Study
27/27
Running head: MEASURING IMPACT 27
Trow, M. (2006). Reflections on the transition from elite to mass to universal access: Forms and
phases of higher education in modern societies since WWII. In J. J. F. Forest & P. G.
Altbach (Eds.), International handbook of higher education (Vol. 1, pp. 243-280).
Dordrecht: Springer.
UNESCO Forum on Higher Education Research and Knowledge, International Association of
Universities, Srlin, S., & Vessuri, H. M. C. (2007). Knowledge society vs. knowledge
economy : Knowledge, power, and politics (1st ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Velho, L. (2004). Research capacity building for development: From old to new assumptions.
Science Technology and Society, 9(2), 171-207. doi: 10.1177/097172180400900201
Wirt, F. M. (1980). Comparing educational policies: Theory, units of analysis, and research
strategies. Comparative Education Review, 24(2), 174-191.
Wulff, D. H., & Nerad, M. (2006). Using an alignment model as a framework in the assessment
of doctoral programs. In P. Maki & N. A. Borkowski (Eds.), The assessment of doctoral
education : Emerging criteria and new models for improving outcomes (1st ed., pp. 83-
108). Sterling, Va.: Stylus.