Add property for Carnegie research activity classification

[stuartasutton]

The Carnegie research activity classification categorizes CredentialOrganizations according to the level of their research activity. Carnegie warns that the classification is not in itself an attestation of quality; however, it indicates a high probability of graduate student engagement in faculty research and a record over time of meaningful research. (See: https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/classification_descriptions/basic.php (includes more than just the activity rating))

URI: ceterms:researchActivityRating Label: research activity rating Definition: Year-specific Carnegie classification of institutional research activity. Comment: The R1 and R2 categories include only institutions that awarded at least 20 research/scholarship doctoral degrees and had at least $5 million in total research expenditures (as reported through the National Science Foundation (NSF) Higher Education Research & Development Survey (HERD)). Domain: ceterms:CredentialOrganization Range: skos:Concept (Values: "R1: Doctoral Universities – Very high research activity", "R2: Doctoral Universities – High research activity"; "D/PU: Doctoral/Professional Universities")

For the latest R1/R2 listing, see: https://cehd.gmu.edu/assets/docs/faculty/tenurepromotion/institutions-research-categories.pdf.

[siuc-nate]

Are there any other similar notions in other educational institutions, in the US or abroad? I think it might make sense to have a general property for research activity but leave anything Carnegie-specific up to the individual concepts themselves.

Also, to get into the weeds a bit:

• This is a claim by the institution that some other institution has made a claim that rates the activity level of the first institution. Is this really the best way to embody it?
  • The closest equivalent in existing CTDL would be either a new subclass of action (see below) or the creation of a Carnegie QA credential (or two) and then asserting that the org has been awarded an instance of that credential ("not in itself an attestation of quality" does kind of throw a wrench into that)
• Do we need to capture any additional information (i.e. dates) with this? Do these ratings expire? An Action subclass may be more appropriate here.
• More broadly, one entity rating another sounds closer to the kinds of territory you get into with comments and star ratings and such (what the learning registry used to call "paradata"). Would any of that be applicable here? In particular, any kind of text description of why/how the rating was issued (which might be appropriate for the description field of an instance of an Action subclass)?

[stuartasutton]

I'm not opposed to generalizing it if the definition has a "such as" that identifies Carnegie research activity. I've been around higher education in the US for over 1/2 a century and this attribute in the US is recognized through the Carnegie Classification. As for "best way to embody it", it is the only widely (very widely) recognized manner in the US.

[siuc-nate]

Archiving this, as it hasn't seen demand in a few years.