The Doctorate Count Is Not as Simple as It Looks
The doctorate side of the R2 equation
In "HERD Is More Than a Number," we examined how research expenditures get measured on the path to Carnegie R2 status. Expenditures are only half of that equation. The other half, research doctorates, runs through a different federal system - IPEDS, the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. In this piece we highlight two important considerations for doctoral counts: classification and time lag.
What Counts as a Research Doctorate
IPEDS asks institutions to report doctoral degrees in three categories: (a) Doctor's Degree – Research/Scholarship, (b) Doctor's Degree – Professional Practice, and (c) Doctor's Degree – Other. Carnegie's R2 threshold counts only the first of these, typically traditional PhD degrees. However, the degree title alone does not determine which category a program falls into. An EdD or a DPA (Doctor of Public Administration) can, in some cases, be classified as a research doctorate, depending on the program's design and how the institution codes it, while a similar program at another institution may be coded as professional practice instead. An institution may have multiple applied doctoral programs, some correctly coded as research doctorates and others as professional practice, without anyone having reviewed the full set against Carnegie's standard at the same time.
What determines classification are the program's outcomes and course requirements. A program built around an original, defended research dissertation and a structured research methodology sequence looks different, on paper and in practice, from one built around a capstone project or an applied problem of practice, even when both carry the same "doctor" title. Classification is not something an institution can simply switch. Reclassifying a program from professional practice to research and scholarship requires substantive changes to curriculum, methodology, and dissertation expectations.
A few factors can create a gap between how a degree is classified and how research-intensive the program actually is:
The federal definition carries interpretive latitude. Many EdD programs, for example, require an original research dissertation, which pushes toward the research category, while also being explicitly designed for practicing professionals, which pushes toward the professional category. Two reviewers looking at the same program in good faith could reasonably code it differently.
Programs evolve over time in ways that coding does not always track. A doctoral program's curriculum and dissertation requirements can grow more, or less, research-intensive across several years, while its original IPEDS classification still reflects the program as it existed when someone first coded it.
There is little cross-institutional consistency. Similar degrees at different institutions can be coded differently, so comparing against a peer institution's classification does not reliably confirm the right classification.
The rationale behind an original coding decision is often undocumented. Even when someone does revisit a classification years later, they may not be able explain the original classification, which may make it harder to know whether to update it or defend it as is.
A Reporting Lag in the Doctoral Count
Carnegie's classification reflects a window of time, not the current moment. The 2025 designation draws on IPEDS data from the 2020-21 through 2022-23 academic years. Current methodology uses the higher of a recent single year or a three-year average. Carnegie has indicated that future releases may rely on the three-year average alone, which would reward sustained production over any single strong cycle. This has a direct planning implication, doctoral investments made this year will not surface in the official numbers for several reporting cycles, so an R2 trajectory has to be planned against that lag rather than against a single year's enrollment figures.
Questions to Consider
Even accurate, well-intentioned IPEDS reporting can still leave a gap between what an institution believes it has and what Carnegie counts. If your institution is working toward R2, it is a good idea to spend some time assessing whether your reported doctoral classifications actually reflect what your programs are today. We offer the following questions as a starting point.
Which of our doctoral programs are filed as Research/Scholarship, and which as Professional Practice, and has that filing been checked recently against current program design?
Do our registrar, institutional research, and graduate education offices share a common reference point for this distinction?
Does our multi-year doctoral pipeline reflect where we want to stand several reporting cycles from now, not just current enrollment?
A Practical Next Step
A focused IPEDS reconciliation, run alongside the HERD data audit described in our earlier piece, gives an institution both halves of the R2 equation, doctorates and dollars, confirmed against Carnegie's specific definitions rather than assumed from standard reporting practice.
Selected References
Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. (2025). 2025 Research Activity Designations. Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. https://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/carnegie-classification/classification-methodology/2025-research-activity-designations
Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. (2026). Research designations FAQs. American Council on Education. https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/carnegie-classification/research-designations-faqs/
National Center for Education Statistics. (2025). Mapping old post-baccalaureate award levels with new award levels. Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/report-your-data/data-tip-sheet-reporting-graduate-awards
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2024). Higher Education Research and Development Survey, Fiscal Year 2023. National Science Foundation. https://ncses.nsf.gov/surveys/higher-education-research-development/2023