Considering the National Dialogue on Doctoral Education (Part 1 of 8)
by Jonathan Gehrz | May 5, 2010
Have you ever had that moment of pause where you wonder, “How did I get here? Why am I putting myself through this? Is it all worth it in the end?” Sadly, for many, this contributes to PhD program attrition. So much so, the need for reform and improvement of the PhD experience continues to place high on the national education reform dialogue. At times, it difficult to see just how valuable your contribution and experience is to this dialogue, but whether you realize it or not, you represent a new movement dedicated to re-envisioning the doctoral process; to increasing completion rates to a more acceptable level; to leveling the currently underrepresented PhD learner and graduate field; to stand in opposition of the belief that the past approach to developing a scholar is sufficient for 21st century demands.
Over the past 20 years, a multitude of research initiatives (Andrew Mellon Foundation, 1991; Council of Graduate Schools; 2010; Foundation Carnegie Foundation, 2002; National Science Foundation, 2010; Pew Charitable Trust, 2003; President’s Forum, 2006; Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, 2000) have responded to a growing, national concern of Ph.D. completion and attrition rates. All are contributing to a wealth of new information and further dialogue as to how we (institutions) can be more accountable to you, to each other, and to society to better meet the needs in an increasingly competitive, global economy.
Recently, the Council of Graduate School’s Ph.D. Completion Project issued a monograph on policies and practices that promote learner success and aim to increase program completion and reduce attrition (Executive Summary can be found: http://www.phdcompletion.org/information/Executive_Summary_Student_Success_Book_IV.pdf). Within the monograph, the CGS shares research findings related to a series of key factors influencing learner outcomes and promising practices implemented by some participating institutions that provide greater knowledge insight and understanding needed to transform the PhD experience.
Over the coming weeks/months, I offer this venue to us towards contributing to this national dialogue and begin looking at some of these key factors related to your own PhD experience. Specifically, we will further explore the CGS’s findings and consider the factors of: (1) Program selection, (2) Mentoring and Advising, (3) Financial Support, (4) Program Environment, (5) Research Mode of the Field, and (6) Processes and Procedures. In so doing, I believe you will be better positioned to assess your own experience; to engage your institution in articulating your needs; to promote or recommend strategies or intervention strategies that you have found or would find valuable; to help those going through the experience as well; and to actively participate in the national conversation. While I submit, all of these factors are important, it is my genuine hope that the diversity present in our community will further prioritize our collective needs and inform us as to how we might better collaborate and strategize towards an experience that yields far better outcomes.
3 Responses to "Considering the National Dialogue on Doctoral Education (Part 1 of 8)"
Mark Rose says:
It would be a good start to get the Capella PhD instructors in the classroom on a daily basis instead of once a week.
Jonathan Gehrz says:
Thanks for the prompt response, Mark! Sit on this for a moment, if you could. My future postings will give you a far better opportunity to elaborate on that thought.
Jon
Stacie Jordan says:
The comps and dissertation processes need to be streamlined. There is too much sitting and waiting for approvals.