Considering the National Dialogue on Doctoral Education – Program Environment (Part 5 of 8)
by Jonathan Gehrz | July 7, 2010
May 5, 2010 I posted an initial entry related to the recent monograph issued by the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) on promising policies and practices that promote learner success. The foundation of our dialogue, while every institution has their own “flavor” or approach to doctoral education, the CGS’s Ph.D. Completion Project demonstrates that we do share common areas of concern and it only in promoting a “culture of evidence” that we’ll improve doctoral completion rates and meet society’s demands for a more relevant, globally competent PhD.
Subsequently, we have extended this dialogue to reflect on various policies and practices on various facets ranging from admissions and enrollment practices, mentoring/advising, to financial support. Today, in this fifth entry, we turn our attention to the area of program environment. The CGS cites program environment as “department-led and university-wide efforts to create the conditions of high expectations, high performance, and strong student support” (Executive Summary, 2010, p. 3).
Today, it fairly easy to see how the college/university environment is changing. Certainly the increasing use of technologies and the internet to deliver doctoral education online is an obvious example, but consider the changing demographics of doctoral education or how support networks and services are changing with the increasing use of social networks or non-faculty, academic support professionals. For those institutions servicing a predominantly non-traditional learner population, we have touched on the fact that added demands and responsibilities an adult learner faces. To meet those demands, increasingly, institutions will (should) look to provide accommodation policies to support the changing face of their candidates (i.e. medical/maternal/paternal leaves, grief and bereavement, relationships, (un)employment or retirement, etc.) For many, these program policies and practices are core to the heart and identity of the institution and program’s “humanity” and clearly have a noticeable impact on a learner’s success or failure.
If we accept the facet of environment as one of the most influential factors in a nurturing and fostering a learner’s potential, what practices or policies should be considered? Are there current practices or policies that should be discouraged? Or as one colleague mentioned previously, is there, perhaps, positivist-stark, counter-intuitive sets of notions as to which best pathways to embark upon in creating less roadblocks? (Reid, 2010, National Dialogue Part 4). A reminder, the goal of the dialogue is to assess and evaluate all facets of this sacred experience, but more importantly to talk and work together as a community that shares the same desired outcome – a re-envisioned PhD experience that is responsive to our needs.
One Response to "Considering the National Dialogue on Doctoral Education – Program Environment (Part 5 of 8)"
Marion Marino-Meyash says:
Research is ongoing in this global society and continual change is inevitable. It is important that research delves into the many aspects that make us human and inquisitive.