Considering the National Dialogue on Doctoral Education – Research Experience (Part 6 of 8)
by Jonathan Gehrz | September 8, 2010
Evening Folks!
My apologies for the hiatus between posts. Summer months, don’t you know.
This evening, let’s continue our reflection and dialogue on the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) monograph on promising policies and practices that promote learner success. Recalling, the foundation of our dialogue, while every institution has their own “flavor” or approach to delivering 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.
This evening, we turn our attention to one of the most significant characteristics of any doctoral program, the research experience. While there are many quality non-doctoral programs that maintain a research component, arguably, there is something truly unique about transcending beyond experiential learning as a practitioner to an emphasis on scholarship — putting the scholar first in your professional identity – at the doctoral level. Admittedly, I am quite biased in this matter, but looking for connections between the theoretical, research, and best practice literature in your field to the challenges of every day life, is perhaps the most rewarding experience the doctorate offers.
And yet, there a wealth of published research on the topic of “ABD’s” (All But Dissertation) and attrition that point to the research experience as a common place of program discontinuation. Such a discrepancy gives us pause to reflect and ask what policies and practices should we continue to embrace? What should we seek to modify or perhaps abandon fully?
2 Responses to "Considering the National Dialogue on Doctoral Education – Research Experience (Part 6 of 8)"
Daria U. Amato says:
There are several things to consider. Not all college settings require faculty to be doctorally prepared, ie: community colleges. But faculty may need academic credit beyond the master’s degree for promotion. I have worked with faculty who have enrolled in PhD programs and stopped after all course work was complete because of this. The weren’t interested in the degree but rather looking for promotion and fell into the category of ABD. They acchieved the next academic teaching rank and several retired 3 or 4 years later.
This then raises the question do all faculty need the complete PhD?
Should there be an intermediate level? or Should there be a BA to a professional degree that is more than a masters and less than a doctorate?
Nursing may be looking towards this with the development of the Doctorate in Nursing Practice. Over the next several years this degree will be the degree students go to from the BS level to be come nurse practitioners, midwives, or anesthetist. Leaving the PhD to educators and administrators.
Students leave this degree having carried out a project of clinical significance and either presented it at a conference, implemented it in a clinical setting as a policy or procedure, and they may also publish it in article formate. This decreases the time in school to about 4 or 5 semesters verses 6 or 7.
Society is demanding higher education with the thought that it guarentees quality. This may not be true.
Arnetta Hamilton says:
I’m glad I had an opportunity to read this post. It was great, gave me insight of understanding and also allow me to think, rethink, proofread and say yes there is help out there for students just like me when I’m stuck or just need to take a stress session of relaxation.
Arnetta Hamilton