In Search of Teacher/Scholars

Le résumé fourni par la source

You have accessThe ASHA LeaderFeature1 Feb 2004In Search of Teacher/ScholarsConsortia Model Offers One Perspective on the Current Doctoral Shortage Robert L. Ringel Robert L. Ringel Google Scholar https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.FTR1.09022004.4 SectionsAbout ToolsAdd to favorites ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In Recently there has been much discussion about the decreased number of students pursuing the doctorate in communication science and disorders (CSD) and the resultant shortage of faculty to staff our discipline's programs of study. Although the causes of this circumstance are debatable, its consequences are clear. If we are unable to recruit, prepare, and retain the best minds into our specialized areas of study, we will likely fail to meet our scientific, clinical, and educational/training responsibilities. If, however, in our urgency to increase the number of PhD recipients, we compromise the quality of student selection and program expectations, we will surely diminish the stature and reputation of our field as a dynamic and rigorously demanding enterprise. Such failures may soon be followed by loss of funding for research, diminished respect for our journals and strength of our "spokespersons" status in the nation's debate about issues of special importance and, ultimately, the loss of the profession's autonomy. But even if we could immediately develop and implement corrective measures, results are at least four-plus years away, given time-in-the-pipeline effects. Indeed, nothing about this picture is pretty. Recent ASHA Omnibus and Council of Academic Programs in Communication Sciences and Disorders survey data tell us that over the past 20 years the number of PhD programs in CSD has grown by 20%, now reaching 61, with the increase accounted for mainly by the addition of programs in speech and language pathology. The average number of applicants for admission to doctoral study in CSD per year, per program, is about nine. With many students applying to multiple programs, it is not surprising that some programs fail to recruit new doctoral students each year. We learn that 24% of the enrolled doctoral students are entirely self-supporting, 20% receive partial tuition waivers, and only 22% are supported through faculty-generated research funds (note that some of these categories are overlapping). We also know that more than half of CSD doctoral students are enrolled in the field's smaller-sized programs of less than 15 students. Considering that these data are "entire-department" based and many departments offer degrees in a number of sub-areas, we can see that establishing a critical mass of doctoral students in any specific area is often difficult. The relatively small number of PhDs produced each year in the speech, language, and hearing sciences (SLHS)-less than an average of 100 per year over the past five years-also has had a tremendous impact on how our field's science is viewed by the National Research Council (NRC) and its nationwide science-based constituencies. Under existing NRC criteria, our field does not reach the minimum number of doctorates awarded over a specified time span that is required for inclusion in their taxonomy of research doctorate programs. In 2003, Steven Barlow of the University of Kansas (in a personal communication) objected to this unfortunate, but nonetheless likely, scenario. He cautioned that the implications of such an NRC action will be to severely underestimate, ignore, and otherwise fail to acknowledge the importance of our field's theoretically driven research and thus misrepresent the true nature of doctoral education within the SLHS. Barlow concluded that by excluding SLHS from the taxonomy, the NRC will send a negative signal to our research faculty and current students and, ultimately, it may deter prospective doctoral students from entering our discipline. While standardized measures describing the academic/intellectual quality of doctoral students entering CSD over any extended past period of time are apparently not available, there are at least anecdotally based beliefs that the "average" quality of students applying for doctoral study is lower than in the past. Further, a citation search of pertinent journals revealed that a number of persons who identified themselves in a 1998–1999 guide to doctoral programs in CSD as "qualified to serve as doctoral student advisors" do not appear to have active research programs that regularly result in refereed publications. When faculty vacancies in CSD are advertised, there are only 2.3 applicants per open tenure-line position, and thus many positions go unfilled. Bowen and Rudenstine's In Pursuit of the PhD discusses trends in graduate education in the humanities, social sciences, and science. The authors report that many disciplines have experienced significant increases in the overall number of doctoral degree-granting programs, with major reductions in the proportion of degrees conferred by the established more highly rated programs. They question how many strong centers of graduate education with sufficient critical mass and quality are needed to sustain an overall enterprise and the relationship between program size, quality, and effectiveness. As these issues are considered, we are urged to recognize the positive impact a PhD program may have upon a university's ability to enhance its standing and reputation and its capacity to recruit and retain high-quality faculty and students. Bowen and Rudenstine tell us that there are often compelling institutional reasons for sustaining doctoral programs, even if they fall below expectations with respect to quality or size. Judgments that may seem reasonable, cost-effective, and conducive to a higher quality education often appear at odds with the priorities of individual institutions. In CSD another point to ponder is whether we are directing students away from the PhD course of study by virtue of developing the professional doctorate option. Currently, there is mixed thought with some observations supporting this belief, while others suggest that the respective pools of candidates for these degrees do not overlap. This question deserves further study. Regardless of the outcome, however, it is likely that the professional doctorate holder will not qualify for PhD major professor status. Of further concern is the possibility that, given the current budget crisis in higher education, universities will have to decide to hire PhD or professional doctorate appointees unless additional resources can be found to simultaneously employ science and professional-level faculty. Compound this with the fact that many PhD holders already choose non-academic careers, and we can envision a future marked by an insufficient number of mentor-major professors. This outcome is serious because an essential factor in PhD study success is the counsel and support of an experienced advisor. The mentor and student relationship is so fundamental that its absence creates a major hurdle for the efficacy of the often advocated distance learning approach to doctoral education. The experience of time spent in an active research environment with a faculty advisor and peer-doctoral students is, at this stage in the development of learning technology, simply irreplaceable. This view is not meant to denigrate the use of distance learning or other technologies in formal doctoral-level course instruction, but rather to emphasize the unique and essential place of onsite, real-time interactions in the pursuit of creativity. Also of great concern is the thought that appears to assign greater value to time and site convenience features of the PhD at the expense of appreciation for the depth and breadth of a program's research component. Current discussion of doctoral education issues is not exclusive to CSD. The Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation program in the humanities urges the development of a "responsive doctorate" founded upon the p

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.