WORKING DRAFT. Proposed by The Ad Hoc Committee on Doctoral Guidelines of the Council for the Advancement of Higher Education Programs (CAHEP)

Transcription

1 WORKING DRAFT A Commitment to Research Quality and Professional Practice: Voluntary Guidelines for Higher Education Administration Preparation Programs at the Doctoral Degree Level Proposed by The Ad Hoc Committee on Doctoral Guidelines of the Council for the Advancement of Higher Education Programs (CAHEP) Crystal Chambers, East Carolina University Sydney Freeman, Jr., Co-Chair Ad Hoc Doctoral Committee, , Auburn University Lester F. Goodchild, Co-Chair Ad Hoc Doctoral Committee, , University of Massachusetts Boston Linda Serra Hagedorn, Iowa State University Jeni Hart, University of Missouri Columbia Adrienne E. Hyle, University of Texas at Arlington Michelle Nilson, Simon Fraser University Dianne A. Wright, Chair, Ad Hoc Master s Committee, Florida Atlantic University 1

2 As early as 1893, G. Stanley Hall called for the study of higher education to be equal to that of other professions and disciplines, and went on to outline the purposes of higher education degree programs in his many writings as the academic place to educate and train administrators and faculty for the field. Dressel and Mayhew in Higher Education as a Field of Study: The Emergence of a Profession (1974), Fife and Goodchild in Administration as a Profession (1991), Wright and Miller in Training Higher Education Policy Makers and Leaders: A Graduate Program Perspective (2007), and most recently Freeman, Hagedorn, Goodchild, and Wright in Advancing Higher Education as a Field of Study: In Quest of Doctoral Degree Guidelines Commemorating 120 Years of Excellence (2014) have since echoed and advanced these ideas by promoting graduate education and training to further the study of higher education and its place in preparing academic administrators, faculty, researchers, policy analysts, and staff to lead and work in colleges, universities, and other places of higher learning. Emerging from a 19th century American effort to promote advanced education and training for professionals in institutions of higher learning, this field has reached global influence as similar degree and research programs have spread across the world, as Altbach, Rumbley, and others have shown in a recent commentary and in an international survey, respectively The Emergence of a Field: Research and Training in Higher Education (2014) and Higher Education: A Worldwide Inventory (2014). The espoused purposes of such varied degree programs, along with the assessment of student learning, provide an intellectual foundation for this document. Purpose and Scope The purpose of this CAHEP Self-Assessment Guide is to broadly promote principles of good practice in higher education administration and leadership preparation programs at the doctoral degree level, while also respecting the diversity of institutional and program missions. Specifically, they are intended to be voluntary guidelines, rather than required standards, to aid in programmatic development and practice, where local higher education faculty exercise control, creativity, and flexibility in developing and managing doctoral degree programs consistent with national higher education degree program trends and with their own traditions, markets, and institutional missions. These proposed voluntary guidelines are designed to: Promote education, research training, and "principles of effective practice" in higher education administration and leadership. Advance research training in quantitative, qualitative, and/or mixed methods for conducting dissertation and advanced evaluative and empirical studies on higher education issues and problems, broadly conceived. Incorporate contemporary theory, research, and praxis from major international academic and professional associations in the field of higher education administration and leadership. 2

3 Place student learning as central to the purpose of these programs for aspiring higher education administrators and leaders, higher education faculty members, scholars, researchers, or policy analysts. There are currently over 200 higher education programs in the United States, Canada, and Europe. Increasingly higher education programs are turning to online education, here the same expectations for quality student engagement and learning would be expected as traditional campus programs. While there are a range of higher education programs across the globe, higher education administration and leadership programs represent a unique and specific nexus between practice and theory. Guidelines for the Higher Education Administration and Leadership Programs at the Doctoral Degree Level Guidelines for higher education administration and leadership programs are organized under program, content, and outcome domains. Program Domain This domain addresses general program operations. As such, this domain and the following guidelines seek to provide guidance for program structure and functioning. Guideline 1: There is a distinctive mission and vision for the higher education administration and leadership program. At the doctoral program level where either or both the Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) or Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) degrees are offered, an effort should be made to design program coursework, research training, examinations, and capstone projects for educating scholarly administrators or research faculty, as appropriate. A comprehensive mission statement should be developed that centers the program in the field of higher education administration and leadership. Guideline 2: The number of higher administration faculty in a program should be informed by a reasonable faculty to student ratio. However, at a minimum the academic unit that oversees this degree program should have at least two (2) full-time, tenure track/tenured faculty members academically prepared in higher education administration and leadership and hold a degree in higher education administration, leadership or related field. One member should be designated as the academic program leader, preferable a tenured faculty member. An additional full-time faculty member with senior level administrative experience is recommended to offer administrative studies linked to leadership and professional practice at postsecondary institutions. Guideline 3: Leadership at the university, school, college, and department levels is committed to providing the higher education administration and leadership program with sufficient support and resources to ensure continuity, quality, and effectiveness in all of its service delivery. This includes, but is not limited to: academic freedom, program faculty control over admissions, the hiring of personnel, appropriate research training, support for the higher education administration 3

4 and leadership program faculty to participate in professional organizations and activities (e.g., professional travel, research, and leadership positions). Guideline 4: The higher education administration and leadership program fosters a culture and climate that is inclusive and supportive. Guideline 5: The higher education administration and leadership program is characterized by integrity, fairness, and ethical behavior. Content Domain This domain addresses issues pertinent to the Higher Education Administration preparation program curriculum. As such, this domain, and the following guidelines, seek to provide guidance for how content is determined. Guideline 6: The program provides core knowledge and content that bridges higher education research, theory, and practice. Topics should include but are not limited to: History and philosophy of higher education; Administration, leadership, and governance within a higher education context; Student affairs administration; Economics and finance of higher education; Higher education law; Organizational development and change theories; Public policy in higher education; Student development theories; Students and faculty in higher education; and Diversity (e.g., class, gender, race, LGBTQ, etc.). Other course content areas appropriate to a well-rounded higher education administration and leadership could include: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed design research; assessment and evaluation, global perspectives and internationalization of higher education, curriculum, student learning theories, academic ethics, internships and practicums, as well as issues in higher education Guideline 7: Research training should prepare doctoral students for conducting quantitative, qualitative, and/or mixed design studies. Although it can vary by Ed.D. or Ph.D. program type, this represents two quantitative courses, two qualitative courses, and one dissertation design course, at a minimum. If possible program faculty should be teaching one or more of the research methods courses and particularly the dissertation design course to assist students in developing appropriate higher education topics, issues, or problems. Guideline 8: Terminal degrees in higher education administration degree programs typically involve either Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) or Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) degrees. 4

5 Accordingly, these degrees conclude with a dissertation, capstone project, or culminating experience. However, regional history and institutional traditions sometimes favor one or the other degree offering. Nevertheless, the Ph.D. degree should conclude with an original, significant empirical dissertation study advancing knowledge of higher education and demonstrating the candidate s knowledge of higher education research and theory as well as the ability to conduct research. Alternatively, the Ed.D. degree should conclude with an applied problem-oriented project or dissertation advancing higher education administration broadly conceived which demonstrates the candidate s knowledge of appropriate higher education research and if possible an empirical assessment of actual administrative or organizational action. A defense of this dissertation or capstone project should be conducted by appropriate higher education doctoral faculty and in line with the traditions of the particular university. In these matters, doctoral program policies should be consistent with the national guidelines from the Council of Graduate Schools. Guideline 9: The higher education administration and leadership program provides students with opportunities to demonstrate the integration of practice and theory. Examples can be taken from courses, dissertation research, capstone projects focused on applied problems, or other summative projects where students demonstrate theory to practice knowledge to resolve an administrative higher education problem. Outcome Domain This domain addresses general program outcomes. As such, this domain and the following guidelines seek to provide guidance for program outcome expectations and communication. Guideline 10: The higher education administration and leadership program should develop and list specific student learning outcomes that are consistent with the program vision, mission, and content. Guideline 11: The higher education administration and leadership program provides clear outcome expectations to students at the time of application to the program, with any revisions provided immediately upon approval. At some initial point in the program, faculty should assess the student s ability to complete doctoral studies either through a qualifying examination or some other evaluative technique before they move to candidacy. Additionally, faculty-student ratios and dissertation advising loads should be appropriate to other doctoral programs in their university and suitable to provide sufficient advising opportunities to doctoral students to complete their degree programs in a timely manner. While dissertation loads should not be excessive, heavier loads should be balanced by adjustments in other professional responsibilities, acknowledged, and in some cases compensated. Lastly dissertation committees should include a specialist in at least two of the following three areas: content, research methods, and practice as appropriate. Guideline 12: The program outcomes are consistent with the forms and expectations of quality in the field of higher education leadership and administration. The five general forms of outcomes can be: doctoral coursework, fieldwork project, qualifying and/or comprehensive 5

6 examinations, research training, and dissertation or capstone project manuscript. In this regard, programs should collect graduation rates, position placement data, and student satisfaction measures as part of a regular program review process. It is also recommended that programs develop a student handbook as a program resource and guide to enable them to complete the program. The standards of quality in the field should be consistent with the guidelines from the Council of Graduate Schools, peer reviewed publications, or appropriately developed quality standards to the specified outcome. April

7 Notes: The Council for the Advancement of Higher Education Programs offered five opportunities for higher education faculty involvement in creating these guidelines during the past two years: (1) a 2012 CAHEP Symposium, National Dialogue on Higher Education Programs: Are Guidelines Needed? with Carol Colbeck, Laura Dean, Sydney Freeman, Jr., Les Goodchild, Linda Serra Hagedorn, Christopher Morphew, David DiRamio, and Dianne Wright and listed attendees reactions; (2) a 2013 CAHEP Ad Hoc Committee on Doctoral Guidelines meeting at the 2013 ASHE conference; (3) Dianne Wright conducted, Summary of National Higher Education Program Questionnaire from 49 Universities in 2013; (4) Sydney Freeman, Jr. s The Future of Higher Education as Field of Study, a survey of 50 higher education faculty and program coordinators which covered having doctoral guidelines for higher education program and how they assess program quality, September-October, 2014; and (5) responses to Sydney Freeman, Jr., Linda Serra Hagedorn, Lester F. Goodchild, and Dianne A. Wright s chapter, A Critical Moment in the Study of Higher Education Administration in their book, Advancing Higher Education as a Field of Study: In Quest of Doctoral Degree Guidelines Commemorating 120 Years of Excellence (2014, pp , especially pp ), presented 10 doctoral degree guidelines for consideration which have been adopted in part here. A sixth opportunity was presented as the Ad Hoc Committee invited comments from Association for the Study of Higher Education members from November 20 with the announcement of these guidelines as a Point of Information at the CAHEP Business Meeting until January 31, 2015 or approximately 60 days. After which, the Ad Hoc Committee considered all comments submitted to its Co-Chairs (Sydney Freeman, Jr. and Lester Goodchild via ) during that time and then make revisions to these guidelines. This semifinal version was then submitted to the CAHEP Executive Committee for its approval, revision, or denial at a spring 2015 conference call, following the review and approval process created for the CAHEP master s guidelines that were finalized in After which, the Co-chairs of the CAHEP Executive Committee, Linda Serra Hagedorn and Michelle Nilson, will present the final version of the proposed guidelines as a point of information to the ASHE Executive Committee. These program degree guidelines are also based, in large part, on a combination of Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS), Council for Accreditation and Counseling Related Educational Programs (CACREP), and Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) program guidelines and standards as adapted for purposes of this initial draft. The draft program guidelines were presented to the ASHE Council for the Advancement of Higher Education Programs (CAHEP) during its 2014 annual business meeting. 7

8 References Altbach, P. G. (2014). The emergence of a field: Research and training in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 39(8), Dressel, P. L., & Mayhew, L. B. (1974). Higher education as a field of study: The emergence of a profession. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Fife, J. D., & Goodchild, L. F. (Eds.). (1991). Administration as a profession. In New Directions for Higher Education series (No. 76). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Freeman, Jr., S., Hagedorn, L. S., Goodchild, L. F., & Wright, D. A. (Eds.). (2014). Advancing higher education as a field of study: In quest of doctoral degree guidelines Commemorating 120 years of excellence. L. Wolf-Wendel, forward. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Rumbley, L. E., Altbach, P. G., Stanfield, D. A., Shimmi, Y., de Gayardon, A., & Chan, R. Y. (Eds.). (2014). Higher education: A worldwide inventory Research centers, academic programs, and journals and publications (3 rd ed.). Science Management series. Boston and Bonn, Germany: Center for International Higher Education, Boston College and Lemmens Media. Wright, D. A., & Miller, M. T. (Eds.). (2007). Training higher education policy makers and leaders: A graduate program perspective. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. 8