Data on Recruitment and Not Pursuing a Doctorate - The Real Reasons



Similar documents
NOTES FROM THE DISCUSSION FOR ISSUE I The Ph.D. Shortage In Communication Sciences And Disorders

Centralized data collection system providing

COUNCIL OF ACADEMIC PROGRAMS IN COMMUNICATION SCIENCES AND DISORDERS NATIONAL SURVEY OF UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE PROGRAMS TABLE OF CONTENTS

SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY LONG TERM STRATEGIC PLAN. Updated December, 2014

LARGE AND SMALL PROGRAM COLLABORATION OR IS IT ONLY DIFFERENT PROGRAMS? Nancy Creaghead, Ph.D. University of Cincinnati. Examples and Ideas

Communication Sciences & Disorders (CSD) Education Survey Maine Aggregate Data Report Academic Year

North Carolina Data on Undergraduate and Graduate Education in Communication Sciences and Disorders

The Survey of Undergraduate and Graduate Programs in Communication. Sciences and Disorders has been conducted since Surveys were conducted in

Strategic Vision Faculty and Staff Recruitment and Development

Communication Sciences & Disorders (CSD) Education Survey North Dakota Aggregate Data Report Academic Year

Communication Sciences & Disorders (CSD) Education Survey Idaho Aggregate Data Report Academic Year

Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Loan Repayment Program for Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists Enrollment Application

REPORT: DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY OF UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE PROGRAMS IN COMMUNICATION SCIENCES AND DISORDERS

4/4/14. Mark DeRuiter, M.B.A., Ph.D. Malcolm R. McNeil, Ph.D. Loretta M. Nunez, Au.D., M.A.

UNDERGRADUATES KNOWLEDGE AND INTEREST IN THE DOCTORATE OF PHILOSOPHY DEGREE FOR COMMUNICATION SCIENCES AND DISORDERS. Elizabeth Ashlee Witter

Universidad del Turabo Speech Language Pathology Program Strategic Plan Vision. Mission

Mission/Vision/Strategic Plan Audiology and Speech-Language Sciences

COLLEGE OF SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES Muncie, Indiana DEPARTMENT OF SPEECH PATHOLOGY AND AUDIOLOGY Phone:

Program Assessment Plan for Speech-Language Pathology Master s Program Program Goal 1

This report has been developed by the conference planning committee (in alphabetical order):

Communication Sciences & Disorders (CSD) Education Survey Texas Aggregate Data Report Academic Year

Personnel Shortages in Speech Language Pathology

Undergraduates Knowledge and Interest in the Doctorate of Philosophy Degree for Communication Sciences and Disorders

THE STATE OF ILLINOIS BILL TEXT. Copyright 2006 by State Net(R), All Rights Reserved IL S.B. 931 ILLINOIS 94TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY SENATE BILL 931

SCHOOL OF SPEECH-LANGUAGE AND HEARING SCIENCES DOCTORAL PROGRAM GUIDELINES

Department: Speech Pathology and Audiology. Number of students enrolled in the program in Fall, 2011: 75

North Dakota Nursing Needs Study

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF REGISTRATION IN NURSING

Governors State University

Graduate Assistants and Fellowships

Building Academic Program Capacity with Innovative Clinical Education Models

Department of Speech-Language Pathology Strategic Plan

INNOVATIVE PROGRAMS TO ADDRESS PERSONNEL VACANCIES IN HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION

PIC Issue Brief March, Issue Brief. An Introduction to Personnel Preparation Program Partnerships

Speech-Language Pathology Programs Handbook

Division of Communication Disorders AP4 Strategic Plan ( )

University Recommendations

IHE Graduate Performance Report WESTERN CAROLINA UNIVERSITY

Strategic Plan Department of Communication Disorders. Minot State University

AC : DEVELOPMENT OF AN ONLINE MASTER'S DEGREE IN TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT

This is an example of a response to UNC Tomorrow.ECU Tomorrow And the Implications for Academic Degree Program Planning.

OFFICE OF QUALITY PROFESSIONALS AND SPECIAL SCHOOLS Summary of State Board of Education Items April 17-18, 2008

Steve and Clint Marchant Data Based Insights, Inc. on behalf of the ACS Department of Research & Market Insights. March 5, 2015

PROGRAM APPROVAL: MASTER OF EDUCATION Agenda Item F-4 IN EDUCATION ADMINISTRATION November 13, 2000

Private Practice Owners and Independent Contractors

Report of the 2008 Joint Ad Hoc Committee on PhD Shortages in Communication Sciences and Disorders

Factors Influencing Participation in Technology Education Graduate Studies

Doctoral Program Roundtable: Admissions Networking. Rosalind R. Scudder, PhD Tara Carlson, PhD Student Wichita State University

How To Get A Master S Degree At Duke

Graduate Programs in Engineering

COUNCIL OF GRADUATE PROGRAMS IN COMMUNICATION SCIENCES AND DISORDERS NATIONAL SURVEY OF UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE PROGRAMS

Comparison of Job Satisfaction in Occupational Therapy Settings

Audiologists. UWW Advisor: Please contact the department of Communication Science & Disorders with your questions.

Special Survey on Vacant Faculty Positions for Academic Year (Pennsylvania)

PROGRAM CHOICE FACTORS OF SPORT MANAGEMENT DOCTORAL STUDENTS IN NORTH AMERICA

To demonstrate satisfactory performance, graduate students pursuing the M.A. degree will be expected to:

College of Education Clinical Faculty Appointment and Promotion Criteria Provost Approved 11/11/11

REPORT FALL 2003 SURVEY OF MAINE NURSING EDUCATION PROGRAMS

GRADUATE SCHOOL. Contributions From: Donald Asher

Ph.D. in Communication Sciences and Disorders (Audiology or Speech and Language Pathology), including a joint M.S./Ph.D.

Changing Practice in an Ed.D. Program

Final Report. Strategic Plan to Increase the Student Pipeline and Workforce for PhD Researchers and Faculty Researchers

Otto H. York Department of Chemical, Biological and Pharmaceutical Engineering Ph.D. Program Requirements

Canadian Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists: University Programs in Audiology 2010

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION DISORDERS PROGRAM REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT

Mississippi Teacher Fellowship Program Application

III. Standards for Accreditation of Graduate Education Programs in Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology

Exploring the Consumer Behavior That Influences. Student College Choice

Standard Operating Procedures School Finance Committee. Policy Section Approved by BOD DATE

A NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR GRADUATE PROGRAMS IN EDUCATION FACULTIES

How To Choose A Phd Program

HIGHER EDUCATION PRACTICE RESEARCH ABSTRACTS

Communication Sciences & Disorders (CSD) Education Survey New York Aggregate Data Report Academic Year

Doctoral Programs in Communication Sciences and Disorders

Phase I of Alberta Nursing Education Strategy Report and Working Document

Program Description. Doctorate of Health Sciences to Be Offered by Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN

2.2 The Superintendent will develop eligibility pools for positions of viceprincipal

2.12 DISTANCE EDUCATION OR EXECUTIVE DEGREE PROGRAMS

HIRING PREFERENCES FOR HOSPITALITY EDUCATORS. Introduction

the Vice Provost for Research/Dean of the Graduate School

Department of Communication Disorders Five Year Strategic Plan

1. Number of Degrees Per Year Rolling three-year average of the number of degrees awarded per academic year. Academic Year Average Number of Degrees

FINANCIAL AID GRADUATE RESEARCH FELLOWSHIPS AND AWARDS. Graduate Dean's Fellowship

Computer Science Strategic Plan:

UAF-UAA Joint PhD Program in Clinical-Community Psychology with Rural, Indigenous Emphasis Outcomes Assessment Goals, Objectives, and Benchmarks

Strategic Plan Template. Department of Special Education and Child Development Strategic Plan

ARTICLE I: OBJECTIVE A.

UT Dallas - 18 Characteristics of Texas Public Schools Program 1. Telecommunications Engineering, CIPcode

MONTANA BOARD OF REGENTS

Alabama A&M University. Communicative Sciences and Disorders (CSD) Program

IHE Master's Performance Report

Speech and Hearing Program Strategic Plan

WEST VIRGINIA THE MOUNTAIN STATE. Building Partnerships in WV Personnel Preparation Program Partnerships

Guidelines for Conducting an APR Self-Study

Career Paths for the CDS Major

PhD Information Session. Prof. L. Robin Keller Director, Ph.D. Program

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Rehabilitation Counseling Program Department of Kinesiology and Community Health Evaluation Plan. Discrepancy Evaluation Model

Department of Geography

BYLAWS of the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences

Transcription:

226 THE SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY DOCTORATE - PURSUE, NOT PURSUE, AND NOT COMPLETE: THE REASONS WHY Charles L. Madison, Ph.D. Washington State University at Spokane Barbara Guy, M.S. and Melissa Koch, M. S. Eastern Washington University It is my pleasure to be a part of this effort to address the critical issue of a shortage of doctoral level academicians and researchers in speech-language pathology and audiology. There is little need to provide detailed documentation to substantiate the problem. We have a personnel crisis on our hands and we all know it. You have noted the positions available published in the ASHA Leader, listed at the ASHA Convention last November, and posted on the Council of Academic Programs in Communication Disorders and Sciences (CAPCSD) web site. You have experienced the near daily arrival of printed job notices to be posted or circulated to your faculty. Most of you are aware of the data from the last Survey of Undergraduate and Graduate Programs published by the CAPCSD documenting the reduced numbers of completed doctorates over the last 15 years. Many of you have experienced the difficulty of filling vacancies at our own institutions, low numbers in the applicant pools, candidates who may not be the best fit with the programs needs or the institutions demands, or perhaps no applicants at all. You are well aware of the problem. Today, at the Council, we are addressing the problem by attempting, as we should, to better understand it and by searching for creative solutions to the recruitment and retention of qualified doctoral students. The data I share with you today will, I hope, help us understand the issues that influence the decision of people with a Master s degree in speech-language pathology to pursue, not pursue, or not complete the doctorate. The data are part of the information generated by survey work completed under my direction.

227 Three hundred eighty-four questionnaires were distributed via mail to speech-language pathologists holding a Master s degree, 64 to each of 6 geographical regions as noted by ASHA. Potential respondents were selected from the ASHA on-line membership directory. Three hundred five questionnaires were returned, and all were usable. This represents a 79% response rate. The questionnaire was organized such that respondents were asked whether they had ever considered pursuing a doctoral degree, whether they had applied to a doctoral program, whether they were accepted, and whether they had actually enrolled. If they had not considered, not applied, or not enrolled, they were asked to select and rank order from a list of possible reasons those that best represented why they had not done so. Those respondents who had enrolled in a doctoral program in speech-language pathology were asked to select and rank order from a list of possible reasons why they choose to pursue the degree. Finally, those who had enrolled in, but not completed the program, were asked to select and rank order from a list of possible reasons why they choose not to or were unable to complete the degree requirements. Not unexpectedly, 94 % (288) of the respondents were female, while 6% (17) were male. As you can see from Table 1, there was an even balance in the number of respondents by geographical region. Table 1. The number and percentage of responses by geographical region. Region Area Number of Percent * Responses 1 Western 56 18 2 Southwestern 49 16 3 Central 52 17 4 Northeastern 48 16 5 Southern 50 16 6 Mid-Atlantic 50 16 * = % of total responses rounded to nearest %

228 Figure 1 shows the distribution of respondents by work setting. Again, as expected, the largest number of respondents were from the public schools, but hospital/clinic, higher education, and private practice were well represented also. Percent 3% 1% 1% Public Schools (SLP) [33%] Hospital/Clinic (SLP) [21%] 12% 33% Higher Education [15%] Private Practice [14%] 14% Other [12%] 15% 21% Hospital/Clinic (Administration) [3%] Professional Organization [1%] Public Schools (Administration) [1%] Figure. 1 Table 2 shows that 42% (128 of 305) of those who responded to this survey had at one time or another seriously considered getting a doctorate and that 33% of those respondents (42 of 128) actually applied to a program. Further, of those who applied, 98% (40 of 42) were accepted and of those accepted, 93% (37 of 40) enrolled. Table 2. The number and percentage of respondents reporting seriously and not seriously considering getting a doctoral degree, respondents who applied and who did not apply, who were accepted, and who enrolled in doctoral programs Response Number of Percentage Respondents Not seriously considered 177 58 Seriously considered 128 42 Applied (42) (33) 1 Did not apply (86) (67) 1 Accepted (40) (98) 2 Enrolled (37) (93) 3 1 = based on 128 who seriously considered obtaining a doctoral degree 2 = based on the 42 who applied to a doctoral program 3 = based on the 40 who were accepted to a doctoral program

229 The number and percent of those who seriously considered pursuing a doctorate and those who actually enrolled are presented by work setting in Table 3 (on following page). These figures are based on the entire respondent pool (n= 305). As you can see, those who had seriously considered obtaining a doctorate were, on a percentage basis, primarily from hospital/clinic, public schools, and higher education settings. It is clear, however, that those already familiar with higher education were more likely to actually enroll in a doctoral program. The reasons given by respondents for not seriously considering obtaining a doctorate, not applying if they were interested, or for not enrolling if they were accepted are summarized in Table 4 (see following pages). Keep in mind, that respondents were asked to indicate those reasons that applied to them and to rank those that they chose. The lower the mean reported in Table 4, the more important that reason was for their deciding not to pursue a doctoral degree. A variety of personal reasons (i.e., Other), family obligations, lack of research interest, and satisfaction with current position were among the highest ranked reasons why the doctorate was not pursued. The criteria for being accepted to a doctoral program, the influence of significant others, interest in teaching, and available financial support were among the lowest ranked factors. Table 3. The number and percentage of respondents that seriously considered getting a doctoral degree and number and percentage of those that enrolled, by work setting. Employment Setting Public Schools (SLP) Seriously Considered Number Seriously Considered Percentage* Enrolled Number Enrolled Percentage* 34 11 2 1.0 Public Schools (Administrator ) Hospital/Clinic (SLP) 1 0 0 0.0 36 12 9 3.0

230 Hospital/Clinic (Administator) Higher Education Private Practice Professional Organization 5 2 0 0.0 32 10 20 7.0 21 7 5 2.0 0 0 0 0.0 Other 14 5 4 1.0 * percentage of total responses (305) Table 4. Reasons for not pursuing a doctoral degree ranked according to mean (lower mean indicative of increased importance). Reason Number Mean SD* of responses Other 63 2.38 1.75 Family obligations 132 2.80 2.52 Lack of research 135 3.00 2.88 interest Satisfaction with 133 3.17 2.19 current position Satisfaction with 135 3.40 2.29 current degree Length of program 105 3.60 2.10 Cost of program 92 3.84 2.30 Long hours 71 4.15 2.35 Distance/ location 62 4.19 3.73 of program Lack of interest in 86 4.37 3.30 working higher education Satisfaction with current salary 78 4.50 3.31

231 Lack of financial 61 4.57 3.54 support Lack of interest in 72 4.63 3.63 teaching Spousal/ 57 5.49 4.36 significant other influence Criteria of getting 33 6.52 3.63 accepted *SD = Standard Deviation Table 5 (following page) summarizes the reasons given by those respondents who actually enrolled in a doctoral program for doing so. Highest ranked among those reasons were desire for knowledge, research interest, and interest in teaching, while prestige, dissatisfaction with current degree, and the influence of others were lowest ranked as reasons for pursuing a doctorate. Table 5. Reasons for pursuing a doctoral degree ranked according to mean (lower mean indicative of increased importance). Reason Number Mean SD* of responses Desire for 30 2.20 1.27 knowledge Research interest 27 2.80 1.70 Other 5 3.00 1.87 Interest in 25 3.28 2.03 teaching Wanted better life 7 3.57 2.67 for family/children Working with a 10 3.60 2.72 particular scholar Spousal/ 3 3.67 4.04 significant other influence Dissatisfaction 7 3.71 2.92 with current position Interest in higher 19 3.84 2.06 education Making contribution to the discipline 26 4.00 1.62

232 Future salary 9 4.44 2.92 possibilities Availability of 13 5.30 2.25 financial support Dissatisfaction 5 6.20 2.77 with current degree Prestige and title 10 6.79 2.63 *SD = Standard Deviation Table 6 (following page) presents the ranking of reasons given by respondents for not completing the doctorate after having enrolled. Here, family considerations, loss of advisor, length of program, and disillusion with research were highly ranked, while loss of financial support, personal treatment in program, and completion of the dissertation were ranked low as reasons for not completing the program. Table 6. Reasons for not continuing a doctoral degree ranked according to mean (lower mean indicative of increased importance). Reason Number Mean SD* of responses Family 7 1.71 0.95 considerations Loss of advisor 3 2.00 0.00 Length of program 4 2.00 1.41 Disillusioned with 4 2.50 1.00 research Loss of interest 4 2.75 0.50 Other 9 2.78 1.71 Cost of program 4 3.00 1.00 Current job 4 3.00 2.45 satisfaction Did not complete 3 3.00 2.00 the dissertation Personal 7 3.14 2.34 treatment in the programs Loss of financial 3 3.67 1.55 support *SD = Standard Deviation

233 Finally, in Table 7 (following page) I have provided some data from a companion survey that asked faculty at doctoral degree granting programs to indicate in a similar fashion why they thought doctoral students failed to complete their program. The faculty ranked failure to complete the dissertation, difficulty of the program, and family considerations, as those they thought most important. Faculty ranked current job satisfaction, loss of financial support, loss of advisor, and personal treatment as the least important reasons why people did not complete their doctoral programs. Table 7. Reasons given by doctoral faculty for candidates not completing their doctoral program ranked according to mean (lower mean indicative of increased importance). Reason Number Mean SD* of responses Other 9 2.00 1.00 Did not complete 57 2.22 1.61 the dissertation Difficulty of 48 2.72 2.17 program Family 37 3.49 2.26 considerations Loss of interest 49 3.57 2.22 Length of program 46 3.61 1.96 Disillusioned with 41 3.79 2.34 research Cost of program 28 4.54 2.41 Personal 26 4.87 2.99 treatment in the programs Loss of advisor 23 5.57 2.64 Loss of financial 23 5.67 3.14 support Current job 21 5.83 3.56 satisfaction *SD = Standard Deviation

234 Summary and Conclusions The present research sought to better our understanding of why people with a Master's degree pursue, do not pursue, or do not complete a doctoral program. The results showed that 42% of the respondents had seriously considered pursuing a doctorate, though only 1/3 of those actually applied for admission. Not surprisingly, personal and family reasons, and lack interest in research and teaching were important reasons for not pursuing a doctorate. The lack of interest in doing research loomed as a significant reason for not pursuing the degree, but lack of interest in teaching did not. Being accepted into a doctoral program was not highly ranked as a factor for those choosing not to pursue a doctoral degree. The data showing that 98% of those who indicated that they applied were accepted into a program also supported this. The reasons people gave for pursuing a doctoral degree were encouraging. The desire for greater knowledge and an interest in research were the highest ranked reasons, and this is as it should be. Because CAPCSD surveys have shown that the number of people completing the doctorate is a particular issue, the data that related to why people did not complete their program were of special interest. Again, family considerations was ranked as an important factor as to why people did not complete their doctoral program, and such factors may be beyond the scope of faculty s ability to help. By contrast, loss of advisor, length of program, and disillusionment with research were also ranked high, and these are areas where a more proactive and sensitive faculty could make a difference. The present data suggest that lack of financial support, personal treatment, and completion of the dissertation were are not major factors preventing doctoral candidates from completing their degree. The present data provide some hints about where our recruiting efforts may be more productive. Those with Master s degrees who are already associated with higher education, probably as clinical supervisors or as teaching

235 MAs, were, on a percentage basis, more likely to have enrolled in a doctoral program. Also, those from hospitals and clinics were more likely than those employed in the public schools to enroll in a doctoral program. In this study, a higher percentage of males (41%) than females (10%) enrolled in doctoral programs. Since the average age of those entering a Ph.D. program was 32 years, perhaps focusing recruiting efforts around that age, say 28 to 36 years may be helpful. Limitations Though the response rate was very good (79%) and the number of respondents over 300, there are some limitations to the study. First, the selection of potential respondents was not random. These were ASHA members, which makes them different from the nationwide population of people with a Master s degree. Second, in order to get a better cross-section of employment settings, selected cities were chosen for the study. The geographical representation of the respondents was balanced nationally, but rural and remote areas were probably under represented, thus diminishing geographical accessibility of a doctoral program as a reason for not pursuing a doctorate. In the final analysis the percent of respondents indicating that they had seriously considered pursuing a doctorate represents the best possible scenario as does the percent of those who applied to a doctoral program.