The Assessment of Doctoral Education: Emerging Criteria and New Models for Improving Outcomes

Citation

Barnacle, R. (2008), "The Assessment of Doctoral Education: Emerging Criteria and New Models for Improving Outcomes", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 392-394. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880810906526

The Assessment of Doctoral Education provides a snapshot of current research on the educational practices of the doctorate in the United States. Its focus is exclusively on the North American context, excluding Canada, and most of the contributors are widely published on the subject of doctoral education in that country and have been influential overseas.

One thing that becomes immediately apparent upon flicking through the pages of this book is that the USA has had the benefit of a number of large, national studies and projects on doctoral education practices in recent years. A number are discussed in the book. Included, for example, is a chapter by Barbara Lovitts' on her Making the Implicit Explicit study, which examines the performance expectations that academics hold regarding the outcomes of the dissertation. In addition, a chapter by Maresi Nerad and Joseph Cerny with other colleagues, reports findings from the PhD's Ten Years Later study which examines graduate career paths. The book also contains a chapter by Chris Gold and colleagues on the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate, which aimed at improving doctoral programs by working with departments to become more reflective about the doctoral programs they provide. One of the things that really makes these chapters interesting, quite aside from the results, is the inclusion of survey instruments and the like. For readers interested in examining their own doctoral practices this makes for a particularly useful resource. Other large studies discussed in the book, although in less detail, are the Re‐envisioning the PhD Project, led by Jody Nyquist, and The Responsive PhD Initiative, run by the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation.

What is striking from an Australian perspective is the availability of funds to undertake large studyies and projects of this kind in the USA. Many are funded through charitable trusts, such as Pew, and philanthropic organisations, such as Atlantic Philanthropies and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. Such sources are relatively nonexistent outside the USA. Until recently it was very difficult for Australian researchers to even obtain peer reviewed research funding from the Australian Research Council for research on doctoral education, although that has thankfully changed. Despite this, however, it is good to see the influence that Australian research on doctoral education is having in the USA. Reference to Australian researchers, particularly Alison Holebrook, Sid Bourke, Margaret Kiley and Gerry Mullins, is evident throughout the book.

A key question concerning the worth of this book is whether the various approaches presented are adaptable internationally to assist and inform the assessment of doctoral programs elsewhere. One limitation of the book is that it does not contain any explanation or discussion of the specific features of the North American model of the doctorate, nor comparison with models elsewhere. Indeed, certain features of the model, the significant course work component, for example, when compared to the doctorate in the UK, Australia and New Zealand, are implied rather than made explicit. This could be misleading for readers unaware of how the doctorate differs around the world. At the same time, however, many of the issues examined within the research contained in the book are not unique to the US context and find obvious resonance elsewhere. The trend toward increased accountability and quality improvement measures within the higher education sector is evident across the globe. Such trends are usefully summarised in regards to the US context in the first chapter by Nancy Borkowski. Measures and practices trailed in the USA to improve the doctorate offer a valuable resource for others dealing with pressures to improve the quality of their doctoral programs.

When I first read the title of this book I had the mistaken impression that it was about the assessment process within doctoral education, i.e. the examination of PhD theses rather than an examination of doctoral programs themselves. Perhaps other readers will not make the same mistake but my own confusion gave me pause to reflect. The notion of assessment of doctoral programs can suggest a focus on metrics and through‐put and out‐put measures, such as completion rates. But this is not what this book is about. As a number of its contributor's state, our understanding of doctoral candidate learning and the nature of the research experience, for example, is only beginning to take shape. Consequently, much of the research presented in this book is focused as much on understanding doctoral practices as their assessment. Lovitt's chapter is a case in point, as is the chapter by Jeannie Brown Leonard examining doctoral candidates' perspectives on the dissertation. Perhaps another way of putting this is to say that the assessment of doctoral education must be informed by an understanding of the expectations and experiences of those involved. Rebecca Aanerud, Lori Homer, Mariesi Nerad, and Joseph Cerny, in chapter four, make this point well in relation to assessing the career outcomes of graduates:

At the heart of out discussion is this basic question: should the ideal outcome of a doctoral education be placement in a ladder faculty position at a Research 1 university? Analysis of the data from the PhDs Ten Years Later survey leads us to a resounding no. It is clear that doctoral education serves both individuals and society in many ways, some far removed form the traditional academic path. Given the evidence that the PhD is a passport to multiple career destinations, we suggest that doctoral education assessment include an understanding of career paths, how students feel about the jobs they actually take, what they say about the preparation they experienced during the course of their doctoral education, and what they say about the personal value of the doctoral education (p. 117).

It is the case that some of the content of the book can be found elsewhere, particularly the chapter by Lovitts, which is now available in more developed form as a monograph (also published by Stylus), and also the work of Nerad and Cerny on the PhD's Ten Years Later study. This does not necessarily detract from the value of this book, however, as its strength is the overview it provides, leaving the reader to explore further if they wish. Moreover, while this book appears to be written with an internal audience in mind it is nonetheless useful for readers outside the USA, both in terms of gaining an insight into the research being conducted on doctoral education in that country as well as for informing research on doctoral programs beyond its shores. It is not only informative but useful, comprising a veritable treasure trove of strategies, assessment models and research findings. The book makes an informative addition to the growing body of literature on doctoral education.