The Educational Quality of the Doctoral Programs in Public Affairs

Public affairs scholars have been concerned about the quality of education in their field for some decades. To assess the program quality, the authors analyzed the National Research Council's most recent data. In the comparative analyses between the public affairs programs and the programs in other social science disciplines, they found that public affairs doctoral programs were behind their peer fields on most of the input-based metrics (students fully funded in their first year of education, median quantitative GRE scores, and percentage of international students in programs) but ahead of them in student-faculty ratios. The results of the outcome-based metrics were mixed. Public affairs students graduated earlier on average, but smaller percentages of them had plans for employment in academic positions. Also, the faculty productivity was lower in public affairs programs compared to the other social science disciplines. Among the subfields of public affairs, public management and public policy had more favorable input- and outcome-based results compared to public administration.

Action Research in Practice-Based Doctoral Programs

Action research is an accepted method that can be used effectively in practice-based doctoral programs to evaluate a multitude of questions and processes. This research method focuses on real-world problems and solutions, and is used in a variety of fields primarily in the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom. This chapter provides an overview of action research, approaches and models, ethical concerns, best practices, criticisms of this research method, its use in doctoral education including dissertations and other research projects, and provides examples of action research in practice-based doctoral education in business, education, and healthcare.

Toward the Promise

Those in higher education stand on the cusp of an opportunity—an opportunity to fulfill the promise that higher education will provide access to liberty, freedom, resources, respect, ownership, and the ability to pursue happiness. The dominance of Eurocentric and Western knowledge, practices, beliefs, and perspectives in organizational leadership programs has yet to be disrupted. Consequently, many doctoral programs reinforce colonialism and White superiority instead of affirming and preparing students to work in a diverse and pluralistic society. This chapter presents some practical ways structural racism in higher education can be interrupted through a program overhaul and redesign to center justice and equity in all aspects of the program.

Utilizing Qualitative Research Methods in Doctoral Programs to Enhance the Importance of Social Justice in Educational Leadership

The Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) degree prepares individuals in research and professional practice in education. In the case of Doctor of Education programs that have a focus on leadership, candidates are expected to act as agents of educational and social change. This chapter turns a critical lens to educational leadership programs in two states, Connecticut and Ohio, in order to better understand the current state of qualitative research and social justice within Doctor of Education programs. Additionally, mission, visions, and educational websites were examined to assess the range of experiences around social justice offered in educational leadership programs. This work also explores the literature on qualitative research methods as a form of inquiry and the history and evolution of qualitative methods that makes this research paradigm a good fit for social justice research and activities within educational leadership programs. Lastly, it illustrates practical approaches to embedding social justice in qualitative research courses.

Real change or performative anti-racism? Clinical psychology programs' efforts to recruit and retain BIPOC scholars

Objective. The present study assessed perceptions of Clinical Psychology doctoral programs’ efforts to recruit and retain Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) faculty and graduate students, as well as differences in such perceptions based on participants’: (1) position within their program (i.e., graduate student versus faculty) and (2) race.Method. Participants (n = 297) were graduate students and faculty from Clinical Psychology PhD and PsyD programs who completed an anonymous online survey. The survey assessed: perceptions of Clinical Psychology doctoral programs’ efforts to recruit and retain BIPOC graduate students and faculty members; participants’ sense of belonging and perceptions of racial discrimination within programs; and BIPOC participants’ experiences of cultural taxation and racism within their programs.Results. Faculty reported significantly greater perceptions of recruitment and retention efforts as well as less perceptions of racial discrimination than did graduate students. Asian, Black, and Latinx participants reported significantly less perceptions of recruitment and retention efforts and sense of belongingness, as well as greater perceptions of racial discrimination than did White participants. Experiences of cultural taxation were common among BIPOC participants, and approximately half (46.60%) reported that they have considered leaving academia - and approximately one third (31.37%) have considered leaving their program - due to experiences of racism in their program or field. Conclusions. Experiences of cultural taxation and racial discrimination are pervasive in Clinical Psychology PhD and PsyD programs. Whether intentional or not, these behaviors contribute to racially toxic environments and contribute to leaks in the mental health workforce pipeline.

Doctoral supervision and COVID-19: Autoethnographies from four faculty across three continents

Doctoral students represent the fresh and creative intellectuals needed to address the many social, economic, political, health care, and education disparities that have been highlighted by the 2020 pandemic. Our work as doctoral student supervisors could not be more central nor vital than it was at the beginning of, during, and following the pandemic. Written during the pandemic of 2020, the purpose of this paper was to describe how four faculty from three continents navigated their relationships with doctoral students in the research and dissertation phase of their doctoral programs. Using a common set of prompts, four faculty members each wrote an autoethnography of our experience as doctoral student supervisors. Even though our basic advising philosophies and contexts were quite different, we learned about the possibility and power of resilience, empathy, and mentoring online. Our findings imply that new online practices could be closely examined and retained after the pandemic to expand the reach, depth and impact of doctoral education.