crisis in the discipline: a plan for reshaping our futurediscipline, we should be proud of our...
TRANSCRIPT
CRISIS IN THE DISCIPLINE: A PLAN FOR RESHAPING OUR FUTURE
Report of the Joint Ad Hoc Committee on the Shortage of PhD Students and Faculty in
Communication Sciences and Disorders
A Committee of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
And the Council of Academic Programs in Communication Sciences and Disorders
December 2002
ASHA CAPCSD Members: Members: Noma B. Anderson Howard Goldstein Michael R. Chial Raymond Kent Claire Melanie Schuele Janis Costello Ingham (Co-Chair, 2002) Kim A. Wilcox (Co-Chair) D. Kimbrough Oller (Co-Chair, 2001) Participants: Participants: John E. Bernthal John M. Hanley Nancy A. Creaghead Richard E. Talbott Julie J. Masterson Ann van Kleeck Cheryl M. Scott ASHA Staff Liaison: Debra Busacco
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The founders of the field of communication sciences and disorders established a standard requiring rigorous graduate education prior to receiving credentials as an audiologist or speech-language pathologist. We should be both grateful for this tradition and proud of it. Rigorous graduate education, however, depends upon knowledgeable faculty. Last year 6 –7% of all doctoral faculty positions in the field were unfilled, and current predictions indicate that number will climb significantly in the next ten years.
Our forebears also created a tradition of science and “ownership” of the research underlying our professions. Unlike many other health professions, speech-language and hearing professionals create the knowledge in our field. Knowledge creation, however, demands scientists, laboratories, and funding. As our PhD numbers decrease, all three of these are threatened. As a result, our knowledge base, our professional independence, our ability to educate adequate numbers of graduate students, and ultimately the quality of patient care is threatened. If we do not act, and act now, the field may be lost.
This report is a call to action on three fronts to:
• Increase the effectiveness of PhD recruitment and retention activities throughout the discipline by increasing coordination of efforts across associations and among academic programs
• Increase monitoring of those efforts to ensure effectiveness • Re-engineer the academic culture in the field, at all levels from
undergraduate, to graduate, to post-graduate
Significant efforts have been made in the past to address the shortage of PhD personnel in the field. Unfortunately, those efforts have not been well coordinated and there has been no systematic effort to assess their effectiveness. The 30 recommendations included in this report recognize the importance of coordination and monitoring, while focusing on changes to the prevailing academic culture of the discipline. Those recommendations are organized into the following categories.
• Create a structure to continue the momentum in addressing the PhD
shortage • Increase the visibility of the discipline, research opportunities, and
promote higher education as a career • Target and coordinate data collection and dissemination • Develop a centralized mechanism for information exchange • Enhance research training experience • Enrich PhD program leadership
The most important advice that this committee can offer is to move quickly. The situation is dire and continues to grow worse with each passing day. At it core, this report is a call to action that must be heeded, and heeded quickly, if the discipline and the professions are to survive.
3
CHARGE TO THE JOINT AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE SHORTAGE OF PhD STUDENTS AND FACULTY IN COMMUNICATION SCIENCES AND DISORDERS
RESOLVED, that the ad hoc joint committee will be charged with developing a plan to address the following issues: 1) increase the number of doctoral students in communication sciences and disorders, 2) retain current doctoral faculty, and 3) develop strategies for educating students in communication sciences and disorders in the current climate of doctoral shortages.
SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES The Committee met for the first time in Cincinnati on Nov. 30 – Dec. 1, 2001, having rescheduled from the week of September 11. The first meeting began with a series of presentations summarizing the available data on the nature of the shortage and past efforts to address the issue. A summary of those efforts is provided in Appendix A. This list represents a substantial effort on the part of the discipline to address the growing problem of the PhD personnel shortage. The impact of these activities, however, has been limited by a lack of coordination among them. As a result, numerous opportunities to build on existing programs and to create complementary initiatives have been lost. Similarly, there has been a lack of systematic assessment of the effectiveness of these collective activities that could guide continuing efforts to address the doctoral shortage. The Committee carefully reviewed this history of initiatives and discussed factors that posed the greatest impediment to past and current efforts. That discussion repeatedly returned to issues related to the prevailing academic culture in the discipline. As a discipline, we should be proud of our tradition of clinical preparation based on quality graduate education. We are the envy of many other health and education disciplines in this regard. At the same time, that tradition has limited the role of research instruction at all levels of our curriculum: bachelors, masters, and doctoral; it has limited the visibility of research as a viable career choice for our students; and it has shaped our interaction with other disciplines within the academy. The three topics that emerged from that initial discussion—coordination of activities, assessment of effectiveness, and the limitations of the prevailing academic culture—serve as the primary themes of this report and of the recommendations that follow. It also became clear at the first meeting that the PhD degree-granting programs would be key players in any effort to reverse the downward trend in PhD enrollment and faculty membership. As a result, two initiatives were begun at the first meeting. First, a subcommittee (Scott, Goldstein, Oller-Chair) was charged with the development of a survey of PhD programs to collect information that was not available from the two primary data sources: the ASHA Constituent Database (as supplemented by the ASHA Omnibus Survey) and the CAPCSD Survey. Second, the Council of Academic Programs
4
was asked to provide time at its spring meeting (April 2002, Palm Springs) for presentation of the survey data and for a meeting of PhD program representatives. At the CAPCSD spring meeting, the Committee participated in the Issue section on the doctoral shortage via a databased presentation by committee co-chair Kim Oller. Dr. Oller presented data that included the Committee’s survey (see committee survey results in Appendix B). The Committee also organized the first-ever Doctoral Summit, consisting of a meeting of more than 70 representatives of doctoral degree-granting programs in communication sciences and disorders. At this Summit, the Committee presented an overview of its initial impressions of the shortage and its antecedents, and solicited feedback from the group. The participants both endorsed the Committee’s directions and expressed their desire to move ahead with the utmost speed. In addition, a third meeting comprised primarily of representatives of Bachelor and Master’s programs was convened to discuss the doctoral education issue. This group also endorsed the broad directions identified by the Ad Hoc Committee and voiced their strong support for a final set of recommendations that focused on all academic programs, not just those offering the PhD. The Committee held its second meeting in Phoenix on July 27-29, 2002. At that time the group reviewed individual member activities since December and crafted the majority of the recommendations included below. Following feedback from both the CAPCSD and ASHA Executive Boards, the Committee held its final meeting on November 20, in Atlanta. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT A. Magnitude of the Problem There are presently two primary data sets available with information pertinent to the shortage of PhD students and faculty in the field: the ASHA Constituent Database as supplemented by the ASHA Omnibus Survey and the CAPCSD biennial Survey of Programs in Communication Sciences and Disorders. The former focuses on tracking changes in the demographics of the more than 100,000 members of ASHA, while the latter focuses on the composition of current graduate student and faculty cohorts. Both of these surveys have proven their usefulness over many years, but together they do not provide all of the information needed to fully describe the size of the current doctoral shortage and its impact on all aspects of the professions. In addition, they are insufficient for monitoring future efforts to reverse the trend. At the same time, the two surveys solicit overlapping information from the same respondents in slightly different formats. This is both inefficient and potentially misleading when comparisons between the two data sets are made. As a result, the Committee created its own survey targeting specific information and recommends that both associations work to coordinate future data collection efforts.
The impact of the shortage of PhD students and faculty is widespread. The inability to recruit new PhD faculty is already putting some academic programs at risk. This means
5
potentially fewer professionals, which means fewer and/or poorer services for our clients. Fewer PhD faculty means less research in communication sciences and disorders, which in turn means a slowed growth in our understanding of human communication and a longer time to develop and test improvements to our treatment options. Fewer PhD faculty means fewer opportunities for doctoral study, which in turn means even fewer PhD faculty. This downward spiral in faculty preparation is perhaps the most significant threat to our future, and highlights the fact that it is the number of faculty (both entering and remaining) in the field that is the ultimate measure of the magnitude of the problem. It is for this reason that, based on existing and newly collected data, Kim Oller has pursued the development of new methods for monitoring the supply of faculty and for predicting their numbers into the future. He has reported regularly to the Joint Ad Hoc Committee and to CAPCSD on the progress of the effort. A key type of previously unavailable information that is needed to understand and predict the supply is year-by-year data on the number and age of PhD and non-PhD faculty throughout the field, as well as number and age of faculty at the point of initial hiring into the field and at the point of retirement. Without empirical information of this sort, prediction must be based on speculative estimates. A method has been developed and preliminary empirical estimates have been established, making it possible to project that over the next 15 years the shortage of PhD faculty is likely to become so severe as to require massive restructuring of the field, with many program closures and reductions in the proportion of faculty holding the PhD. The projections are, however, based on preliminary estimates, because the data on number and age of faculty are both new and fragmentary, and consequently current estimates must be based on extrapolation and triangulation. Strong solutions to the problem of monitoring are, however, clearly possible to develop based on adjustments in surveying procedure. With yearly updates in the ASHA Constituent Database on members’ PhD status and faculty roles as well as acquisition of the National Opinion Research Center’s yearly data on doctoral graduates in Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, it will be possible to coordinate data from the CAPCSD survey in order to provide a reliable picture of the faculty composition year-by-year as well as solid projections regarding likely future trends. From these data sources, the message is clear: we are facing a crisis in personnel that will only increase in magnitude in the coming years. The data included in Appendix B highlight that crisis and the inability of current resources to address it. B. Curricular Traditions and Constraints PhD students are recruited by and educated by academic programs. PhD faculty are employed by academic programs and mentor PhD students in that environment. It is not surprising then that academic programs, their structures, and their traditions should be a primary focus of this report. Given the longstanding expectation that speech-language pathologists and audiologists have a minimum of a master’s degree to practice in the field, most of our educational efforts are aimed at helping students achieve that degree and the clinical experience necessary to practice in the widest possible range of clinical settings. This singular goal has shaped nearly all aspects of the curriculum and has been
6
institutionalized through academic accreditation standards. It is important to note that the ASHA Educational Standards Board did significantly increase the basic coursework requirements regarding normal aspects of development and communication in the 1980s in an attempt to limit undergraduate professional preparation. At many institutions, however, those requirements are often filled by courses that are seen as helpful to future practitioners, not future scientists. Overall, undergraduate coursework in the major is typically heavily pointed toward clinical careers not academic ones; and the pressure to expand this focus at all levels increases as the scope of professional practice grows. This stands in stark contrast to most other academic disciplines where the curriculum builds in an orderly progression from undergraduate student experience, to master’s student experience, to doctoral student experience, to post-doctoral experience, to faculty member. For communication sciences and disorders there is a clear break in this progression at the end of the master’s experience. Students choosing to seek a PhD are often asked to begin, what in many respects, is a new program, which may or may not build systematically on their previous six years of college education. Moreover, students who have been practicing for several yeas may conclude that re-entry into the educational continuum is simply too difficult and too costly. We must reexamine this progression and recommend serious changes if we are to survive as a discipline. Among the factors to consider:
• Encourage the creation of BA/PhD programs similar to those in the natural sciences
• Revise undergraduate curricula to increase the scientific rigor and highlight academic careers as a goal
• Encourage post-doctoral study prior to assuming faculty positions • Rethink the role and the formulation of clinical education experiences to allow
for a variety of means of completing the requirement, especially for those pursuing academic research careers
• Encourage interdisciplinary research training experiences
Communication sciences and disorders programs evolved in various ways within higher education. Some programs grew from the liberal arts and sciences tradition with a focus on basic research and knowledge for its own sake. Other programs have their roots in education with a focus on service to youth and ensuring that all children are prepared to take maximum advantage of the educational opportunities provided by society. Still others evolved within the health sciences with their focus on maintaining and recovering basic human function. All of these traditions contribute to the health of the discipline and the professions, but their diversity has limited the development of our academic identity. Oftentimes, this observation has led to a call for uniform titles for academic programs. Debates about common department titles distract us from the more fundamental issue: the lack of a common set of academic goals that ensure our future viability as a discipline. Regardless of the program’s administrative setting (liberal arts, education, allied health), program type (undergraduate-only, master’s, doctoral), its geographic location (urban, rural), or size, it is our collective responsibility not only to recognize the crisis at hand, but to restructure our most basic activities to reverse the present trend.
7
All programs must become engaged in this effort and must do so in real ways. Simply talking to the best students in a class and encouraging them to consider a career in academia has not been sufficient in the past and it will not be sufficient in the future. All program activities from coursework to extra-curricular activities must prepare students for a life in academia and must share the excitement of such a career. University faculty are given the unique opportunity to shape a four-year apprenticeship for hundreds of students. We have taken this gift for granted and not used it to our advantage. We must rethink this opportunity and use it to share the excitement of academic careers.
While all academic departments have a responsibility to help reverse this trend, those departments with doctoral programs have a special responsibility. We must realize that we have created a significant professional presence (more than 100,000 persons) on a relatively small academic base. Although there are more than 300 academic programs in the nation, only 62 of them prepare PhDs and fewer than 20 of those prepare the vast majority of future faculty members in the discipline. In fact, data from the Joint Ad Hoc Committee’s survey (see Appendix B) indicate that just 11 programs account for 58% of the currently enrolled PhD students. In a sense, the entire discipline depends on the success of those departments, yet they cannot succeed in a vacuum. Regardless of size, all Ph D programs must simultaneously strengthen their doctoral offerings and reach out to departments without doctoral programs to assist them in strengthening their BA and MA offerings.
C. Organizations and Resources This report calls for a unified and coordinated response to the existing crisis in PhD personnel. Such a response requires the support of all partners. To date, the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association and the Council of Academic Programs in Communication Sciences and Disorders have shared the lead in efforts to address the problem. It is clear that these two groups will continue to be key players in the future. It is important, however, to understand the role and traditions of each group. While originally founded by academics for the purpose of supporting the creation and dissemination of knowledge, in the past 75 years ASHA has grown to become one of the most influential organizations of professionals in health care and school settings in the nation. As such, it must balance a host of priorities across a diverse constituency. Similarly, CAPCSD represents all types of academic programs with diverse and sometimes competing needs.
The Committee spent many hours debating the need to create an organization of PhD degree-granting programs that could lead the efforts recommended here. The group should represent all levels of the professorate from junior to senior levels. The benefits of creating such a group include:
• A continuing forum for exchange of ideas • A focused advocate for change in the academy and in other associations • A manageable size for effecting change
8
This Committee believes the creation of such a group is paramount to the future of the discipline. We have not included it as a recommendation in this report, in that the impetus and organizational framework for such a group must come from the programs themselves. In that regard, the roles of all parties in addressing the personnel shortage is clear: the doctoral degree-granting programs must do some things, the non-doctoral granting programs must do some things, ASHA and the CAPCSD must do some things, etc. The challenge is to ensure that those efforts are complementary to one another and are sustained. Thus, the first recommendation is for ASHA and CAPCSD to continue the cooperation begun with the appointing of this committee by creating a task force that would be in operation for the next five years. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Create a Structure to Continue the Momentum in Addressing the PhD Shortage 1.1 Appoint a Joint Task Force on the PhD Shortage. (CAPCSD and ASHA) The history of addressing this shortage is marked by numerous well-organized and well-intentioned activities. Unfortunately, those efforts have failed, due primarily to a lack of coordination among them. Success will only come from an organized and systematic effort with coordinated activities among all parties. It is the opinion of this Committee that the best way to achieve that coordination is through the continued formal cooperation of the CAPCSD and ASHA. In addition to coordination, the other key ingredient for success is stability. One-year or two-year efforts will not succeed. As a result, this group should be appointed for a period of five years, to provide a sustained effort. The Task Force should have the following charge:
a. Continue to assess the extent and nature of the PhD shortage among students and faculty
b. Coordinate planning among the various partners addressing the problem c. Monitor efforts and recommend modifications to those efforts, as appropriate
2. Increase the Visibility of the Discipline, Research Opportunities, and Promote Higher Education as a Career 2.1 Augment information geared to students considering PhD education. This should include the addition of introductory material to the Guide to Doctoral Educational in regard to PhD careers and factors to consider in selecting a PhD program. Expand Web presence with materials describing the job opportunities and highlighting the personnel needs in academia. (ASHA)
9
2.2 Publicize the message regarding personnel shortages with outside audiences, including other higher education groups and disciplines. Likely venues would include: the Chronicle of Higher Education, the Council of Graduate Schools, and other higher education associations. (ASHA, CAPCSD) 2.3 Explore the development of a “high-quality” video/CD highlighting academic and research careers in CSD. This tape could be modeled on episodes of PBS’s Discovery and would be suitable for use in introductory courses in communication sciences and disorders or in recruitment activities in high schools or with the public. The costs might be underwritten by a publisher in the field. (ASHA)
2.4 Ensure the inclusion of research and teaching as career options in all recruitment materials and activities. This must become routine in the activities of the professional associations as well as all academic programs. (ASHA, academic programs) 2.5 Expand and revitalize our systems of recognizing faculty and student research accomplishments. Encourage additional nominations for existing awards to increase the perceived worth of researchers and research endeavors. Encourage national associations, state associations, and academic programs to create new awards that focus on research. (all groups and organizations) 2.6 Expand efforts to showcase student research and academic success at the ASHA Convention. This could include the creation of a program for faculty mentor-student scholar presentations. (ASHA) 2.7 Encourage state associations to assist in disseminating information. State conventions and mailings should increase their focus on student research, faculty research, and academic career options as a balance to practitioner-focused workshops and information. (ASHA, CAPCSD) 2.8 Develop a career development program for outstanding undergraduate students interested in academic research careers. This program would create a cohort of potential future academicians by recognizing their past achievements and potential, by supporting enhanced educational experiences on their home campuses, as well as in laboratories outside the home department, and underwriting attendance at the ASHA convention where they would participate in targeted group activities. (ASHA, CAPCSD) 2.9 Increase focus on faculty retention. The crisis in our discipline derives both from a shortage of students and from the loss of faculty from the academy. Targeted efforts should be initiated to assist junior faculty, including faculty of color, in succeeding professionally and personally in higher
10
education. In particular, efforts should be made to retain faculty of color. (all groups and organizations) 2.10 Urge ASHA to make the PhD shortage a Focused Initiative. This would provide the topic both the visibility and the financial resources it deserves and highlight the significance of the shortage to all segments of the discipline and the professions. (ASHA) 2.11. Salaries Salaries are a significant factor in recruiting and retaining faculty. The discipline has not effectively used competition from clinical salaries or the faculty shortage in the field to boost salaries in our academic departments. The entire discipline must become engaged in an effort to bolster academic salaries to make them competitive with other academic disciplines and with clinical and administrative salaries outside the academy. (all groups and organizations) 3. Target and Coordinate Data Collection and Dissemination
3.1 Develop an integrated data collection plan for all of communication sciences and disorders. ASHA and CAPCSD should jointly review and revise their existing data collection processes to ensure the collection of all pertinent information relevant to the doctoral shortage, as well as reduce existing redundancy and confusion. In addition, other important sources of potential data should be coordinated and exploited, especially information from the National Opinion Research Center’s annual survey of doctoral graduates. The Doctoral Survey Subcommittee created as part of this planning process should play a central role in that effort. (ASHA, CAPCSD) 3.2 Consider mechanisms for collecting information on academic program characteristics.
This should include program definitions of scholarship and the importance of research support for faculty as a step in re-engineering departmental cultures. (ASHA, CAPCSD) 3.3 Create a mechanism to obtain information from recent PhD program graduates employed in academic settings in regard to the relevance and quality of their PhD education. This would provide important data to influence changes in PhD education from a highly relevant, but as yet untapped, source. (academic programs) 4. Develop a Centralized Mechanism for Information Exchange
11
4.1 Ensure ready access to survey results and analysis. Develop a single website devoted to tracking the PhD shortage (students and faculty). In addition to providing the latest available data, the site should also provide analyses and projections based on that data. (ASHA, CAPCSD) 4.2 Create an information clearinghouse on doctoral education. Develop a website to facilitate information exchange among academic programs on topics related to curriculum, recruitment, federal funding, available assistantships, administrative challenges, etc. (ASHA, CAPCSD) 5. Enhance Research Training Experience 5.1 Explore expansion of the BA to PhD model. Obstacles to the model, including undergraduate curriculum, clinical training requirements, funding, etc., should be identified and efforts should be made to finding ways to overcome those obstacles. PhD degree-granting institutions should collaborate with non-PhD programs to develop effective transitions for academic career aspirants that do not necessarily revolve around the MA-clinical training model. (academic programs, CAPCSD) 5.2 Explore the development of other models of doctoral education.
This exploration should focus on a re-examination of the role of clinical training in doctoral education. The committee survey revealed that an overwhelming majority of currently enrolled PhD students enter PhD programs from a master’s degree in speech-language pathology or audiology (66%). As a result, many of our students are not able to benefit from the natural progression of research training across the graduate experience that typifies other disciplines. Other models of entry into doctoral programs need to be developed. (academic programs, CAPCSD)
5.3 Increase flexibility for obtaining clinical requirements including the Clinical Fellowship (CF). A substantial number of PhD students wish to complete requirements for the CCC. Committee members heard repeatedly that present models of clinical training (including the Clinical Fellowship for the CCC-SLP) make this very difficult. Creative models of clinical education that accommodate PhD students should be developed, promoted, and incorporated as options in the ASHA credentialing program. These models should facilitate the integration of research training and professional credentialing and should also be consistent with training models recognized by NIH, in order to facilitate student access to NIH training funds. (ASHA) 5.4 Revise curricula at all levels to enhance the scientific preparation of our students. Undergraduate and MA research experiences must be enhanced. Challenging undergraduate options that focus on science and research should be developed for our best undergraduate majors. PhD curricula should center on the development of research skills (basic and/or applied) and the other skills necessary for success as an academic
12
(e.g., proposal development, grant management). Efforts should be made to engage faculty from all CDS departments in the research and development of pedagogy. (ASHA, CAPCSD, academic programs)
5.5 Expand collaborative efforts across academic programs. Our ever-shrinking cadre of research faculty are becoming islands across the country. Inter-institutional collaborations for research, managing PhD student committees, creating doctoral student cohorts, etc. should be expanded. (academic programs) 5.6 Expand interdisciplinary efforts on campus. This could include: joint doctoral courses/seminars, cluster hires with other departments, joint dissertation experience, etc. (academic programs) 5.7 Explore the creation of CSD Institutes. Institutes modeled after the Linguistics Society of America Summer Institutes could provide PhD students access to coursework not available at their home campus and could provide isolated PhD students access to a cohort of student colleagues. (ASHA, CAPCSD) 5.8 Expand doctoral funding opportunities. The most common need expressed by potential PhD students and PhD-granting institutions is funding for doctoral students. We must re-double our efforts to secure public and private funds to support doctoral education. (WHO?) 6. Doctoral Program Leadership The recommendations in this section and throughout this document assume that all programs will continue to strive to achieve the highest standards in the quality of faculty, students, and curriculum. Given that assumption, students must become informed consumers, attending the highest quality PhD programs available. For their part, PhD degree-granting institutions must provide key leadership in the effort to resurrect the research and academic base of the discipline, including educational experiences and support that will fully prepare students for careers in higher education. (academic programs) 6.1 Devise faculty research development programs. A discipline-wide perspective on faculty research development must be adopted. Departments must assist one another in providing the necessary intellectual and financial support for young scientists. This might include facilitating meetings of scientists working in the same subfield to provide young scientists direct access to senior mentors not available on their campus. (academic programs) 6.2 Connect peer research networks. Supportive research networks are an important factor in faculty retention. Departments should assist young faculty in becoming engaged in such networks on their home campus or with colleagues in other institutions. (academic programs)
13
6.3. Revamp curricula. Re-engineering the curriculum will require numerous changes in instruction. PhD programs must revamp their curricula at all levels in a way that is consistent with doctoral preparation, including: additional laboratory instruction, research instruction, additional course offerings (including honors coursework) in basic processes of communication, shifting the relative emphasis of research and clinical instruction at all academic levels (including masters), ensuring a research focus in PhD programs, and development of post-doctoral experiences. They must also assist non-PhD degree granting institutions with enhancing their curricula, especially in the areas of science and research. (academic programs) 6.4 Establishing systematic lines of recruitment from undergraduate- and MA-only programs. There must be concerted effort to partner with undergraduate and master’s programs in developing potential pipelines of doctoral students. This will demand reaching out on the part of the doctoral programs as well as receptivity and cooperation on the part of non-PhD programs. Committee survey data highlighted the extent to which current pipelines are dry in that there is considerable unused capacity in doctoral programs (333 unfilled seats). (academic programs) 6.5 Organize PhD student cohorts. Existence of a peer support group is an important determiner of success in PhD studies. Unfortunately, many of our doctoral programs are too small to provide such a support system. Efforts should be made to create student cohorts across disciplines or among institutions. (academic programs) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The first recommendation, above, suggests the creation of a task force to guide the various efforts needed to reverse the growing shortage of PhD students and faculty. The committee debated, at length, the need for a continuing group and was initially disposed to not recommend creating one. On reflection, however, we agreed that a lack of coordination and oversight has been our biggest failure in the past. If we are to succeed, we must create a mechanism that overcomes those two obstacles to our success. Thus, we are recommending the creation of a task force that would exist for the next five years. This task force should focus on oversight, not implementation. No single group can achieve all of the changes outlined in this report. Instead, all members of the discipline of communication sciences and disorders must see themselves as members of the implementation team. The oversight task force will then be left with coordinating those significant efforts. Until the task force can be created, the members of the existing Ad Hoc Joint Committee suggest that they continue to provide that oversight and to pursue the initiatives that they have begun in the past 10 months. In addition, we will begin to investigate long-term financial support for these efforts and will be present at the April 2003 meeting of the Council of Academic Programs to report on our progress.
14
Appendix A The Doctoral Shortage in CSD: A Legacy of Concern Cheryl Scott Appendix B PhD Program Survey Results 2002 Subcommittee Members: D. Kimbrough Oller, Cheryl Scott, and Howard Goldstein
The Doctoral Shortage in CSD: A Legacy of Concern
Over the last 10 years, ASHA and the Council have invested time and resources in addressing the doctoral shortage. The Joint Ad Hoc Committee on the Critical Shortage of Doctoral Students and Faculty (2001-2001) has reviewed products and publications from these efforts in order to inform its current work. CAPCSD • 1983 +: Survey of Undergraduate and Graduate Programs • 1990: Ad Hoc Committee on Doctoral Education (Draft report in 1990 Proceedings) • 1991: Hixon, T. Some ingredients of a quality doctoral program in Speech-Language Sciences. (in 1991
Proceedings; see also discussion summary on Hixon's paper); also published in National Student Speech Language Hearing Association Journal, 19, 89-93 (1991-92)
• 1994: Arranged for a NIDCD Working Group on Research Training Needs of Graduate Programs in Communication Sciences and Disorders, Bethesda, MD: Report from the conference (papers) available on request, CAPCSD.
• 1997: Working Group on Doctoral and Postdoctoral Education (http://www.capcsd.org/proceedings/1998/Updates.htm)
• 1998: Wilcox, K. Replacing the professorate: Perspectives from a doctoral program. http://capcsd.org/proceedings/1998/ReplacingProfessorate.htm
• 2000: Bernthal, J. & Mendel, M. Recruiting and retaining doctoral students http://www.capcsd.org/proceedings/2000/00_bernandmend.html
• 2001: Hurtig, R. Creative strategies for recruitment of doctoral students: An overview; Stathopoulos, E. Creative strategies for recruiting doctoral students. 2000 CAPCSD Proceedings2001 CAPCSD Proceedings http://www.capcsd.org/proceedings/2001/toc2001.html
ASHA • 1989: Ad Hoc Committee on Models of Doctoral Education (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
(1991). Report on Doctoral Education. Asha, 33 (Suppl 3), 1-9. • 1994: Research and Scientific Affairs Committee published a Technical Report (American Speech-Language-
Hearing Association (1994). The role of research and the state of research training within communication Sciences and disorders. Asha, 36, (March, Suppl. 12, pp. 21-23).
• 1994: Education Future Professionals: Challenges and Solutions for Academia: Blueprint for a New Academic Agenda ( American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 1995).
• 1996: Legislate Council Issues Forum: Scientific Bases of the Discipline and the Professions (presented by Bruce Tomblin, Chair of the Research and Scientific Affairs Committee)
• 1997: Working Group on Recruitment, Retention, and Academic Preparation of Researchers and Teacher-Scholars. (Selected papers, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association , 1997).
• 1997 - present: Articles in the ASHA Leader by Seymour, Geffner, Logemann, Bernthal, Creaghead • 1998: Working Group on Mentoring. Academic Briefing Paper, November 1998. • 1999 +: Research in Higher Ed Mentoring Program http://professional.asha.org/academic/research_mentor.cfm • 2000 : Survey on the Shortage of Teacher-Scholars 2000 +: Science and Research Career Forum • 2000 +: Workshops on Grant Writing, Research Integrity, sponsored by Research and Scientific Affairs
Committee and ASHA's Science and Research Unit. • 2001: Teleseminar: Doctoral Education in Communication Sciences and Disorders, Schuele & Bacon • 2001 +: Infusion into GRPP, PR units ASHA Foundation • 1993 (ASHF and NIDCD): Minghetti, N. , Cooper, J., Goldstein, H., Olswang, L, & Warren, S. (1993).
Research mentorship and training in Communication Sciences and Disorders: Proceedings of a national conference. Rockville, MD: American Speech Language Hearing Foundation.
• ASHF: Graduate Scholarships and Research Grants (including the New Investigator Awards) • Resources for Funding Doctoral Students: 2002 edition
http://www.asha.org/members/phd-faculty-research/grants-funding/FundingStudents.htm • Lovitts, B., & Nelson, C. (2000). The hidden crisis in graduate education: Attrition from Ph.D., programs.
Academe, Nov-Dec, 45-50. http://www.aaup.org/publications/Academe/00nd/ND00LOVI.HTM (full text) • The Preparing Future Faculty Program: http://www.preparing-faculty.org/PFFWeb.History.htm
PH
.D. P
RO
GR
AM
S
UR
VE
Y R
ES
ULT
S20
02Th
e Jo
int A
d H
oc C
omm
ittee
on
the
Sho
rtage
of P
h.D
. Stu
dent
s an
d Fa
culty
in
Com
mun
icat
ion
Sci
ence
s an
d D
isor
ders
Sub
com
mitt
ee fo
r the
sur
vey:
D
. Kim
brou
gh O
ller,
Che
ryl S
cott,
and
How
ard
Gol
dste
in
PH
.D. P
RO
GR
AM
SU
RV
EY
R
ES
ULT
S, 2
002
Exe
cutiv
e S
umm
ary
•Th
e Jo
int A
d H
oc C
omm
ittee
on
the
Sho
rtage
of P
h.D
. Stu
dent
s an
dFa
culty
in C
omm
unic
atio
n S
cien
ces
and
Dis
orde
rs w
as e
stab
lishe
d to
ad
dres
s th
e sh
orta
ge o
f Ph.
D. f
acul
ty in
Com
mun
icat
ion
Sci
ence
s an
d D
isor
ders
. •
The
com
mitt
ee w
as fo
rmed
by
the
Cou
ncil
of A
cade
mic
Pro
gram
s in
C
omm
unic
atio
n S
cien
ces
and
Dis
orde
rs (C
AP
CS
D) a
nd th
e A
mer
ican
S
peec
h-La
ngua
ge-H
earin
g A
ssoc
iatio
n (A
SH
A).
•A
sub
com
mitt
ee o
f the
Joi
nt A
d H
oc C
omm
ittee
(D. K
imbr
ough
Olle
r, C
hery
l S
cott,
and
How
ard
Gol
dste
in) w
as fo
rmed
to s
urve
y P
h.D
. pro
gram
s. T
he
subc
omm
ittee
rece
ived
ass
ista
nce
from
the
staf
f of b
oth
AS
HA
and
CA
PC
SD
. •
This
repo
rt, c
ompi
led
by O
ller,
Sco
tt, a
nd G
olds
tein
, sum
mar
izes
resu
lts
from
sur
vey
resu
lts c
olle
cted
in w
inte
r and
spr
ing
of 2
002.
•Th
e su
rvey
was
pre
limin
arily
ana
lyze
d fo
r pre
sent
atio
n at
a s
peci
al m
eetin
g or
gani
zed
by th
e Jo
int A
d H
oc C
omm
ittee
rega
rdin
g P
h.D
. pro
gram
san
d tra
inin
g at
the
CA
PC
SD
mee
ting
in P
alm
Spr
ings
in A
pril,
200
2. T
o ou
r kn
owle
dge,
this
was
the
first
gen
eral
mee
ting
ever
of P
h.D
. pro
gram
di
rect
ors
in C
SD
.
!R
epor
ting
rate
. A to
tal o
f 56
prog
ram
s re
spon
ded
(52
US
uni
vers
ities
). Th
e Jo
int
Ad
Hoc
Com
mitt
ee h
ereb
y ex
pres
ses
its g
ratit
ude
to th
e pr
ogra
m d
irect
ors
and
thei
r rep
rese
ntat
ives
for r
espo
ndin
g to
the
surv
ey. T
he ra
te o
f res
pons
e w
as
impr
essi
ve –
86%
. Not
all
item
s, h
owev
er, w
ere
answ
ered
by
the
entir
e sa
mpl
eof
re
spon
dent
s. W
here
few
er th
an 8
6% re
spon
ded
on a
par
ticul
ar it
em, t
he
acco
mpa
nyin
g sl
ides
indi
cate
the
actu
al re
spon
se ra
tes.
‘Adj
uste
d’va
lues
in th
e sl
ides
hav
e be
en e
xtra
pola
ted
to a
100
% re
spon
se ra
te, b
ased
on
the
obta
ined
da
ta a
nd th
e ac
tual
resp
onse
rate
s. U
nadj
uste
d va
lues
are
dis
play
ed w
ithou
t co
mm
ent i
n th
e sl
ides
.
!A
ge o
f fac
ulty
mem
bers
. To
proj
ect r
etire
men
t rat
es o
ver t
he n
ext 2
0 ye
ars,
we
need
ed to
kno
w a
ges
of fa
culty
, ful
l and
par
t tim
e, w
ith a
nd w
ithou
t res
earc
h do
ctor
ates
. Est
imat
ed fr
om a
sam
ple
of 5
75 fu
ll-tim
e fa
culty
, the
mea
n ag
e of
P
h.D
. fac
ulty
in P
h.D
. tra
inin
g pr
ogra
ms
was
49
year
s. T
hese
dat
a pr
ovid
e th
e fir
st c
hara
cter
izat
ion
of th
e di
strib
utio
n of
Ph.
D. f
acul
ty b
y ag
e w
ithin
Ph.
D.
prog
ram
s in
Com
mun
icat
ion
Sci
ence
s an
d D
isor
ders
.
!S
ize
of p
rogr
ams.
The
maj
ority
of p
rogr
ams
had
6-15
stu
dent
s ea
ch, w
hile
the1
0 sm
alle
st p
rogr
ams
had
few
er th
an 6
stu
dent
s ea
ch, a
nd th
e 4
larg
est h
ad m
ore
than
25
each
. The
4 la
rges
t pro
gram
s ac
coun
ted
for a
bout
a q
uarte
r of t
he to
tal
curr
ent e
nrol
lmen
t of P
h.D
. stu
dent
s. T
he m
ost t
ypic
al p
rogr
ams
in te
rms
of s
ize
(6 to
15
stud
ents
eac
h) a
ccou
nted
for 4
6% o
f the
tota
l enr
ollm
ent.
!C
apac
ity fo
r add
ition
al d
octo
ral t
rain
ing.
Pro
gram
s re
porte
d a
tota
l of 3
33 u
nfille
d sl
ots
(val
ue a
djus
ted
to 1
00%
repo
rting
rate
) ava
ilabl
e fo
r Ph.
D. s
tude
nts
in 2
001-
2002
. The
mea
n nu
mbe
r of s
lots
per
pro
gram
was
2.9
stu
dent
s in
SLP
, 2.0
st
uden
ts in
Aud
iolo
gy, 1
.9 s
tude
nts
in C
omm
unic
atio
n S
cien
ce, a
nd 2
.6 s
tude
nts
in o
ther
or u
nspe
cifie
d ca
tego
ries.
!W
hat h
appe
ned
to P
h.D
. stu
dent
s en
rolle
d si
nce
1995
?A
ppro
xim
atel
y 41
% g
radu
ated
; ap
prox
imat
ely
8% d
ropp
ed o
ut; a
ppro
xim
atel
y 52
% o
f gra
duat
es w
ere
hire
d as
facu
lty
mem
bers
.
!R
elat
ive
impo
rtanc
e of
fact
ors
rest
rictin
g en
rollm
ent.
Ava
ilabi
lity
of fu
ndin
g w
as th
e on
e fa
ctor
rate
d as
hig
hly
impo
rtant
. Oth
er fa
ctor
s w
ere
rate
d as
mod
erat
ely
impo
rtant
(i.e
., nu
mbe
r of f
acul
ty, f
acul
ty ti
me,
facu
lty e
xper
tise)
.
!R
ecom
men
ded
fund
ing
initi
ativ
es.T
he s
urve
y so
ught
to p
rovi
de in
form
atio
n th
at m
ight
be
hel
pful
to C
AP
CS
D, A
SH
A, t
he A
SH
A F
ound
atio
n, a
nd o
ther
pot
entia
l spo
nsor
s w
ho
wer
e ex
plor
ing
fund
ing
mec
hani
sms
and
othe
r stra
tegi
es th
at m
ight
be
effe
ctiv
e in
in
crea
sing
the
supp
ly o
f Ph.
D. g
radu
ates
. Am
ong
seve
ral p
ossi
ble
stra
tegi
es, r
ecru
iting
fir
st y
ear s
tude
nts
was
mos
t hig
hly
rate
d by
Ph.
D. p
rogr
am re
pres
enta
tives
. Oth
er h
igh
ratin
gs w
ere
obta
ined
for s
uppl
emen
tal t
rain
ing
awar
ds, s
uppl
emen
tal r
esea
rch
awar
ds
for d
octo
ral c
andi
date
s, a
nd s
uppl
emen
tal r
esea
rch
awar
ds.
!P
erce
ived
suc
cess
of r
ecru
itmen
t stra
tegi
es.F
unde
d re
sear
ch a
ssis
tant
ship
s an
d M
aste
r's th
eses
wer
e ra
ted
as m
ost s
ucce
ssfu
l in
recr
uitin
g fu
ture
doc
tora
l stu
dent
s.
Mas
ter’s
rese
arch
pro
ject
s, s
umm
er re
sear
ch in
tern
ship
s, u
nder
grad
uate
hon
ors
thes
es
and
rese
arch
pro
ject
s w
ere
rate
d sl
ight
ly lo
wer
. Vol
unte
erin
g in
labs
was
con
side
red
less
than
mod
erat
ely
succ
essf
ul.
!C
ompa
ring
facu
lty c
ompo
sitio
n in
Ph.
D. p
rogr
ams
vers
us a
ll tra
inin
g pr
ogra
ms.
Com
para
tive
data
for ‘
all p
rogr
ams’
wer
e dr
awn
from
four
cyc
les
of th
e C
AP
CS
D re
gula
r su
rvey
con
duct
ed e
very
two
year
s. T
he g
reat
maj
ority
(63%
) of t
he fa
culty
in p
rogr
ams
offe
ring
the
Ph.
D.,
held
the
Ph.
D. a
nd w
orke
d fu
ll tim
e as
facu
lty.
In a
ll pr
ogra
ms
com
bine
d, fe
wer
than
hal
f the
facu
lty h
eld
the
Ph.
D a
nd w
orke
d fu
ll tim
e.
!R
epor
ted
and
reco
mm
ende
d le
vels
of f
inan
cial
sup
port
for P
h.D
. stu
dent
s. T
he
repo
rted
rang
e in
fund
ing
leve
ls w
as la
rge.
The
ave
rage
leve
ls fo
r ext
ram
ural
ly
fund
ed P
h.D
. tra
inee
s or
fello
ws,
ext
ram
ural
ly fu
nded
rese
arch
ass
ista
nts,
uni
vers
ity-
fund
ed re
sear
ch a
ssis
tant
s, a
nd u
nive
rsity
-fund
ed te
achi
ng a
ssis
tant
s w
as $
14,7
30,
$13,
550,
$13
,320
, and
$11
,360
, res
pect
ivel
y. R
ecom
men
ded
fund
ing
leve
ls a
vera
ged
from
$17
,500
to $
15,1
70 fo
r the
var
ious
cat
egor
ies.
!S
tude
nt in
volv
emen
t in
rese
arch
. Ph.
D. p
rogr
ams
repo
rted
the
invo
lvem
ent o
f 431
un
derg
radu
ate
stud
ents
and
697
mas
ter's
stu
dent
s (e
stim
ates
adj
uste
d to
100
%
repo
rting
rate
), av
erag
ing
8.7
and
11.6
stu
dent
s pe
r pro
gram
, res
pect
ivel
y.
!D
emog
raph
ics
of c
urre
nt s
tude
nts.
The
adj
uste
d es
timat
e of
the
tota
l num
ber o
f do
ctor
al s
tude
nts
in C
SD
in 2
001
base
d on
the
surv
ey w
as 8
13. A
mon
g th
e do
ctor
al
prog
ram
s re
porti
ng, 6
5% d
etai
led
info
rmat
ion
for a
sam
ple
of 4
05in
divi
dual
stu
dent
s.
At l
east
67%
of s
tude
nts
wer
e fu
ll-tim
e. T
he p
ropo
rtion
s w
ere
dist
ribut
ed a
mon
g S
LP
(68%
), A
udio
logy
(22%
), C
omm
unic
atio
n S
cien
ce (5
%),
and
othe
r (5%
).G
ende
r 82
% fe
mal
eC
olor
13%
of c
olor
Dis
abilit
y2%
with
dis
abilit
yC
itize
nshi
p 20
% in
tern
atio
nal
Prio
r deg
ree
77%
CS
D M
aste
r's, 1
1% M
aste
r's fr
om o
ther
fiel
ds,
12%
bac
helo
r’s o
nly
Sou
rce
of d
egre
e31
% fr
om s
ame
Uni
vers
ity, 5
5% fr
om o
ther
US
U
nive
rsiti
es, 1
4% fr
om n
on-U
S U
nive
rsity
.
!S
tude
nt fu
ndin
g ty
pes
and
sour
ces.
App
roxi
mat
ely
24%
of d
octo
ral s
tude
nts
wer
e re
porte
d to
be
self-
supp
ortin
g. T
he m
ajor
ity w
ere
supp
orte
d by
uni
vers
ity fu
nds
(50%
); ot
her m
ajor
sou
rces
wer
e re
sear
ch g
rant
s (2
2%) a
nd tr
aini
ng g
rant
s (1
4%).
Som
e st
uden
ts w
ere
fund
ed fr
om m
ultip
le s
ourc
es. M
ost o
ften
Ph.
D. s
tude
nts
wer
e fu
nded
as
rese
arch
ass
ista
nts
(46%
); ap
prox
imat
ely
35%
as
teac
hing
ass
ista
nts,
~
15%
as
train
ees,
~ 6
% a
s cl
inic
al s
uper
viso
rs, a
nd ~
12%
in o
ther
cat
egor
ies.
An
estim
ated
64%
and
19%
of P
h.D
. stu
dent
s re
ceiv
ed fu
ll tu
ition
wai
vers
and
par
tial
tuiti
on w
aive
rs, r
espe
ctiv
ely.
Sur
vey
of P
h.D
. pro
gram
s, n
umbe
r res
pond
ing
by a
rea
of tr
aini
ngTo
tal n
umbe
r of p
rogr
ams
resp
ondi
ng =
56
(52
from
the
US
)
05101520253035404550
SL
PA
UD
SC
IO
TH
ER
Pro
porti
on re
porti
ng•
The
Join
t Ad
Hoc
Com
mitt
ee is
ple
ased
to re
port
that
the
grea
t maj
ority
of p
rogr
am d
irect
ors
or th
eir
repr
esen
tativ
es re
spon
ded
to th
e su
rvey
•Th
e ra
te o
f res
pons
e w
as 8
5-86
% d
epen
ding
upo
n cr
iteria
indi
cate
d in
the
next
slid
e•
Not
all
item
s, h
owev
er, w
ere
answ
ered
by
the
entir
e sa
mpl
e of
resp
onde
nts
•W
here
few
er th
an 8
6% re
spon
ded
on a
ny it
em, t
he
slid
es th
at fo
llow
indi
cate
the
actu
al re
spon
se ra
tes
•‘A
djus
ted’
valu
es in
the
slid
es h
ave
been
ext
rapo
late
d to
a
100%
resp
onse
rate
, bas
ed o
n th
e ob
tain
ed d
ata
and
the
actu
al re
spon
se ra
te
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.91
ALL
PR
OG
RAM
SAL
L P
RO
GR
AMS
AC
TIV
E IN
200
1AL
L U
SA
PR
OG
RAM
S
PR
OP
OR
TIO
N O
F P
RO
GR
AM
S R
EP
OR
TIN
G IN
TH
E 2
002
PH
.D. P
RO
GR
AM
SU
RV
EY
FR
OM
TH
E J
OIN
T A
D H
OC
C
OM
MIT
TEE
Item
wor
ding
for n
ext s
lide
In o
rder
to p
roje
ct re
tirem
ent r
ates
ove
r the
nex
t 20
year
s, w
e ne
ed to
kno
w a
ges
of fa
culty
, ful
l-an
d pa
rt-tim
e, w
ith a
nd w
ithou
t res
earc
h do
ctor
ates
. In
dica
te th
e nu
mbe
rs o
f fac
ulty
in
each
cat
egor
y, a
ccou
ntin
g fo
r all
facu
lty
(exc
ludi
ng in
divi
dual
s w
ho a
re c
ontra
cted
to
perfo
rm o
ff-si
te s
uper
visi
on o
nly
or to
teac
h an
oc
casi
onal
cou
rse)
in th
e pr
ogra
m.
If ag
es a
re
not k
now
n to
you
with
cer
tain
ty, p
leas
e es
timat
e.
020406080100
120
<33
33-3
738
-42
43-4
748
-52
53-5
758
-62
63-6
768
-72
73-7
7>7
7
full-
time
part
-tim
e
Dis
tribu
tion
of fa
culty
hol
ding
the
Ph.
D. b
y ag
e in
Ph.
D. P
rogr
ams,
from
the
Join
t Ad
Hoc
C
omm
ittee
Sur
vey,
200
2
Mea
n fu
ll-tim
e =
49.0
8M
edia
n fu
ll-tim
e =
49.4
6
Mea
n pa
rt-tim
e =
53.8
1M
edia
n pa
rt-tim
e =
52.9
2
FULL
-TIM
E N
= 5
75P
AR
T-TI
ME
N =
59
Inte
rpre
tatio
n of
the
prev
ious
slid
e
•Th
e ag
e of
facu
lty h
oldi
ng th
e P
h.D
. is
dist
ribut
ed s
uch
that
the
vast
maj
ority
wer
e 38
to
62 y
ears
of a
ge.
•Th
e di
strib
utio
n pr
ovid
es th
e fir
st a
vaila
ble
indi
catio
n th
at re
tirem
ent f
rom
full-
time
facu
lty
role
s by
Ph.
D. h
olde
rs in
Com
mun
icat
ion
Sci
ence
s an
d D
isor
ders
(with
the
prov
iso
that
on
ly in
divi
dual
s in
pro
gram
s of
ferin
g th
e P
h.D
. ar
e re
pres
ente
d in
the
sam
ple)
see
ms
to o
ccur
m
ost c
omm
only
at o
r aro
und
65 y
ears
of a
ge.
Num
ber o
f Cur
rent
ly E
nrol
led
Ph.
D S
tude
nts
in 5
0 C
urre
ntly
Act
ive
Ph.
D. P
rogr
ams
0246810121416
<66t
o10
11to
1516
to20
21to
25>2
5
Number of programs
Num
ber o
f stu
dent
s pe
r pro
gram
Pro
porti
on o
f Ph.
D S
tude
nts
Acc
ount
ed fo
r by
50
Cur
rent
ly A
ctiv
e P
h.D
. Pro
gram
sw
ith V
aryi
ng N
umbe
rs o
f Stu
dent
s
0
0.050.1
0.150.2
0.250.3
<66t
o10
11to
1516
to20
21to
25>2
5
Proportion of currently enrolled students
accounted for
Num
ber o
f stu
dent
s pe
r pro
gram
Not
able
con
clus
ion:
The
4 la
rges
t pro
gram
s ac
coun
ted
for a
bout
aqu
arte
r of t
he
tota
l cur
rent
enr
ollm
ent o
f Ph.
D. s
tude
nts.
The
mos
t typ
ical
pro
gram
s in
term
s of
siz
e (6
to 1
5 st
uden
ts e
ach)
acc
ount
ed fo
r 46%
of t
he to
tal e
nrol
lmen
t.
Item
wor
ding
for n
ext s
lide
All
fact
ors
cons
ider
ed (e
.g.,
fund
ing,
facu
lty re
sour
ces,
lab
spac
e), a
re
you
pres
ently
at m
axim
um re
sear
ch d
octo
ral e
nrol
lmen
t cap
acity
? If
not,
appr
oxim
atel
y ho
w m
any
mor
e re
sear
ch d
octo
ral s
tude
nts
coul
d yo
u en
roll
(#)?
SLP
: yes
n
o
#__
Spe
ech
and/
or H
earin
g S
cien
ce:
yes
no
#
__A
udio
logy
: yes
n
o
#__
Oth
er:
yes
no
#
___
020406080100
120
140
160
180
SLP
AUD
SP/H
EAR
OTHE
R
Slot
s ava
ilabl
eAd
just
ed sl
ots
Cap
acity
for a
dditi
onal
Ph.
D. t
rain
ing:
Unf
illed
slo
ts re
porte
d to
be
avai
labl
e fo
r Ph.
D.
stud
ents
, 200
1-20
02
Adj
uste
d TO
TAL
= 33
3
Mea
n/P
rogr
am* S
LP =
2.9
Mea
n/P
rogr
am*
AU
D =
2.0
Mea
n/P
rogr
am*
SP
/HE
AR
= 1
.9M
ean/
Pro
gram
* O
THE
R =
2.6
*# o
f rep
orte
d av
aila
ble
slot
s in
eac
h de
sign
ated
are
a di
vide
d by
# o
f rep
ortin
g pr
ogra
ms
offe
ring
a de
gree
in th
ede
sign
ated
are
a
00.
10.
20.
30.
40.
50.
60.
70.
80.
91
GR
ADU
ATE
DD
RO
PP
ED
OU
TH
IRE
D A
S F
ACU
LTY
PR
OP
OR
TIO
N G
RA
DU
ATE
D O
R D
RO
PP
ED
OU
T O
F P
H.D
. PR
OG
RA
MS
SIN
CE
199
5, A
ND
IF G
RA
DU
ATE
D,
PR
OP
OR
TIO
N H
AV
ING
TA
KE
N F
AC
ULT
Y P
OS
ITIO
NS
Item
wor
ding
for n
ext s
lide
•In
you
r opi
nion
, how
impo
rtant
are
eac
h of
the
follo
win
g fa
ctor
s in
pla
cing
rest
rictio
ns o
n yo
ur
rese
arch
doc
tora
l enr
ollm
ent?
Rat
e th
e pe
rcei
ved
impo
rtanc
e of
eac
h fa
ctor
usi
ng 1
=non
e, 3
=mod
erat
e,
5=hi
gh.
•1
2 3
4 5
Ava
ilabi
lity
of s
tude
nt fu
ndin
g•
1 2
3 4
5C
ompe
ting
dem
ands
on
facu
lty ti
me
•1
2 3
4 5
Facu
lty e
xper
tise
•1
2 3
4 5
Lab
spac
e•
1 2
3 4
5N
umbe
r of f
acul
ty•
1 2
3 4
5O
ther
, spe
cify
:
2
2.53
3.54
4.55
AV
AIL
AB
LE
FU
ND
ING
FA
CU
LT
Y T
IME
FA
CU
LT
YE
XP
ER
TIS
EL
AB
SP
AC
EN
UM
BE
R O
FF
AC
UL
TY
PR
OG
RA
M D
IRE
CTO
RS
’JU
DG
ME
NTS
RE
GA
RD
ING
R
ELA
TIV
E IM
PO
RTA
NC
E O
F FA
CTO
RS
RE
STR
ICTI
NG
E
NR
OLL
ME
NT
2001
-200
2, 8
3% o
f pro
gram
s re
porti
ng, S
cale
1-5
Man
y en
tere
d ‘to
o fe
w a
pplic
ants
’un
der ‘
othe
r’
Item
wor
ding
for n
ext s
lide
•Th
e C
AP
CS
D, A
SH
A, t
he A
SH
F Fo
unda
tion,
and
oth
er p
oten
tial
spon
sors
are
inte
rest
ed in
exp
lorin
g fu
ndin
g m
echa
nism
s th
at m
ight
be
effe
ctiv
e in
incr
easi
ng th
e su
pply
of r
esea
rch
doct
oral
gra
duat
es. P
leas
e ra
te th
e im
porta
nce
that
sho
uld
be g
iven
to th
e fo
llow
ing
targ
ets.
Rat
e th
e pe
rcei
ved
effe
ctiv
enes
s of
eac
h fu
ndin
g m
echa
nism
usi
ng 1
=non
e,
3=m
oder
ate,
5=h
igh.
•
1 2
3 4
5R
ecru
itmen
t of n
ew s
tude
nts
(1st
yea
r)
•1
2 3
4 5
Hig
h ac
hiev
ing
stud
ents
(2nd
yea
r) in
Ph.
D. p
rogr
ams
•1
2 3
4 5
Stu
dent
s ad
mitt
ed to
can
dida
cy (3
-4th
yea
r) tr
aini
ng
stip
ends
•1
2 3
4 5
Stu
dent
s ad
mitt
ed to
can
dida
cy (3
-4th
yea
r) re
sear
ch
awar
ds•
1 2
3 4
5Tr
aini
ng s
tipen
ds to
sup
plem
ent i
nstit
utio
nal f
undi
ng•
1 2
3 4
5R
esea
rch
awar
ds to
sup
plem
ent i
nstit
utio
nal f
undi
ng•
1 2
3 4
5O
ther
, sp
ecify
:___
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
_
33.
23.
43.
63.
844.
24.
44.
64.
85
REC
RUIT
MT,
FIRS
T YR
HI A
CHI
EVM
T,2N
D Y
RD
OC
CAN
DID
ATES
,TR
AINI
NGAW
RDS
DO
CC
AND
IDAT
ES,
RES
AWRD
S
SUPP
L RE
SAW
RDS
SUPP
LTR
AINI
NGAW
RDS
PR
OG
RA
M D
IRE
CTO
RS
’RE
CO
MM
EN
DE
D F
UN
DIN
G
TAR
GE
TS O
N A
SC
ALE
OF
1 TO
5, w
ith 7
9% re
porti
ng
Item
wor
ding
for n
ext s
lide
•A
t the
CA
PC
SD
mee
ting,
we
wou
ld li
ke p
artic
ipan
ts to
dis
cuss
st
rate
gies
that
pro
gram
s ha
ve im
plem
ente
d th
at y
ou b
elie
ve h
ave
assi
sted
in re
sear
ch d
octo
ral r
ecru
itmen
t effo
rts. R
ate
the
perc
eive
d us
eful
ness
of t
he fo
llow
ing
activ
ities
usi
ng 1
= no
t us
eful
, 5=h
ighl
y us
eful
. •
1 2
3 4
5V
olun
teer
lab
assi
stan
t•
1 2
3 4
5V
olun
teer
dat
a co
llect
ion
•1
2 3
4 5
Vol
unte
er la
b m
eetin
g at
tend
ance
•1
2 3
4 5
Fund
ed re
sear
ch a
ssis
tant
ship
•1
2 3
4 5
Sum
mer
rese
arch
inte
rnsh
ip p
rogr
am•
1 2
3 4
5U
nder
grad
uate
rese
arch
pro
ject
•1
2 3
4 5
Mas
ter’s
rese
arch
pro
ject
•1
2 3
4 5
Hon
or’s
thes
is•
1 2
3 4
5M
aste
r’s th
esis
2
2.53
3.54
4.55
VOLU
N LA
BAS
STVO
LUN
DATA
COLL
ECVO
LUN
LAB
MEE
T AT
TEND
FUND
ED R
ESAS
STSH
PSU
MM
ER R
ESIN
TERN
SHP
UNDE
RGRA
DRE
S PR
OJ
MAS
TERS
RES
PRO
JHO
NOR'
STH
ESIS
MAS
TER'
STH
ESIS
PR
OG
RA
M D
IRE
CTO
RS
’JU
DG
ME
NTS
RE
GA
RD
ING
S
UC
CE
SS
FUL
RE
CR
UIT
ME
NT
STR
ATE
GIE
S
with
73%
resp
ondi
ng
PH
.D. P
RO
GR
AM
S D
IFFE
RE
D F
RO
M
OTH
ER
PR
OG
RA
MS
IN P
RO
PO
RTI
ON
S
OF
PH
.D. F
AC
ULT
Y IN
FT
RO
LES
•Th
e ne
xt s
lide
indi
cate
s th
at th
e gr
eat m
ajor
ity
(63%
) of f
acul
ty in
pro
gram
s of
ferin
g th
e P
h.D
. w
orke
d fu
ll tim
e as
facu
lty a
nd h
eld
the
Ph.
D.
•O
n th
e ot
her h
and,
few
er th
an h
alf t
he fa
culty
m
embe
rs (4
8%) i
n al
l pro
gram
s w
orke
d fu
ll tim
e an
d he
ld th
e P
h.D
.•
The
com
para
tive
data
for ‘
all p
rogr
ams’
wer
e dr
awn
from
four
cyc
les
of th
e C
AP
CS
D re
gula
r su
rvey
con
duct
ed e
very
two
year
s
CO
MP
AR
ISO
N O
F P
H.D
. PR
OG
RA
MS
WIT
H A
LL P
RO
GR
AM
S
FULL
-TIM
E P
H.D
. N
= 5
75P
AR
T-TI
ME
PH
.D.
N =
59
FULL
-TIM
E N
ON
-PH
.D.
N =
183
PA
RT-
TIM
E N
ON
-PH
.D. N
= 9
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
IN A
LL
PR
OG
RA
MS
IN P
H.D
.P
RO
GR
AM
S
FT
PH
.D F
AC
UL
TY
PT
PH
.D.
FA
CU
LT
Y
FT
WIT
HO
UT
PH
.D.
PT
WIT
HO
UT
PH
.D.
4 cy
cle
ave.
of d
ata
from
Cou
ncil
surv
eyda
ta fr
om J
oint
Ad
Hoc
C
omm
ittee
Sur
vey,
200
2
N’s
for t
he J
oint
C
omm
ittee
Sur
vey
Proportion of all facultyS
ubgr
oups
of f
acul
ty a
s a
prop
ortio
n of
all
facu
lty
101112131415161718
EXT
FELL
OW
OR
TRAI
NEE
EXT
RAUN
IV T
AUN
IV R
A
AC
TUA
LRE
CO
M'D
AV
ER
AG
E F
UN
DIN
G L
EV
ELS
FO
R P
H.D
. S
TUD
EN
TS W
ITH
FU
ND
ING
MIN
*=12
MA
X=2
2.3
MIN
=2M
AX
=22.
7M
IN=2
MA
X=2
1M
IN=2
MA
X=2
0
*MIN
AN
D M
AX
R
EFE
R T
O A
CTU
AL
FUN
DIN
G L
EV
ELS
Thousands of dollars
3579111315
UNDE
RGRA
DUAT
EMA
STER
'S LE
VEL
AV
ER
AG
E N
UM
BE
R O
F U
ND
ER
GR
AD
UA
TE A
ND
M
AS
TER
’S S
TUD
EN
TS IN
VO
LVE
D IN
RE
SE
AR
CH
P
ER
PR
OG
RA
M
Adj
uste
d es
timat
eof
und
ergr
adua
tes
enga
ged
in re
sear
ch in
P
h.D
. pro
gram
s =
431
Adj
uste
d es
timat
eof
Mas
ter's
stu
dent
sen
gage
d in
rese
arch
in
Ph.
D. p
rogr
ams
= 69
7
Inte
rpre
tatio
n of
nex
t slid
e:“P
h.D
. st
uden
ts a
dmitt
ed a
nd e
nrol
led”
The
data
her
e w
ere
base
d on
the
follo
win
g su
rvey
item
:
For t
he m
ost r
ecen
t aca
dem
ic y
ear (
2001
-200
2):
__/_
_#
rese
arch
doc
tora
l stu
dent
s ad
mitt
ed/#
enr
olle
d w
ith fu
ndin
g co
mm
itmen
t
__/_
_#
rese
arch
doc
tora
l stu
dent
s ad
mitt
ed/#
enr
olle
d w
ithou
tfun
ding
com
mitm
ent
It ap
pear
s th
at n
ot a
ll th
e pr
ogra
ms
inte
rpre
ted
the
ques
tion
iden
tical
ly. T
he in
tent
ion
was
fo
r pro
gram
s to
resp
ond
with
info
rmat
ion
abou
t the
mos
t rec
ent y
ear o
nly,
exc
ludi
ng
stud
ents
adm
itted
or e
nrol
led
in p
rior y
ears
. B
ut s
ome
seem
to h
ave
unde
rsto
od th
e qu
estio
n as
mea
ning
‘dur
ing
the
mos
t rec
ent y
ear,
how
man
y to
tal s
tude
nts
are
enro
lled
and
how
man
y ha
ve b
een
adm
itted
(at a
ny p
rior t
ime)
?’C
onse
quen
tly, t
he to
tal e
nrol
led
and
adm
itted
figu
res
may
be
over
estim
ated
in th
e fo
llow
ing
slid
e. In
add
ition
ther
e ar
e ot
her w
ays
that
the
data
in re
spon
se to
this
item
do
not
che
ck o
ut w
ell w
ith o
ther
resp
onse
s to
sur
veys
from
a fe
wof
the
pro
gram
s –
we
pres
ume
the
item
was
occ
asio
nally
inte
rpre
ted
in w
ays
we
did
not i
nten
d du
e to
am
bigu
ity o
f the
item
’s p
hras
ing.
If th
is it
em is
util
ized
in fu
ture
sur
veys
, we
will,
of c
ours
e, re
com
men
d th
at it
be
revi
sed
to
elim
inat
e th
e ap
pare
nt a
mbi
guity
.
050100
150
200
250
With
Fun
ding
With
out F
undi
ng
Adm
itted
Enro
lled
Ph.
D. s
tude
nts
adm
itted
and
enr
olle
d, 2
001-
2002
,77
% o
f pro
gram
s re
porti
ng o
n th
is it
em Tota
l adm
itted
* =
366
Tota
l enr
olle
d* =
266
Per
cent
enr
olle
d** =
73%
Per
cent
enr
olle
d***
w
ith fu
ndin
g =
71%
Adj
uste
d to
tal a
dmitt
ed*
= 47
6A
djus
ted
tota
l enr
olle
d* =
346
*with
or w
ithou
t fun
ding
**to
tal e
nrol
led/
tota
l adm
itted
***t
otal
enr
olle
d w
ith
fund
ing/
tota
l enr
olle
d
Dat
a on
indi
vidu
al P
h.D
. stu
dent
s
•Th
e Jo
int A
d H
oc C
omm
ittee
sur
vey
was
bro
ken
dow
n in
to tw
o br
oad
com
pone
nts:
•
the
first
com
pone
nt (w
ith d
ata
sum
mar
ized
in th
e pr
eced
ing
slid
es) f
ocus
ed o
n pr
ogra
m
char
acte
ristic
s an
d ha
d an
ove
rall
86%
resp
onse
ra
te fr
om p
rogr
ams
•th
e se
cond
com
pone
nt (w
ith d
ata
sum
mar
ized
in
the
follo
win
gsl
ides
) foc
used
on
char
acte
ristic
s of
indi
vidu
al s
tude
nts
and
had
an o
vera
ll 65
%
resp
onse
rate
, acc
ount
ing
in th
e m
axim
um c
ase
for 4
05 c
urre
ntly
enr
olle
d P
h.D
. stu
dent
s
00.
10.
20.
30.
40.
50.
60.
70.
80.
91
SLP
AUD
SP/H
EAR
OTHE
R
65%
OF
PH
.D. P
RO
GR
AM
S R
EP
OR
TED
DE
TAIL
S O
N
STU
DE
NTS
; TH
IS F
IGU
RE
DIS
PLA
YS
TH
E R
EP
OR
TIN
G
PR
OG
RA
MS
IN E
AC
H S
UB
AR
EA
AS
A P
RO
PO
RTI
ON
OF
ALL
RE
PO
RTI
NG
PR
OG
RA
MS
, AN
D S
UB
SE
QU
EN
T S
LID
ES
PR
OV
IDE
TH
E D
ATA
ON
IND
IVID
UA
L S
TUD
EN
TS
PROPORTION
DE
MO
GR
AP
HIC
S O
N P
H.D
. STU
DE
NTS
FRO
M S
AM
PLE
OF
405
IND
IVID
UA
LS IN
200
1
Gen
der
82%
fem
ale
Col
or13
% o
f col
orD
isab
ility
2% w
ith d
isab
ility
Citi
zens
hip
20%
inte
rnat
iona
lP
rior d
egre
e77
% C
SD
Mas
ter’s
, 11%
Mas
ter’s
from
othe
r fie
ld, 1
2% B
ache
lor’s
onl
yS
ourc
e of
deg
ree
31%
sam
e U
niv.
, 55%
oth
er U
S U
niv.
,14
% n
on-U
S U
niv.
Full-
time
or P
art
67%
Ful
l-tim
e
Not
able
con
clus
ions
: Ph.
D. s
tude
nts
wer
e ve
ry p
redo
min
antly
whi
te A
mer
ican
wom
en
who
had
com
plet
ed a
Mas
ter’s
deg
ree
in C
omm
unic
atio
n S
cien
ces
and
Dis
orde
rs, a
nd
the
2/3
wer
e st
udyi
ng fu
ll-tim
e
0
0.050.
1
0.150.
2
0.250.
3
FIR
STYE
ARSE
CO
ND
YEAR
THIR
DYE
ARFO
UR
THYE
ARFI
FTH
YEAR
SIXT
HYE
ARSE
VEN
THYE
AREI
GH
THYE
ARN
INTH
YEAR
TEN
TH
YE
AR
S IN
PH
.D. P
RO
GR
AM
FO
R S
TUD
EN
TS E
NR
OLL
ED
w
ith 6
3% o
f pro
gram
s re
porti
ng o
n th
is it
emPROPORTION OF ALL STUDENTS
Inte
rpre
tive
assi
stan
ce fo
r nex
t slid
e
•D
ata
are
repr
esen
ted
in tw
o fo
rms:
exc
lusi
ve o
r su
mm
ed•
For e
xclu
sive
dat
a, e
ach
indi
vidu
al w
as
assi
gned
to o
ne a
nd o
nly
one
fund
ing
cate
gory
(if
stu
dent
s ha
d m
ore
than
one
sou
rce
of
fund
ing,
they
wer
e as
sign
ed to
‘mix
ed’)
•Fo
r sum
med
dat
a, in
divi
dual
s th
at h
ad m
ultip
le
sour
ces
of fu
ndin
g w
ere
assi
gned
to e
ach
cate
gory
whe
re th
ey h
ad fu
ndin
g (‘m
ixed
’in
this
ca
se is
zer
o an
d th
e su
m o
f all
cate
gorie
s ex
ceed
s 1)
`
Fund
ing
sour
ces
for s
tude
nts
in P
h.D
. pro
gram
s fro
m s
ampl
e of
400
00.
050.1
0.150.
20.
250.3
0.350.
40.
450.5
Sel
fD
pt o
rU
niv
Tra
inin
gG
rtR
es G
rtO
ther
Mix
ed
EX
CLU
SS
UM
ME
D
ratio of # of students with each funding source to total number of students (400)
App
oint
men
t/fun
ding
type
am
ong
stud
ents
in
Ph.
D. p
rogr
ams
from
sam
ple
of 3
44
00.
050.1
0.150.
20.
250.3
0.350.
40.
450.5
RA
TAC
LIN
SUP
TRN/
FLLW
OTH
ERM
IXED
EXC
LUS
SU
MM
ED
ratio of # of students with each funding source to total number of students (344)
Tuiti
on w
aive
rs fo
r stu
dent
s in
Ph.
D. p
rogr
ams
from
sam
ple
of 4
03
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
FULL
PART
IAL
NONE
PROPORTION OF STUDENTSIN THE SAMPLE