A descriptive analysis of doctoral programs in industrial education and general vocational education in the United States : a study of program selection criteria

The purpose of this study was to provide descriptive and comparative data which would be useful in making industrial education department programmatic decisions, as well as, providing useful information to prospective doctoral students prior to their program selection. Therefore, the specific purpose of this investigation was to: 1. describe existing industrial and general vocational education doctoral programs.2. assess the criteria used by current industrial and vocational education doctoral students in their selection of specific programs.3. assess the criteria judged important by leaders in industrial education which should be used in selecting doctoral program in industrial and vocational education.4. determine if a relationship exists between:(a) criteria used by current industrial and vocational education doctoral students in their selection of specific programs, and(b) criteria which should be used in selecting a doctoral program in industrial and vocational education as judged by leaders in the field.5. provide specific criteria which can be used by prospective students for selecting a doctoral program in industrial and vocational education.(A doctoral program keysort selection system was previously developed in response to this fifth purpose.)Two surveys were conducted in order to retrieve information about resident doctoral students and doctoral programs in industrial and general vocational education. The resident doctoral student population had an N of 264. Eighty-six percent (227) of this number responded to the survey instrument. The department program leader population had an N of 62. Fifty-eight program leaders responded to the questionnaire for a return of 93.5 percent.In addition to the descriptive information sought from both populations, information and opinions were elicited concerning criteria used in making a doctoral program selection. This abstract will include information in both areas of investigation.A description of existing industrial and general vocational education doctoral programs was presented utilizing the following variables:1. program name2. degree type3. program emphasis4. Ph.D.-Ed.D. differences5. date of first doctorate awarded 6. enrollments7. tuition8. program offerings9. program requirements10. program entrance requirements11. hours granted for the dissertation 12. minimum hours to complete program 13. maximum transfer hours14. program breakdownIn addition to this descriptive information of a programmatic nature a current profile of the resident doctoral student in industrial and general vocational education was provided, considering the following factors:1. department affiliation2. sex, race and age3. marital status, number of children, and working spouse4 . citizenship and home state attendance5. financial support 6. degree objective and degrees held7. undergraduate and graduate majors 8. career objective 9. residency requirement - moving 10. individual program length requirement and transfer hoursA total of 29 selection criteria were assessed by both resident doctoral students and department program leaders. The following criteria ranked one through five, in order of importance, as judged by department program leaders:reputation of department and/or program reputation of university reputation of faculty members type of programprogram flexibilityThe following criteria ranked one through five, in order of importance, as judged by resident doctoral students:1. type of program2. reputation of department and/or program 3. reputation of university 4. program flexibility5. being granted an assistantship or fellowshipProgram department chairmen and resident doctoral students assessed the following five criteria in much the same way and therefore were in agreement as to the relative importance of the program selection criteria:1. reputation of the university2. reputation of the department and/or program 3. reputation of the department head4. programs reputation for developing teaching skills5. program flexibilityThe following criteria ranked one through five, in order of importance, as judged by resident doctoral students:1. type of program2. reputation of department and/or program3. reputation of university4. program flexibility5. being granted an assistantship or fellowshipProgram department chairmen and resident doctoral students assessed the following five criteria in much the same way and therefore were in agreement as to the relative importance of the program selection criteria:1. reputation of the university2. reputation of the department and/or program3. reputation of the department head4. programs reputation for developing teaching skills 5. program flexibilityThe two groups disagreed most on the relative importance placed upon the following five program selection criteria:1. program graduate(s) recommendation2. availability of married student housing 3. having tuition and/or fees waived4. being granted an assistantship or fellowship5. location of universityAfter analyzing the data on resident doctoral students, it would be fair to conclude that no true doctoral student profile is possible due to the diversity of those enrolled. However, the chances are good that the "typical" resident doctoral student enrolled in industrial and general vocational education would be a married, white, middle class, male, between the ages of 25 and 35, and who has at least one child. Further, the chances are also good that this individual's spouse is working at least part-time and that the family is receiving some sort of financial support during residency. Finally, the individual probably holds at least a masters degree, intends to be a university teacher or administrator and has moved less than 500 miles in order to meet residency requirements.Once again, upon analyzing the data, it appears that the vast diversity in program offerings prevents formulating a meaningful profile. Further, a profile of this nature, for the most part, would serve no useful purpose. Therefore, conclusions were limited to the following three areas: (1) program diversity, (2) Ph.D. and Ed.D. differences and (3) program reputation.It would seem reasonable to conclude that one of the major factors affecting program diversity is student flexibility need. Program flexibility ranked fourth out of the 29 variables assessed by students. Program diversity results from attempts to meet diverse student need.Also, it would seem reasonable to conclude that the stated differences between the Ph.D. and Ed.D. programs, in reality, might not exist, at least to any large extent. Two main areas of differences are usually indicated when comparing the Ph.D. and Ed.D. degrees. They are language and/or research and statistics. The percent of Ed.D. programs requiring research methodology and statistics was found to be nearly as high as that of the Ph.D. programs. Secondly, only four institutions indicated that substitutions were not possible in meeting the language requirement. Substitutions are mainly noted in the areas of research methodology and statistics. In addition, program structural differences between the Ph.D. and Ed.D. programs were found to be minimal.Since there is little, if any, comparative data on doctoral programs and since programs are usually not compared for quality due to professional standards of ethics, student assessment of program quality may be based on a natural defense of the decision to attend a given university department.In conclusion, this descriptive research was undertaken to provide insight into the current status of doctoral programs in industrial and general vocational education. Further, the study attempted to provide greater insight into the area of doctoral program selection. The results of this investigation have suggested some additional areas for study. The following list of recommendations are offered for consideration:1. Since geographic location of institution was not ranked extremely high as a selection criteria and since a little more than half of the students moved fewer than 200 miles, this inconsistency warrants futher investigation.2. Both "university and department and/or program" were assessed as being extremely important in the selection of a doctoral program. Further study of reputation formation and student selection justification would be in order.3. Since there is some question as to the actual differences between Ph.D. and Ed.D. programs, specifically in the areas of industrial and vocational education, further study limited to these programs might provide some additional insight into these differences.4. Due to the vast difference of assessed importance of "being granted an assistantship or fellowship," further study is warranted in the area of financial assistance and its effect on enrollment.Since there is virtually no information, on a national basis, concerning student ability to attain personal job oriented professional goals, (ability to get previously stated work in a given profession) and since the doctoral job market is becoming somewhat saturated, an investigation of ability to get a desired position upon graduation seems warranted.6. Little longitudinal data is available on doctoral programs in industrial and general vocational education. It is recommended that the national professional organization concerned with industrial education consider collecting and publishing such information on a yearly basis.Ball State UniversityMuncie, IN 473063Thesis (Ed.S.