Search Results

Clearly, more discussion of the purposes of doctoral education in social work is needed, because the social science model that is now dominant is not attracting enough students, perhaps because of a perceived lack of relevance to practice and service delivery concerns. Other issues in recruitment to doctoral study are discussed, including the need for higher amounts and longer duration of financial aid. More doctoral students need to feel part of a community of scholars; a national organization of doctoral students might help. Best practices in doctoral education to reduce time to degree and enhance student productivity should be disseminated and adopted more widely in social work. Given the reemergence of interest in the “clinical doctorate” in social work, wide discussion that involves stakeholders within and beyond social work education is needed.

A key issue for doctoral education in the United States is whether doctoral education in the professions should be dedicated solely to preparing “stewards of the discipline” or should also address practice and service delivery issues. This distinction is used to frame the history of thinking about the purposes of doctoral education in social work as well as current debates, including new discussion of the “practice doctorate.” Survey findings suggest that most doctoral students choose to get the doctoral degree in order to develop their capacities to conduct research or to begin an academic/teaching career. However, some respondents complained that their education is “more allied with academia than the profession” and they had hoped for more integration of these interests.

This chapter provides background on trends in doctoral education in the United States in social work and more generally. It then provides information on the design and conduct of the Web-based national student survey that informs this book. The majority of the survey items were adapted from previous studies, allowing comparison with data from other fields. In addition to standardized survey items, the data collected included extensive qualitative comments, which are used to convey students’ ideas about the education they are receiving or would like to receive. The end of the chapter provides an overview of the organization of the content of the book by chapter.

This chapter discusses the demographic and educational backgrounds of the doctoral students surveyed (most have an MSW), the timing of their enrollment (typical early or in midcareer after some work experience), and the reasons for choosing their particular program. The proportion of enrolled students who identified as people of color was higher than in the past but not as high as in MSW and BSW programs; women predominated, as expected given MSW demographics. Many students had family responsibilities (spouse/partner, dependent children). As applicants, many were place-bound or applied to only one program, often the one at which they earned the MSW. Common reasons for selecting a program were the focus of the curriculum, the opportunity to study with certain professors, and the opportunity to study part-time. However, qualitative comments suggested that part-time students often felt devalued unless the program was part-time only.

Although the curriculum (e.g., course offerings) was not directly assessed, this chapter covers a range of student satisfaction ratings with their doctoral programs (except the dissertation experience—see Chapter 6). Program satisfaction ratings were generally high, but satisfaction with the supports for faculty-student interactions and with a feeling of belonging in their programs were lower. These items (and some open-ended comments) tapped issues related to a “community of scholars,” which some think is key to doctoral education in all fields. Other comments suggested that access to research and teaching opportunities was uneven, and some students wanted more methodological pluralism, a less “US-centered” and more culturally competent perspective. Problems in student-faculty relationships were also mentioned.

This chapter provides an overview of the history of Ph.D. in the United States, including a Ph.D. in social work. Topics covered include the definition of the doctoral degree and examination of the careers available for social work doctoral degree holders, as well as the structure of Ph.D. and doctoral education in general. The importance of social work values as they relate to dissertation research is examined, as is research on the quality of social work dissertations. In addition, the concepts of decision analysis and critical thinking (dimensions skill and traits) are also presented as useful aids in dissertation research.

After an overview of the various mechanisms that can be used for evaluating doctoral programs, important proximal outcomes are described, such as time to degree, publishing or presenting while a student, and teaching while a student. Older students were enrolled longer and fulltime students were enrolled for shorter periods. Students in this survey were publishing and presenting at a rate comparable to that in the social sciences. Satisfaction with faculty interactions was related to a range of outcomes, including time to degree, publishing and presenting, and overall program satisfaction, but this could be an outcome rather than a precursor of these experiences. Factors related to being part of a community of scholars, such as work space on campus, were also related to student assessments of program quality and satisfaction.

In the 1960s and 1970s, federal financial support for doctoral students was very common, but this is not the case now. However, research assistantships (some of them provided through federally funded faculty research grants) are now more common today than teaching assistantships, although school-funded scholarships are equally common. About one third of the students surveyed received no aid at all, and not all of those who were promised financial support at admission received what had been promised. Open-ended comments from students suggested that inadequate financial aid was their biggest problem. Most had student loans, but other forms of personal indebtedness (e.g., home mortgage, credit card debt) were also common. Aid was especially limited for part-time students and for the later phases of doctoral study (after completion of coursework).

The dissertation requirement can be considered the signature pedagogy in doctoral education. What little research exists on doctoral dissertations in social work suggests that there is room for improvement in dissertation quality. Models of dissertation advisement are reviewed. About half of the respondents had begun the dissertation process. Whereas satisfaction ratings by students were generally good, open-ended comments suggested there were problems in several areas. Although no survey items addressed comprehensive examinations, this program component was criticized in student comments. The availability and effectiveness of dissertation support was seen to be quite variable even within programs and was often lacking after course completion, when students felt they were “cut loose.”

Although most students reported receiving career advice, most of the advice was directed to academic employment, and other career goals were sometimes disparaged. Career goals seemed to change little over the course of doctoral study, with teaching and research predominant. Students wanted more preparation specifically aimed at interviewing for faculty jobs and for research project management, writing for publication, and grant writing. In addition to location and salary, respondents rated the opportunity to work for social change highly as a factor that would influence them in job choice after degree completion. Students wanted to know more about the “trade secrets” of teaching, research, writing, and the academic world and wanted more attention to the intangibles involved in changing identities from student to scholar or teacher.

We estimate the career and location preferences of students in U.S. doctoral programs in a major STEM field—chemistry. Our analysis is based on novel survey conducted in 2017 of 1,605 current Chemistry doctoral students enrolled in the top 54 U.S. research intensive universities. First, we estimate the career preferences of foreign and U.S. STEM students for different types of post-graduation jobs—postdocs, industry, or teaching positions—using both hypothetical choice methods and more standard Likert measures of preferences for different careers. We find that foreign students are generally more interested in academic careers than U.S. students, even when controlling for ability and comparing students from similar subfields and programs. Next, we estimate students’ location preferences using a hypothetical choice method: we ask respondents to choose between two postdoc job offers, where one offer is in the U.S. and one is abroad. We find that foreign students have a stronger preference for U.S. locations even after controlling for ability and career preferences. Our results suggest the U.S. is managing to retain talented foreign graduate students for postdoc positions.

This chapter features a critical race counterstory from an Asian American womxn of color about her doctoral education and graduate school socialization. Framed within critical race theory, the author chronicles racial microaggressions she endured as a first-year higher education doctoral student. The author describes the ways in which the model minority myth is wielded as a tool of white supremacy and how the pervasive stereotype overlaps with the imposter syndrome to manifest in a unique oppression targeting Asian American graduate students. The author draws inspiration from Asian American activist Grace Lee Boggs, which helps her resist the intersectional oppression of white supremacy and patriarchy present within academia. The chapter concludes with recommendations to support womxn of color graduate students.

This chapter examines the consequences of job mismatch—lack of fit between education and jobs—among the most highly-educated workers in the economy. These workers of the knowledge economy are often thought to be critical for technological progress and growth. The evidence assembled here uses three related measures of mismatch from the Survey of Doctoral Recipients and estimates their influence on three job outcomes: earnings, job satisfaction, and turnover. Mismatch is associated with worse outcomes: lower wages, lower job satisfaction, and higher turnover. This persists across substantial variations in estimation and holds for academics and nonacademics and for men and women. The size of these influences is surprisingly large, including a double-digit reduction in earnings, a 20 percent increase in the likelihood of being dissatisfied, and a one-third increase in the turnover rate. The chapter attempts to estimate the determinants of mismatch and suggests that there may be substantial vintage effects at work as the fields in which the knowledge base changes most quickly appear to be associated with a greater chance of being mismatched.

This chapter contains a brief biography and transcript of an interview with Abye Tasse, a leader in African social work education, who was awarded the Katherine Kendall Award of the International Association of Schools of Social Work in 2016, for his contribution to international social work education. A refugee from Ethiopia, he trained and worked as a social worker with migrants in marginalized communities in France. He was involved in developing practice education in Romania and social work education in Cameroon, Ethiopia, Mauritius and Comoros. In Ethiopia, masters and doctoral education supported the development of staff to contribute to bachelor-level education. Research and practice in work with migrants have been important in his career. In the future, social work needs to focus on brotherhood as an important element of liberty and greater equality. The Global social development Agenda is an important basis for future progress in social work.