Faculty perceptions of quality dimensions in doctoral programs in education.

Abstract

The purpose of this exploratory study was to identify quality dimensions for doctoral program evaluations from faculty members' views. The data were selected from 1363 faculty questionnaires collected by The Deans' Network, an organization of deans of education of research universities. Factor analysis of the sixteen parts of one key question produced almost 80 percent agreement on one dominant factor. Strong intercorrelation was found among these parts. Groups of parts outlined by cluster and regression analyses indicated three concerns: Research, program components and social interaction. Cluster and regression analysis of all of the selected questions showed only a limited range of items agreed as important. Agreement was apparent for items on aspects of faculty research activity; student quality; program and oral dissertation defense requirements, evaluation criteria and st and ards; time to completion of dissertations; attrition causes; and faculty involvement in graduates' job search. Two broad groups of such items were found: Quality dimensions, mentorship and professorial research activities; and dissertation process, program completion, thesis publication, characteristics of doctoral and graduate classes, and again professorial research activities. Analyses of variance showed significant differences between and among faculty with particular group characteristics and all faculty. Such positive and negative differences were charted to facilitate possible evaluation decisions. The schools' faculty members differed on many items. The faculty grouped by rank, tenure status, gender, age, and publication record showed similar areas of disagreement to those of the school groups. Certain specialization areas identified other combinations of item disagreements. Others substantially agreed with the overall views. For inter-institutional evaluations only a limited number of the questionnaire topics appeared to be supported. For other assessments, more items might be added where particular schools, specializations or other context characteristics involved matched with positive findings. Caution is recommended in selecting program evaluation criteria based on this examination of just one of the concerned constituencies.