Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degree programs occupy the apex of the academic hierarchy. This is largely because graduates are required to extend the bounds of existing knowledge [1]. In the recent doctoral discipline of engineering education, students are prepared to conduct effective educational research in the areas of engineering curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, and faculty development” among other topics [2]. With the recency of these programs, there is significant opportunity to learn more about what constitutes quality within this educational context. In this work in progress paper, authors explore conceptions of engineering education PhD program quality as understood from the lived experiences of program directors. Research into the quality of doctoral-level programs is at an all-time high due to increased attention by national agencies, disciplinary bodies, and higher education stakeholders [1]. These calls are the result of several factors but are most amplified by the inextricable link between research doctoral programs and the national economy [3]. In this study, researchers conducted an Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) of interviews with five individuals holding leadership roles in engineering education PhD programs. Participants’ leadership tenure in these programs ranged from 0.16 to 6 years with their affiliated programs existing for between 3 to 15 years. Participants’ interview responses suggested that the role of a program leader was multifaceted. It required a combination of administrative tasks involving institutional stakeholders as well as student facing responsibilities related to admissions, recruitment, and student support across the program life cycle. Although participants provided individualized interpretations, researchers identified a telling consensus. Their responses provided the basis for the following findings. Participants illuminated unrelenting reflections about their programs and “what does it mean” to offer one that is of quality and how even answers to these questions may exists only “at that time” since they were likely to change. Finally, there were other key quotes which found participants examining how they used program goals and outcomes all “to assess the program” and change them accordingly if they were not “working so well”. After three stages of (descriptive, linguistic, and conceptual) analysis, authors developed a singular superordinate theme which likened participants’ conception of quality to the idea of continuous improvement. This theme was appropriate as participants articulated a shared interest in advancing changes that would consistently enhance the quality of the individual programs they represented. Implications of these insights are applicable to programs currently in design phase as they provide a baseline for how programs may be developed and directed. Additionally, these findings also provide guidance to postdocs and current candidates entering the faculty job market on faculty service requirements which may be expected within new/er or developing programs.
Are you a researcher? Would you like to cite this paper? Visit the ASEE document repository at peer.asee.org for more tools and easy citations.