Ph.D. Program Issues Identified in
the
Urban Affairs and Public Policy Program
Academic
Program Review Report Issued in 2003
The
Academic Program Review covered the Urban Affairs and Public Policy Program
(UAPP) in the School of Urban Affairs & Public Policy and was carried out
in 2003. The UAPP Program is responsible for the M.A. and the Ph.D. degree
programs in Urban Affairs and Public Policy. The School specifically requested
that the academic review team give special attention to the Ph.D. Program, so
the final Academic Program Review Report (Report) does give emphasis to this
program. Overall, the Report was very
positive about both the M.A. and Ph.D. programs.
Important Issues Raised in the
Report that Relate to the Ph.D. Program
Issue of Size of Faculty
The Report raised concerns about the number of
tenure-line faculty serving the UAPP Program given the demands placed on all faculty (tenure-line and public service) to carry out
instructional, research and public service activities. It was pointed out that
three tenure-line faculty chair committees for 22 Ph.D. students (and also
serve as members of other Ph.D. student committees). The authors of the Report
conclude that this is far too onerous, and say that this is one source of
serious concern expressed by Ph.D. students. The Report concludes that the UAPP
Program requires additional tenure-line faculty positions and that any loss of
the current tenure-line faculty (through retirement or resignation) must be
replaced through tenure-line appointments. “[A]n increase of tenure-line
faculty to six or seven” is recommended, which, in the
eyes of the Academic Program Review Committee, “would create a more workable
ratio of faculty to Ph.D. students, and free up time to pursue more basic and
applied research.”
Related
to the issue of the number of faculty, is the issue of future leadership.
The
Committee states: “It is not clear . . . where the future leadership of the
UAPP will come from given that several of the senior faculty are near
retirement and there are no junior tenure-line faculty in the pipeline. We are
concerned about the need to nurture new leadership to sustain the high level of
faculty and program quality over the next decade.”
UAPP Faculty Response
(December 2003): We agree with the
Report. The University has committed itself to supporting excellent graduate
programs. We believe that we have
demonstrated, and the review committee has affirmed, that the UAPP Program has
reached a level of excellence that warrants increased University support. We therefore ask for two new tenure-line faculty for the reasons articulated in the Report, and that
upon retirement or resignation, tenure-line faculty are replaced with new
tenure-line faculty. This expansion and then maintenance of the size of the
tenure-line faculty will not only lessen the strain on existing faculty
resources, but will also expand our pool of future leadership talent when
combined with our public service faculty.
As of this writing, Dean Barnekov has tentatively committed to funding
one additional tenure-line faculty position beginning in September 2005 or
September 2006. We believe this new position should be created and filled as
soon as possible.
Action
Actually Taken (as of February 2005): The
University authorized the hiring of one new additional tenure-line faculty
person at the assistant professor level who will be primarily committed to the
Ph.D. Program. The national search for this person is in the final stages, and
the expectation is that the hire will occur in March 2005. In addition, a senior faculty person who has
had primary involvement in the School’s Public Management Program and secondary
involvement in the UAPP Program began a phased retirement during 2004-2005. Consistent
with the recommendations of the Report, a replacement tenure-line faculty
member is in the process of being hired. The search for this replacement, at
the assistant professor level, is in its final stages, and the hire decision is
expected to be made in March 2005.
Issue of Program Size
The Report states that the
Ph.D. Program is too large relative to available faculty resources and
recommends that it be scaled back from the current 55 students to 25-30
students.
UAPP Faculty Response (December 2003): The question of the ideal size of each year’s
incoming Ph.D. cohort has been discussed on many occasions by the faculty. The School’s Graduate Program Policy
Statement estimates that six students will begin the program each year, and we
reaffirm this number as the appropriate goal. We do not believe that the number
of students in the Ph.D. program is a problem for several reasons. First, the
program has 25% fewer students now than a year ago. While there were 55 Ph.D.
students in the fall of 2002, by October 2003 there were only 42 students. The
decrease is due in part to the large number admitted in 1999 who completed the
program after the self-study report used by the Academic Program Review
Committee was issued in the fall of 2002. In January 2003 three students
graduated; in May 2003 two more graduated; and in August 2003 five graduated
for a total of 10 Ph.D. graduates this year.
We also have had several dissertation defenses this fall already. Only five new Ph.D. students matriculated
this fall. The net result of these and
other actions (e.g., students advised to leave program, dropping-out, leave of
absence for a Congressional Black Caucus Fellow) has been to decrease the
number of current students in the program to 42. This number is consistent with the historical
size of the program which has ranged from 40 to 50 students.[1]
The second reason has to do
with having appropriately sized annual student cohorts. This is important because the Ph.D Program
needs to be able to adequately populate its required doctoral level and other
advanced courses. The Program also wants to have enough students matriculating
at one time so that a culturally diverse student population can be maintained,
and so that students experience a sense of community which encourages the
formation of academically and socially supportive peer-to-peer relationships.
The third reason why the
size of our Ph.D. Program is not a problem is that the absorption of our
doctoral program graduates into the job market has been fast, and the positions
they are filling are of high quality within very reputable universities,
government agencies and research organizations.
The UAPP faculty believes
that it can sustain a high quality Ph.D. program with an average of 42 students
with the addition of one or two additional tenure-line faculty. This scenario produces what the Report
alludes to as a “more workable ratio of faculty to Ph.D. students.”
Action Actually Taken (as of February 2005): Annual Ph.D.
student admissions continue to be in the range of 5-7 students, and the Ph.D.
graduation rate continues to be very good. This has resulted in maintaining a
cohort of active students that varies between 40 and 45, which is our
goal. The ratio of Ph.D. students to
faculty will be further improved when a new assistant professor is hired this
spring.
Issue of Training in Teaching
The
Report states that Ph.D. students have need for more opportunities to gain
experience in the craft of teaching.
UAPP Faculty Response (December 2003): We agree. This is difficult to do, however, without
teaching assistantships (TAs). The Academic Program Review Committee
acknowledged that “[t]he absence of undergraduate course offerings in SUAPP
limits the teaching options for Ph.D. students, but it is possible to structure
arrangements with other units within the college or across campus for SUAPP
students to serve as teaching assistants or perhaps to teach individual
courses.” We have several ideas for
working with other units and will be developing these before the end of the
spring 2004 semester. However, we are
concerned that arrangements with other units to utilize TAs for our Ph.D.
students are not costless and may involve more, not fewer, faculty costs.
As part of the faculty’s review of this issue over
the next few months, we will give consideration to the possibility of
encouraging students to take advantage of the new School of Education (SOE)
course in college teaching and the new Center for Teaching Effectiveness web
site on college teaching. One approach
would be to develop a schedule of year-by-year teaching opportunities for Ph.D.
students. (For example, first year: take
the SOE course, second year: work with a faculty member on one class, third
year: serve as a TA, fourth year: teach a section of a course).
Action Actually Taken (as of February 2005): The UAPP
Program has proposed that students fulfill a requirement that gives them more
training and experience in either teaching or research. Concerning teaching,
this requirement could be fulfilled by taking the newly proposed course “UAPP
862: Teaching Practicum in Urban Affairs and Public Policy” for 3 credits, or
by being a TA for a semester. The availability of teaching assistantships to
UAPP Ph.D. students is being increased due to a decision made in the fall of
2004 to merge the University’s undergraduate Leadership Program into the
In addition, the series of seminars to be offered
through “UAPP 861: Academic and Professional Development for Doctoral Students
in Urban Affairs and Public Policy” will expose doctorial students to lectures
and discussions on teaching.
Issue of Research Assistantships
The
Report notes that research assistantship (RA) assignments are not always appropriate
or adequately challenging for Ph.D. students. It would be better to reduce the
number of Ph.D. students, assign them to higher level assignments in the
centers and give them closer administrative oversight. If needed, additional
M.A. students could be admitted to carry out the less challenging public
service and research assignments in the centers currently done by Ph.D.
students.
SUAPP Faculty Response: We are
trying to determine the extent to which RA assignments do not meet Ph.D.
students’ perceived needs. We believe
that this is somewhat overstated in the Report but want to determine this more
empirically. We again recognize that we
lack the base of TAs that serves as the foundation for other Ph.D. programs,
which means that much of the financial support for doctoral students comes from
RAs funded through project contracts. We
need to carefully monitor and manage the relationship between students’
research interests and the research projects they are assigned to as RAs, while
at the same time balancing the interests of the student with the need to
produce the research products that principal investigators are contractually
obligated to produce. UAPP Faculty will complete its investigation of this
issue and propose any needed changes by the end of the spring 2004 semester.
Action Actually Taken (as of
February 2005): More funded research assistantships will mean
more Ph.D. students will be funded in this way instead of research
assistantships. Discussions with the directors of the primary research and
public service centers where most of our doctoral students work as RAs do
believe that their assignments are appropriate and adequately challenging for
Ph.D. students. However, this is being monitored on a continuing basis.
Dedicated
Financial Resources
The
Report recommends that there be an expansion of dedicated financial resources
to the Ph.D. program.
UAPP Faculty Response: We
agree. This should include not only
expanding the faculty but also increasing the number of fellowships and earmarking
some TAs for the program, which requires the Provost’s Office and/or Dean’s
commitment.
Action Actually Taken (as of February 2005): One new assistant professor position and four new
teaching assistantships have been added, as well as .25 FTE of a support
(clerical) person.
Issue of Doctoral Seminar
The
Academic Program Review Committee put forth the idea of adding a doctoral level
seminar which would enable Ph.D. students to share preliminary and more
advanced research on a regular basis.
UAPP
Faculty Response: At the present time, Ph.D. students who have
advanced to candidacy do meet informally to discuss their dissertations and
provide feedback to assist each other in their research. As part of the Ph.D. Program review, faculty
will consider the advantages and disadvantages of creating a more formalized
doctoral seminar, taking into consideration our available faculty resources.
Action Actually Taken (as of February 2005): This is being done through the newly created seminar
series that students may take for credit as the proposed new course “UAPP 861:
Academic and Professional Development for Doctoral Students in Urban Affairs
and Public Policy.”
Issue of Instruction in Research Design
and Methods
The
Report observes that UAPP 800 – Research Design and Methodologies does not
provide sufficient depth for doctoral students, and that the faculty should
consider establishing a competency requirement for Ph.D. students which would
enable some students to bypass UAPP 800.
It also suggested that we consider adding a doctoral level research
design course (as distinguished from methods), which would give students more
in-depth exposure to the complex issues of formulating research questions and
designing dissertation strategies.
UAPP
Faculty Response: We have a longstanding procedure in place
that allows students to waive courses when they can demonstrate that they have
already mastered the subject matter of a course. We will ensure that all incoming Ph.D.
students are aware of this policy. As
part of our review of the Ph.D. Program, we are evaluating the research design
and methods content of our curriculum and, in the process, will be taking the
advice of the Academic Program Review Committee into serious consideration. One
possibility to be discussed involves the creation of a new course which would
combine the doctoral seminar discussed above with instruction in advanced level
research design. However, consideration of this and other possible approaches
will have to be done with a clear understanding of the future availability of
faculty resources. The position of the
faculty on this issue will be determined as the faculty completes its Ph.D.
Program review this coming spring.
Action
Actually Taken (as of February 2005):
The UAPP Program faculty proposes that students admitted into the Ph.D. program
have competencies in research design and methods equivalent to “UAPP 800 –
Research Methods and Data Analysis,” in addition to the previously required
competency in statistics at the level of “UAPP 815 Public Management
Statistics.” Those without such
knowledge may take UAPP 815 or its equivalent, and UAPP 800 or its equivalent.
However, the taking of such courses is for remedial purposes and any credit
earned will not count toward fulfilling requirements in this area. In addition
to competency at the levels of UAPP 815 and UAPP 800, students must take a
minimum of six additional credits of coursework in one or more of the following
areas: advanced research design and methodology, qualitative methods, or
quantitative methods. The specific courses to be taken depend on the student's
area of specialization and the advice of the student's academic advisor.
Issue of
Alternative to the Dissertation
The
Report makes passing reference to the idea that the faculty
consider allowing Ph.D. students to prepare 3 publishable articles in a
general field as a substitute for a dissertation.
UAPP Faculty Response: During
recent faculty discussions on this issue, there was little if any support for
this idea. The faculty is very
supportive of working with Ph.D. students to help them publish parts or all of
their dissertations, but they believe that the dissertation as a final degree
requirement is a very important component of doctoral level study in the field
of Urban Affairs and Public Policy.
Action Actually Taken (as of February 2005): None. UAPP Program faculty do
not agree with this recommendation.
Issue of Degree Program Linkages
Without
giving any specifics, the Report makes the general observation that the School
should foster closer linkages between its M.A., M.P.A. and Ph.D. Programs.
UAPP Faculty Response: We support
this recommendation in principle but are not sure what specifics the review
committee had in mind. The M.A. and
Ph.D. programs, offered by the UAPP Faculty, are already well-linked. The M.A. and M.P.A. programs already share
one area of specialization/concentration, community development and non-profit
leadership, and are working together in the concentration in Urban and Regional
Planning. The faculty will continue to be receptive to exploring opportunities
to create or enhance linkages between programs within and outside the School.
Action Actually Taken (as of
February 2005): No new developments
Issue of Involvement of M.P.A. Faculty in Ph.D. Program
The
Report also suggests that the faculty consider the use of Public Administration
faculty as a resource for the Ph.D. Program.
UAPP Faculty Response: We
agree. There are several ways to utilize
the expertise of Public Administration (PA) faculty. Some PA faculty are
now involved as dissertation chairs and committee members. We believe that doctoral students might
become involved with more PA faculty if they were to be exposed to them at an
earlier time. We are considering a
variety of ways to introduce students to the array of research activities being
carried out by the School’s faculty and by closely aligned centers. PA faculty do not
now have a voice in deciding curriculum and governance issues if they are not
members of the UAPP faculty. This issue will be discussed and resolved by the
faculty as the review of the Ph.D. Program is completed this spring.
Action Actually Taken (as of
February 2005): The UAPP Program has
changed the structure and membership of its Ph.D. Committee to include two
persons who have their primary appointments in the Public Management Program.
The committee is now composed of three UAPP Program faculty,
[1] If six new full-time students
matriculate each fall, and each student takes an average of five years to
finish, this produces a base of 30 full-time students. With the addition of 1.5
part-time students beginning each year, and each part-time student taking an
average of 7 years, the average number of students at one time would be 42.