Abstract
Masters-level speech-language pathologists in communication sciences and disorders (n = 122) completed a survey soliciting their reasons for not pursuing doctoral study. Factor analysis revealed a four-factor solution including one reflecting a lack of interest in doctoral study (Factor 2) and one reflecting practical financial concerns (Factor 3). Not surprisingly, those who did (31%) and did not (69%) seriously consider a PhD differed on Factor 2 items in the expected direction. Descriptive analyses revealed that the top two reasons cited for not pursuing the doctoral degree (i.e., a preexisting high level of satisfaction with professional goals and masters degree) were the same for both groups. Beyond that, Factor 2 items dominated the top reasons among those who never considered a PhD, whereas Factor 3 items were the top reasons among those who did consider a PhD. Implications, limitations, and directions for future research are considered.
In recent years, the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) has recognized the dearth of students pursuing a PhD in communication sciences and disorders (CSD; Hull & Coufal, 2009, Oller, Scott, & Goldstein, 2002, Ringel, 2004). In a 2007 statement, ASHA warned that “a critical shortage and continuing attrition of Ph.D. level faculty in higher education . . . will affect preparation of professionals as well as the conduct of research in communication sciences and disorders” (p. 1). The crisis in the doctoral shortage may result in fewer students being accepted into programs, which in turn may force some smaller programs to close (Boswell, 2001). The doctoral shortage could also result in higher student–faculty ratios in CSD and an increased dependence on adjunct professors and lecturers, which may negatively affect the quality of the programs and create an academic environment lacking a strong research base (Boswell, 2001; Busacco, 1999). Results from a recent survey substantiate the impact of the reduced numbers of doctoral students on the recruitment of PhD-level faculty to fill vacant faculty positions (Hull & Coufal, 2009). Approximately 90% of CSD programs surveyed had experienced a shortage in PhD-level candidates and more than 55% were unable to attract any applications for these searches (Hull & Coufal, 2009).
An inadequate number of researchers would likely result in a decreased evidence base, an overall decline in research productivity, and increased reliance on contributions from researchers in other fields (e.g., linguistics, psychology), ultimately leading to a loss of clinical resources, research autonomy in the field, and funding sources (Boswell, 2001). Doctoral-level faculty are critically important for educating the next generation of speech-language pathologists (SLPs) and establishing and maintaining research programs, as well as information dissemination associated with those programs. The conduct of sound research also has clear implications for evidence-based clinical practice (Zipoli & Kennedy, 2005).
The close relationship between a PhD in CSD and improvements in clinical services through research has been recognized for decades (Koenigsknecht, 1983). The current shortage of PhD students in the field poses a serious threat to ASHA’s commitment to evidence-based practice and advances in clinical treatment (Busacco, 1999). The need is even more pressing considering that approximately half of those who obtain a PhD in CSD go on to work in colleges and universities (ASHA, 2008). In 2005, ASHA encouraged clinicians to engage in evidence-based practice, which may be defined as an approach in which the clinical decision-making process is guided by the use of current, high-quality research evidence integrated with practitioner expertise and client preferences and values. Evidence-based practice requires rigorous research within a scientific community, and ASHA’s recommendations for evidence-based practice comes at a time when the field’s primary researchers (e.g., clinicians who hold a PhD) are dwindling.
ASHA formed a joint committee with the Council of Academic Programs in Communication Sciences and Disorders (CAPCSD) to examine the doctoral shortage and gather information about the problem (Scott & Wilcox, 2002). The committee found that of the 300 academic programs in communication sciences, only 61 (or 25%) offered a PhD in CSD and that the distribution of PhD programs in CSD was geographically uneven (e.g., Ohio had 6, California had 1, and 13 states had none; Scott & Wilcox, 2002). The committee sent surveys to all 300 PhD programs in CSD in the United States and organized a meeting of PhD program representatives at the annual CAPCSD conference (Scott & Wilcox, 2002). A total of 85% of programs responded to the survey, reporting a combined total of 333 vacancies for doctoral students.
The joint committee determined that a mere 300 students began their PhD studies in CSD between 2001 and 2002 (Scott & Wilcox, 2002), and of those 300, 75% received financial support of some type, including federal research and training grants, institutional research or teaching assistantships, and tuition waivers. The need for financial support for graduate students is high nationally, with 51% of doctoral degree students receiving financial aid in the form of student loans alone (FinAid, 2008). These data confirm a shortage of PhD students in CSD and a continued need for financial support for the students who choose to pursue a PhD in the field. On a more encouraging note, the joint committee also found that retention of PhD students in CSD was higher than the national norm. Of all students enrolled between 1995 and 2002, 92% completed the doctoral program (Scott & Wilcox, 2002). This is substantially higher than the 57% completion rate reported for PhD programs across all disciplines nationally (Council of Graduate Schools, 2008).
Given the critical shortage of doctoral candidates pursuing a PhD in CSD, it is worthwhile to gather information directly from those who have opted not to pursue doctoral study in our field, as this has the potential to inform targeting and recruitment efforts. Despite its importance, very limited research has been conducted in this area. A comprehensive literature search (including, but not limited to, ERIC, PsycInfo, and LLBA using combinations of the keywords doctorate, doctoral, graduate, education, PhD, speech-language pathology, survey, research) yielded a single peer-reviewed publication on this topic. Madison, Guy, and Koch (2004) obtained a geographically representative sample of 305 practicing SLPs in the United States. All respondents held a masters degree but differed in their history regarding pursuit of a PhD. Some reported that they never seriously considered a doctorate (58%) and the rest reported seriously considering a doctorate (42%). Of those in the latter group, 33% applied, 98% of those who applied were accepted, and 93% of those who were accepted enrolled. Groups were formed based on their responses to the original question, and a unique set of questions was directed to different groups. More specifically, those who did not consider doctoral study were asked to rank the reasons for not pursuing the degree (e.g., family obligations, lack of research interest in doctoral study, cost of program); those who considered, applied to, or enrolled in a doctoral program (hence their experiences differed widely in terms of actual “pursuit”) were asked to rank the reasons for pursuing the degree (e.g., desire for knowledge, working with a particular scholar); and those who were enrolled in a doctoral program but later dropped out (n = 12) were asked to rank the reasons for not completing the degree (e.g., family considerations, loss of advisor). Madison et al. reported that the top reasons for not pursuing graduate study were “other,” family obligations, and lack of research interest. The top reasons for pursuing graduate study were desire for knowledge, research interest, and “other.” Finally, the top reasons for not completing the doctoral degree were family considerations, loss of advisor, and length of program.
In addition, Madison et al. (2004) surveyed a geographically balanced sample of 92 faculty members who were qualified to serve as doctoral student advisors in CSD programs across the United States. Faculty indicated that, in their opinion, the top reasons for students not pursuing a doctoral degree included lack of research interest, length of doctoral program, and lack of financial support. Although the Madison et al. study is valuable in helping to move us toward a systematic analysis of the issues, there are a number of limitations. First, data for the rankings of reasons relied entirely on the collection of ordinal data, where respondents were asked to rank factors that influenced the decision-making process to pursue, not pursue, or discontinue a doctoral program. Specifically, respondents were asked to rank factors that influenced their decisions by order of importance, with 1 = most important, 2 = next important, and so on, with as many as 15 categorical options. The means for each option were then calculated and ranked, with smaller values taken to reflect greater importance. Unfortunately, interpretation of these data is questionable because ordinal data cannot appropriately operate on the mean (e.g., Nunnully, 1994). In addition, the option of “other” commonly ranked as one of the most important reasons for individuals, suggesting that a wider variety of response options were needed to adequately reflect opinions on this subject. Although the strategy of asking unique questions to different groups is valuable and makes sense in light of the variability of the experiences of respondents, it had the disadvantage of precluding inferential comparisons on the basis of these experiences. In a related vein, the findings were group specific, making it difficult to draw conclusions based on the responses of the entire sample intended to represent masters-level students in CSD. Finally, the groupings sometimes resulted in very small samples, making the stability of the ratings uncertain.
The purpose of the present study was to examine the reasons why masters-level SLPs do not pursue doctoral study in CSD. A primary aim was to alter the survey and statistical procedures of Madison et al. (2004) and expand on their survey by soliciting information about a wider range of factors to identify perceived barriers involved in the pursuit of a PhD in CSD. We also surveyed a relatively homogenous group consisting of SLPs who did not pursue doctoral study. This conferred an important advantage over the Madison et al. approach in that it allowed for comparisons of dimensions by subgroups who had completed equivalent forms of the survey.
Method
Participants
Participants were 122 licensed ASHA-certified SLPs (115 females, 7 males) in Vermont who had been practicing in the field for a mean of 18 years (SD = 9.94). The mean lag time between receiving a bachelor’s degree and enrolling in a masters program was 5 years (SD = 6.48), and the mean age at the time of graduation with a masters degree was 29 years (SD = 7.44). The mean cumulative grade point average at the time of graduation of the masters program was 3.74 (SD = .25), with participants reporting that they received their masters degree in speech language pathology in 21 states across the United States (see Table 1).
States in Which Participants Received a Master’s Degree in Speech-Language Pathology
The SLPs in this study worked in various settings, including public schools, hospitals, private practice, and higher education (see Table 2). All 122 (100%) participants reported that they had not applied to a PhD program before, although 38 participants (31.1%) indicated that they had “seriously considered pursuing a doctoral degree” at some point in the past. The remaining 84 respondents (68.9%) indicated that they had never seriously considered pursuing a doctoral degree.
Current Employment Setting Reported by Participants
SLP, speech-language pathologist.
Some participants noted more than one setting and so the values do not sum to one.
Materials
The SLP PhD Survey
Our survey (see Appendix A) was designed to improve on the response arrangement of Madison et al. (2004) so that a mean response for each item could be calculated based on interval data. This was accomplished through the use of a Likert scale with carefully selected anchors. Although some consider Likert scale data to possess only ordinal qualities, leading researchers and texts argue that means and standard deviations can be appropriately derived from such scales (e.g., Dawes, 2008). The content of the survey was also expanded to tap additional dimensions (discussed later) not assessed by Madison et al.
First, relevant demographic information was collected, including gender, year of receiving masters degree, age when masters degree was received, time between completion of the bachelor’s degree and enrollment in the masters program, student status while enrolled in the masters program (e.g., part-time, full-time), current employment setting, prior consideration of pursuing a doctoral degree, and prior application to a doctoral program. These questions pertaining to demographic information were adapted from Madison et al. (2004). One question was added to collect information about the participants’ cumulative grade point average at the time of graduation of the masters program.
The survey included 18 items (i.e., A–R) to explore reasons why masters-level SLPs did not to pursue a doctoral degree in CSD. Items pertaining to attitudes toward research interest, spousal/significant other influence, distance of program, financial support, criteria for acceptance into the PhD program, family obligations, satisfaction with current salary, satisfaction with current position, cost of the PhD program, prestige of the title of PhD, interest in working in higher education, and length of the program were adapted from Madison et al. (2004). Additional items pertaining to attitudes toward interest in doctoral education, perceived difficulty of the PhD program, confidence in completing a dissertation, preparation through masters training for doctoral study, and rigor of the masters program were included to expand on the aforementioned factors. In addition, two items explored other attitudes regarding the doctoral degree. Item 1 (“Having a doctoral degree would make me a better clinician”) focused on the perceived relationship between the PhD and clinical skills. Item 2 (“One reason I was attracted to the field of speech-language pathology is that I knew a doctoral degree was not a requirement to work in the field”) was deigned to tap the influence of the PhD in the decision-making process of pursuing masters-level education in CSD. Finally, one open-ended item (“Are there any other reasons that influenced your decision not to pursue a doctoral degree?”) was included to solicit additional reasons for not pursuing a PhD that may not be captured by the aforementioned items.
Cover letter
A cover letter (see Appendix B) accompanied all surveys; it explained the purpose of the study and provided a deadline (i.e., approximately 2 weeks) for returning the survey. The cover letter also provided participants with the researcher’s contact information for questions (there were none) or survey results at a later date and informed participants that they would remain anonymous.
Procedure
Our study employed a cross-sectional survey design using a list of all currently licensed and ASHA-certified SLPs practicing in Vermont. This list was obtained from ASHA (2008) and did not include non-ASHA-certified licensed SLPs practicing in the state. The cover letter was included with the surveys, and postage-paid envelopes were provided for participants to return the surveys by the due date as indicated in the cover letter.
Results
Of the 271 surveys mailed to potential participants, 122 (45%) were completed and returned. Not all questions were answered by each respondent. Missing data were rare (< 1%) and were dealt with using pairwise deletion for all analyses.
Descriptive Analyses
Data were first analyzed descriptively. Items 1, 2, and A through R asked respondents the degree to which a particular dimension influenced their decision to not pursue a doctoral degree on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).
For Item 1 (“I believe that having a doctoral degree would make me a better clinician”), participants responded with a mean score of 2.99 (SD = 1.01), which is essentially a neutral response. For Item 2 (“I believe that one reason I was attracted to the field of speech-language pathology is that I knew a doctoral degree was not a requirement for working in the field”), participants responded with a mean score of 2.45 (SD = 1.20). Next, data for all Items A through R were analyzed descriptively and ranked according to importance. These data are presented in Table 3.
Reasons for Not Pursuing a PhD in Communication Sciences and Disorders Across All Participants (Listed in Descending Order of Importance)
Approximately 31% of respondents reported that they had seriously considered pursuing a doctoral degree, whereas the remaining 69% reported that they had never seriously considered pursuing a doctoral degree. This finding was further investigated as it provided an important basis for comparison between subgroups and for understanding the current PhD shortage in the field. That is, the attitudes in those who seriously considered doctoral study but did not follow though with that consideration may illuminate some of the reasoning behind the current trend. As such, survey responses were analyzed descriptively by group to determine whether the groups differentially ranked a set of concerns or barriers to PhD education. The mean ranked dimensions by group are presented in Table 4.
Items Ranked by Importance: A Comparison Between Those Who Did and Did Not Seriously Consider Pursuing a Phd (Listed in Descending Order of Importance)
Factor Analyses
We performed exploratory factor analysis to examine the factor structure of Items A through R. This statistical technique is often used to reduce the data (e.g., numerous questions on a survey) to a manageable number of summary-type variables (i.e., related conceptually) for understanding how individual items may represent unified constructs or factors. Varimax rotation for independent factors yielded a possible four-factor solution (see Table 5). Examination of the content of these four factors identified a reasonably coherent set of latent variables. Factor 1 included Items F (“I thought it would be too hard to get into a doctoral program”), M (“I considered a doctoral program too difficult to complete”), N (“I lacked confidence in my ability to complete a dissertation”), O (“I considered a doctoral program too lengthy”), Q (“I did not feel adequately prepared through my masters training for doctoral study”), and R (“The rigor of my masters degree program discouraged me from pursuing a PhD”). These items seem to relate a high estimate of the difficulty involved in being a successful doctoral candidate. This factor was termed High Difficulty.
Factor Loading of Items Using Varimax Rotation for Independent Factors
Factor 2 included Items A (“I lacked sufficient research interest”), B (“I lacked interest in doctoral education”), I (“I was already satisfied with my professional goals”), J (“I was already satisfied with a masters degree”), K (“I had no interest in working in higher education”), and P (“The prestige of the title of PhD was unimportant to me”). These items all relate to a general lack of interest in pursuing a doctoral degree. This factor was termed Lack of Interest in Doctoral Study.
Factor 3 included Items D (“I was unwilling to move a long distance to attend a doctoral program”), E (“I lacked adequate financial support”), H (“A doctoral degree would not have significantly increased my salary”), and L (“I considered a doctoral program too costly”). These items involve consideration of the practical financial costs versus benefits associated with doctoral study that may influence the decision-making process in pursuing a PhD This factor was Practical Financial Issues.
Factor 4 included Items C (“I was unable to commit due to my involvement with a spouse/significant other”) and G (“I had too many family obligations to pursue a doctoral degree”). These items are related in their association with practical family issues that influence the decision-making process in pursuing a doctoral degree. This factor was termed Practical Family Issues.
Inferential Analyses
Six t tests were conducted to explore whether the two groups identified by Item 10 (“Have you ever seriously considered pursuing a doctoral degree in speech-language pathology?”) differed with regard to demographic factors. Results indicated that the two groups did not differ on any known demographic factors (p > .10; i.e., age, grade point average, year masters degree was received, number of years between undergraduate study and enrollment in a masters program, and number of years in the field).
A subsequent series of 18 t tests explored whether respondents who did and did not consider a PhD differed on the individual items (i.e., Items A–R). Not surprisingly, the two groups differed on all items comprising Factor 2 (i.e., the Lack of Interest in Doctoral Study items), strongly suggesting that the variable responding of these two groups is what probably defined Factor 2 in the first place (see Table 6). With one exception, between-group differences for all items remained significant after a Bonferroni correction to limit familywise error (i.e., the probability of making a Type I error, which increases with the number of tests performed). Item P, which related to the importance of the prestige of the title of PhD, was no longer significant.
Significant Inferential Comparisons Between Those Who Did and Did Not Seriously Consider Pursuing a PhD, by Item
These comparisons were no longer significant after a Bonferroni correction for familywise error.
Discussion
This study sought to examine barriers to the pursuit of a PhD in CSD by masters-level SLPs. This investigation built on earlier research in this area by surveying a relatively homogenous group to examine a wider range of factors among SLPs who had decided not to pursue a doctoral degree.
The general lack of interest in doctoral study among the majority of respondents in this sample (i.e., 69%) is consistent with Oller et al.’s (2002) report on the critical shortage of doctoral students in this field. Conversely, the results are encouraging in that approximately 31% of survey respondents indicated that they had seriously considered pursuing a doctoral degree at some point in the past. This is less than the 42% cited by Madison et al. (2004) but nevertheless suggests that many SLPs who hold a masters degree in the field have an interest in doctoral study. This is potentially good news for the future of the profession of speech-language pathology. If the barriers to pursuit of the doctoral degree can be clearly identified, be they real or perceived, solutions to overcoming these barriers can also be identified and potentially implemented by CSD programs in higher education (Hull & Coufal, 2009). Descriptive analyses for Item 2 (“One reason I was attracted to the field of speech-language pathology is that I knew that a doctoral degree was not a requirement for working in the field”) was rated significantly higher by those who did not seriously consider a PhD in comparison to those who did. This suggests that the fact that a PhD is not a requirement to practice as a SLP is actually an incentive for some to pursue a career in the field. Thus, it may be most productive to focus on the early identification and recruitment of graduate students who may be interested in doctoral study and work on reducing the barriers to this pursuit.
Descriptive analyses were used to compare responses between participants who did and did not seriously consider pursuing a PhD in CSD (see Table 4). Findings revealed that the top two reasons cited for not pursuing a doctoral degree were the same for both groups: Item I (“I was already satisfied with my professional goals”) and Item J (“I was already satisfied with a masters degree”). At the same time, those who seriously considered doctoral study rated these items as significantly lower in importance compared to those who had not considered doctoral study. As such, many graduate students may not pursue a PhD because of a preexisting high level of satisfaction with their professional goals and masters degree. Examination of the relative ranks of the groups beyond the top two reasons, however, reveal variable patterns of responding. Not surprisingly, those who never considered a PhD tended to identify with statements comprising Factor 2 (i.e., the Lack of Interest in Doctoral Study items). Specifically Items P (“The prestige of the title of PhD was unimportant to me”) and B (“I lacked interest in doctoral education”) were ranked among the most important reasons by this group. By contrast, respondents who had considered a PhD cited the following items in descending order of importance: E (“I lacked adequate financial support”), L (“I considered a doctoral program too costly”), and H (“A doctoral degree would not have significantly influenced my salary”). These items were all from Factor 3 (Practical Financial Issues) and reflected concerns surrounding the anticipated financial costs (vs. financial gains) of pursuing a PhD.
Respondents who reported that they did not seriously consider a PhD rated financial concerns as relatively unimportant. This makes sense because a lack of interest in doctoral education obviate such matters, and these data are consistent with the relative low ranking of financial concerns among similar participants reported by Madison et al. (2004). Data from the present study indicate that financial concerns were ranked highly as a barrier to doctoral study among those who had seriously considered a PhD, suggesting that more financial support has the potential to combat the present dearth of doctoral candidates. This is consistent with findings from Hull and Coufal (2009), who report that four key factors, all generally related to time and financial costs (e.g., lack of salary incentives, unrewarded work expectations), were the key issues of concern causing the current shortage according to their survey. Given the demonstrated need for financial support by graduate students nationally, with 51% of doctoral degree students receiving financial aid in the form of student loans alone (FinAid, 2008), an increase in other kinds of financial aid that do not accrue debt (e.g., fellowships, stipends, scholarships, and grants) may alleviate barriers to the pursuit of a doctoral degree in CSD. Students considering doctoral study should obtain counseling through a university financial aid officer, graduate advisor, or research mentor to be made aware of the numerous financial resources available for doctoral studies, especially for nontraditional students and those with ethnically and racially diverse backgrounds (Busacco, 1999). Prospective doctoral students should also consider a variety of programs because the type and amount of financial assistance differs greatly across universities (Busacco, 1999).
Our conclusions regarding the importance of financial concerns differ from those of Madison et al. (2004), who reported that “availability of financial support” (p. 195) ranked very low (12th out of 14 options) as a reason to pursue the doctoral degree among those who reported seriously considering a PhD. Recall that Madison et al. asked about consideration of the graduate degree and then directed respondents to different sets of questions depending on their answers. Those who responded that they did consider, did apply, were accepted, or were enrolled were asked to rate their reasons for “pursuing a doctoral degree” (p. 198). Thus, the findings of the present study and those of Madison et al. are highly interpretable in light of the distinction between barriers and incentives. For example, anxieties over financial concerns might weigh heavily in decisions to opt against doctoral study, but it would not necessarily follow that interest in pursuing doctoral study would be enhanced because of the availability of funds. Financial resources are a means to an end. They may present a barrier if absent, which is not equivalent to being a motivator if present. In fact, one strength of Madison et al.’s approach was that they sought to address both barriers and incentives; however, the group identified as pursuing doctoral education was composed overwhelmingly of those who reported seriously considering doctoral study but who never applied (i.e., did not actually pursue doctoral education). Thus, the nature and heterogeneity of the groups makes the conclusions of Madison et al. questionable. At the same time, their more general approach for surveying different populations represents an important direction for future study.
Descriptive analyses indicated that respondents who both did and did not seriously consider doctoral study rated several factors as relatively unimportant barriers to doctoral education. These items were largely from Factor 1 (i.e., High Difficulty) and included academic preparation through their masters program (Item Q), the rigor of their masters program (Item R), the perceived difficulty of completing a doctoral program (Item M), and confidence in their ability to complete a dissertation (Item N). Contrary to previous commonsense judgments (Busacco, 1999), high estimates of difficulty and a lack of confidence to succeed in graduate study were not endorsed as important concerns in the current sample and they did not distinguish those who did and did not seriously consider pursuit of a PhD. In this light, it may be worthwhile to place early emphasis on the benefits of acquiring a PhD more generally so that attitudes toward the doctoral degree may become more favorable among students in the field (Busacco, 1999). Informational meetings, literature, and open discussions about the doctoral degree should take place with regularity, which could help further identify students who are seriously considering a doctoral degree. Students who express an interest in a doctoral degree might also benefit from more one-on-one advice from PhD-level faculty advisors, who are instrumental in the preparation of new doctoral candidates.
Madison et al. (2004) collected data from 12 respondents who enrolled in (but did not complete) a doctoral program, and these respondents cited length of the program as one of the most important reasons they did not complete the program. In the present study, length of program was rated as a relatively high concern among those who considered a PhD and, not surprisingly, rated relatively low by those who did not. Madison et al. suggest that “length of program may be reducible with careful planning and dedicated effort to provide timely guidance” (p. 196). We agree that careful planning has the potential to reduce length of graduate study while recognizing the connection between length of program and cost of study and by underscoring the importance of financial support more broadly. In fact, it is unclear at present whether those who seriously consider a PhD (but do not actually pursue it) are concerned most with length of program commitment, cost, or both, as they are undoubtedly linked. Future research in this area may seek to disentangle these components because the answers may have different implications for action.
Although targeting efforts may be most fruitful when focused on those who seriously consider a PhD, they need not center on that population exclusively. The present findings have implications for potentially generating more interest in a PhD among individuals who might not initially entertain the idea of pursing a doctoral degree. Inferential analyses revealed that participants who had never seriously considered pursuing a PhD identified lack of interest in research significantly higher than did those who did consider it, which is consistent with the descriptive analyses of the student and doctoral faculty ratings reported by Madison et al. (2004). The inclusion of more research courses in a masters program, including research methods and statistics courses that have direct relevance to the field of CSD (e.g., behavioral statistics), along with active collaboration and participation in research activities with faculty mentors may enhance interest. The conduct of original research in partial fulfillment of the masters degree and encouragement to present research at national conferences is also a particularly attractive option from this perspective (Busacco, 1999). This is important for demystifying research processes and creating a sense in the student that research is an attainable and important activity, not to mention one that can be personally enriching.
Responses to open-ended questions overwhelmingly reinforced participants’ endorsement of the items already included in the measures (e.g., financial concerns, family obligations, location of a PhD program, satisfaction with professional goals, as well as general lack of interest in doctoral education and research). Interestingly, several participants reported that they believed a doctoral degree is limiting in the sense that they perceived clinicians who hold a PhD as tending to specialize in one particular area. Some participants added that they believed obtaining a PhD would actually hinder their ability to work in certain settings, such as public schools, because of the increased salary demands associated with the doctoral degree. The perception of a PhD as a “limiting” factor for employment was not directly addressed in this survey and should be included in future research.
There are several limitations in the present study that deserve mention. Although the sample size was reasonable, a larger sample is desirable for these kinds of survey studies. In a related vein, surveys were directed only to ASHA-certified clinicians practicing in Vermont, which, at the current time, does not have any institutions that offer a doctorate in CSD. Thus, future studies would ideally be broader in scope, both in terms of geographic region and participants who include not just masters-level ASHA and non-ASHA SLPs but also undergraduate and graduate students in CSD. A study of the decision-making processes of successful PhD candidates in the field is also sorely needed and would be helpful for illuminating the factors that predict or foster the pursuit of doctoral education. Understanding motivations among this group (e.g., a desire to contribute to the vitality of the profession or to conduct work with broad implications) is also critically important for developing recruitment efforts.
Future research should also carefully consider the operationalization of groups in terms of whether participants have or have not seriously considered doctoral study. This study found several similarities but also significant differences between the two groups when operationalized according to response to a single item (i.e., Have you ever seriously considered pursuing a PhD in speech-language pathology?), and the differences have implications for constructing and targeting an effort to increase the number of PhDs in the field. Madison et al. (2004) pursued a different strategy for grouping individuals that provided them the opportunity to ask a different and important set of questions to each group, but that was also associated with certain difficulties; chief among them was an inability to compare the subgroups across questions. Undoubtedly, how comparative groups are formed influences how questions are asked, which in turn shapes the nature of the conclusions and implications that follow. In closing, given the dearth of systematic investigation in this area, more information regarding attitudes toward the pursuit of a PhD in CSD is essential to understanding the critical shortage in the field and in formulating solutions to the problem.
Footnotes
Appendix A: Survey
Appendix B: Survey Cover Letter
Hello, my name is Ted Myotte and I am a graduate student in speech-language pathology at the University of Vermont.
In recent years, the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) has noted a critical shortage of doctoral students in speech-language pathology. To respond to this need, I am conducting a survey study to gather information related to the pursuit of the doctoral degree in speech-language pathology.
You are being invited to take part in this survey study. Please note:
This survey will take approximately 5 minutes to complete and can be returned in the postage-paid envelope. To protect confidentiality, responses will be anonymous. If you agree to participate, please return the completed survey by
If you have questions or would like to learn the results of the study, please contact me at the Email address or mailing address listed below. If you have questions about your rights as a participant in a research project please contact Nancy Stalnaker, Director of the Research Protections Office at the University of Vermont at 802-656-5040. Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration.
The authors declared no conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or the publication of this article.
The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.