Advancing Doctoral Social Work Education: An

Journal of Teaching in Social Work

ISSN: 0884-1233 (Print) 1540-7349 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wtsw20

Advancing Doctoral Social Work Education: An Application of the Social-Ecological Framework Cynthia Dougherty, Noelle L. Fields & Donna Schuman To cite this article: Cynthia Dougherty, Noelle L. Fields & Donna Schuman (2017): Advancing Doctoral Social Work Education: An Application of the Social-Ecological Framework, Journal of Teaching in Social Work, DOI: 10.1080/08841233.2017.1327471 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2017.1327471

Published online: 22 May 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wtsw20 Download by: [47.185.156.91]

Date: 26 May 2017, At: 08:37

JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN SOCIAL WORK https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2017.1327471

Advancing Doctoral Social Work Education: An Application of the Social-Ecological Framework Cynthia Doughertya, Noelle L. Fieldsb, and Donna Schumanb a Office of Geriatrics and Gerontology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA; bSchool of Social Work, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, USA

ABSTRACT

KEYWORDS

Graduates of social work doctoral programs are an integral part of social work education and, as faculty, training of BSW and MSW students. Missing from the literature are theoretical frameworks that advance the study of “what works and for whom” in social work doctoral education. Building upon the existing literature, this article proposes a conceptual framework for enhancing doctoral students’ experiences, as well as doctoral education programs. Specific strategies grounded by this framework are put forward to guide PhD students and educators in advancing doctoral social work education.

Doctoral education; teaching strategies; theory

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014) indicates that employment prospects for social workers are expected to experience greater than the average growth for all occupations, with a projected increase of 19% between 2012 and 2022. Despite the growing demand for social workers, and the proliferation of social work programs over the past 40-plus years, the numbers of graduates at the doctoral level has not kept pace (Anastas & Kuerbis, 2009), and only 2% of MSW graduates will obtain a PhD in social work (Anastas, 2006). According to the annual survey conducted by the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE; 2014), 22,677 master’s degrees were awarded by 219 programs, yet only 320 graduates earned PhDs from 61 institutions during the 2012–2013 academic year. CSWE (2014) reported that among DSW and PhD students in social work, most hold a master’s degree in social work (72.5% and 78.4%, respectively). However, in a national content analysis of the Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education in Social Work (GADE) member programs, 77% did not require an MSW degree for admission (Drisko, Hunnicutt, & Berenson, 2015).

CONTACT Noelle L. Fields [email protected] School of Social Work, The University of Texas at Arlington, 211 South Cooper Street, Box 19129, Arlington, TX 76019, USA. The Office of Geriatrics and Gerontology, The Ohio State University, is now the Office of Geriatrics and Interprofessional Aging Studies, The Ohio State University. Donna Schuman is now with the College of Social Work, University of Kentucky. Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/wtsw. © 2017 Taylor & Francis

2

C. DOUGHERTY ET AL.

Despite the presence of more than 80 member programs in the United States, eight in Canada, and one in Israel, GADE (2015) indicated that there are still more social work faculty positions available than graduates to fill them. Social work PhD programs have substantially increased their focus on the education of researchers over the past 20 years but have only marginally increased attention to preparing teachers to address the undersupply of social work educators (Drisko et al., 2015). The primary emphasis on educating researchers, some feel, has resulted in a professoriate inadequately prepared to educate future clinical practitioners (Berzoff & Drisko, 2015). Goodman (2015) suggested that the gaps between social work research and practice are often a result of the priorities of the grant-making institutions and the federal government, which are not always consistent with the core values of the social work profession. Unlike narrowly focused priorities of some of these entities, social work is concerned with dynamic and complex interactions and transactions that occur between and among individuals and their environment (Gitterman & Germian, 2008). These principles are the most basic tenants of an ecological framework and an important piece of the profession’s foundation. Compounding the issue of social work faculty shortages is the number of those who complete the doctoral degree but elect not to enter academia. In recent research, studies of social work doctoral education have focused on employment opportunities for graduates (Anastas, 2006; Anastas & Kuerbis, 2009), evaluation of doctoral programs in social work (Anastas, 2012; Bentley, 2013), dissertation completion (Liechty, Liao, & Schull, 2009), curriculum (Drisko et al., 2015), trends in pedagogy (Kurzman, 2015), and new programs (Anastas & Videka, 2012; Bettmann, Thompson, Padykula, & Berzoff, 2009). In addition, attention has been given to the student experience of transitioning to and graduating from doctoral programs in social work (Brydon & Fleming, 2011; Mendenhall, 2007). Missing from the literature are theoretical frameworks that advance the study of “what works and for whom” in social work doctoral education. Building upon the existing literature, this article proposes a conceptual framework for enhancing doctoral students’ experiences, as well as strengthening doctoral education programs. The development of this framework is informed by the ecological perspective, which emphasizes a “multiple level of influence” approach, and assumes that an individual is part of a greater system—in fact, several levels of systems. This framework incorporates the primary social work viewpoint of acknowledging both individual and environmental influences on behavior and outcomes (McLeroy, Bibeau, Steckler, & Glanz, 1988). Ecological approaches have been a part of social work practice since the 1970s (see Germain, 1973, 1976, 1978; Germain & Gitterman, 1979) but have evolved significantly from more biology-based perspectives of ecology (Greif & Lynch, 1983) to include more psychological and social concepts (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1994). Furthermore, the proposed social ecological framework is aligned

JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN SOCIAL WORK

3

with social work’s person-in-environment perspective, which tells us that individuals cannot be understood in isolation but rather that the multilayered context of each person’s environment must be taken into consideration (Kondrat, 2008). First, we offer a brief summary of the ecological perspective in order to provide a foundation for the proposed framework. Next, a review of the literature related to social work doctoral programs, challenges faced by social work doctoral programs and students, and outcomes for social work doctoral students provide the context to which the proposed framework is applied. Following this review, we propose a framework illustrating the dynamic processes that influence doctoral education and suggest implications for social work education. Finally, we discuss limitations of the proposed framework, as well as identify additional areas for further examination and improvement in social work doctoral education. Social Ecological Approach The ecological perspective allows for an examination of the dynamic processes that influence doctoral education and provides insight into the doctoral student experience. The development of our framework (see Figure 1) is informed by five factors of the ecological perspective posited by McLeroy et al. (1988): (a) intrapersonal factors (i.e., characteristics of the individual, such as attitudes and knowledge), (b) interpersonal processes and primary groups (i.e., social networks and support systems such as family and work group), (c) organizational factors (school and work organizations, social institutions), (d) community factors (psychological sense of community, relationships among organizations), and (e) factors related to public policy. The proposed framework recognizes that although all of these factors have their own distinct influence, they also have effects on one another. Therefore, our design acknowledges the need for strategies that advance social work doctoral education at multiple levels. Knowledge of Social Work as a Profession and Discipline

As stewards of the discipline, doctoral graduates are expected to possess a deep understanding of the social work profession. Successful programs are identified as those that produce graduates who can “locate their work in the intellectual landscape of social work,” (GADE, 2013, p. 2) and critically appraise theories, practices, policies, and research. Graduates of such programs are expected to have an understanding of the relationships between education, research and practice, social justice, and the critical role of values and ethics. Graduates are also expected to acquire

4

C. DOUGHERTY ET AL.

Figure 1. An application of the social ecological framework to social work doctoral education.

specialized proficiency in at least one knowledge area. Moreover, graduates should recognize the history and challenges of the profession, understand its contributions, know evidence-based practices and interventions, and be able to produce leading-edge social policy analysis (Harrington, Petr, Black, Cunningham-Williams, & Bentley, 2014). These requirements are set forth in the Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (CSWE, 2015), and although they do not apply to doctoral education in social work, per se, they are important because these doctoral students are the future (and often current) teachers of social work practitioners. A part of understanding the profession is appreciating the standards to which instructors of future practitioners must adhere and the Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards for social work education programs. This reality should not be overlooked in a doctoral social work program, particularly since neither a BSW nor a MSW degree is universally required for admission to social work doctoral programs.


5

Research/Scholarship

Social work PhD programs are expected to produce graduates who can conceptualize significant and relevant research questions, critically evaluate published literature and their own research, and perform research undergirded by theory. The graduates are expected to have a wide conceptual and technical grasp of methodology and statistics; the ability to select and apply the most rigorous approaches; and design and conduct research ethically, disseminating the resultant knowledge in a way that advances the profession through the production of policy briefs, peer-reviewed publications, and presentations. As well, doctoral graduates should possess the requisite skills to individually and collaboratively develop research proposals, formulate a research trajectory, and collaborate in interdisciplinary research (Harrington et al., 2014). In addition, the ability to translate research into practice will ensure the utility of their scholarship efforts. Teaching

Programs operating in accordance with the revised Quality Guidelines (GADE, 2013) are encouraged to offer a course on social work teaching theory and practice to prepare their students to teach. Graduates should proficiently employ adult learning theories, design and teach social work courses, and create classroom climates that include diverse populations and learning styles. Further, such graduates should be able to address ethical issues in the classroom and understand how social work education fits into the larger academic picture (Harrington et al., 2014). Doctoral instruction should include conversation about learning environment, context, and concepts such as the “implicit curriculum” outlined in the most recent Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (CSWE, 2015). Resources, Administration, and Structures

GADE acknowledges that the creation of competent graduates who exemplify the core expertise and skills described in the Quality Guidelines requires support structures that furnish a broad range of resources. According to the GADE (2013) Guidelines, “students require financial support, appropriate mentoring, and clear, concise expectations that facilitate timely completion of program milestones leading to successful program completion” (p. 4). Universities should provide support that includes opportunities for students to serve as graduate research assistants and graduate teaching assistants; tuition assistance (e.g., tuition waivers, scholarships, stipends, fellowships); professional development/conference attendance funds; assignment to a faculty mentor; interdisciplinary coursework opportunities; adequate

6

C. DOUGHERTY ET AL.

workspace; accessible and affordable counseling services; no cost writing, data analysis, and presentation resources; and access to electronic and hard-copy library resources. (Harrington et al., 2014). Program Administration

The PhD curriculum is expected to follow a logical order and include electives, with minimum coursework (for students entering the program with an MSW) ranging from 36 to 54 hours. Student expectations, including dismissal procedures, should be spelled out in writing and progress evaluated on an ongoing basis. Comprehensive exams must have a clear purpose and time line, and resources should be provided to support timely dissertation completion. The PhD program director should be a tenured full or associate professor who operates within program guidelines, assisted by support staff. Also, the director is expected to receive fair compensation and the necessary professional development funds for program leadership. Additional work with doctoral students should be recognized and given credit for workload, tenure, and promotion. It is expected that PhD program faculty will have a record of high-quality scholarship and teaching and that programs will be colocated with MSW programs, providing cross-discipline and cross-departmental collaboration. International students should be admitted only if they possess adequate English language skills. Admissions criteria should be transparent, and the program should recruit a diverse student body (Harrington et al., 2014). Challenges in Social Work Doctoral Education

A national content analysis conducted by Drisko and colleagues (2015) revealed that 88% of programs required a comprehensive examination, with slightly more than half (55%) requiring the traditional written exam, followed by an oral exam. Nineteen percent required a paper for publication. For most programs, the timing of the comprehensive examination was after the 2nd year. Despite attrition rates for social work doctoral programs as high as 59%, research also has shown that the vast majority of students who enter doctoral programs have the academic ability to complete them (Liechty et al., 2009; Sowell, Zhang, Redd, & King, 2008). Currently, more than half of students complete their PhDs within 4–6 years (CSWE, 2014), with the maximum allowed time to completion ranging 7–10 years (Drisko et al., 2015). Social work doctoral students often take a long time to complete their degree, with most of the time spent in the dissertation phase. Data suggest that the dissertation phase is a high-risk period for attrition, which might well be reduced by targeted interventions (Anastas & Kuerbis, 2009; Liechty et al.,


7

2009). Interesting to note, in their content analysis Drisko and colleagues (2015) found that only 46% of program objectives included preparing graduates for entering academia as teachers. Although 58% of social work PhD programs, for example, required participation in research internships, only 23% required one in teaching, and less than half of the programs required students to complete a teaching course (Drisko et al., 2015). Lamenting PhD graduates’ lack of social work practice experience, and most programs’ research-centric focus, Goodman (2015) questioned whether doctoral programs were meeting the full spectrum of needs of the social work profession. She called for researchers “whose scholarship strengthens practice and who will educate aspiring practitioners” (p. 41). The academic culture in social work PhD programs is not lost on doctoral students who report that their practice experiences often are devalued, and they long for a way to merge practice and research. Anastas (2012, pp. 118–119) found that a common source of complaint, included in the written comments of survey respondents, was the lack of a sense of belonging, or feeling like a valued colleague. Feelings of “disconnection” from the doctoral program often were identified. In an effort to provide insight to the field as a whole, Mendenhall (2007) explored role discontinuity in the routes taken by doctoral students during their transition from clinicians to researchers. She noted that doctoral students felt their prior clinical experiences frequently were not valued and hypothesized that students who were unwilling to negotiate the new role of researcher (in relation to the former role of clinician) would return to their original role if the skills of researcher were too difficult, ultimately dropping out or not completing the program. In a seminal 2007 survey regarding the educational experience and satisfaction of doctoral students in schools of social work, Anastas (2012) reported that about half of respondents were satisfied with their programs overall. Given that the community of scholars model suggests that students’ experiences will have a profound effect (good or bad), negative experiences likely contribute to attrition (Anastas, 2012, pp. 121–123). Only 42% felt there was a strong sense of community in their doctoral program (n = 707), whereas more than one fourth of students did not express being satisfied overall with their doctoral programs. Thus it is not surprising, with the variability in doctoral program structure, that there may be variability in student satisfaction. Students and researchers consistently identify financial support as one of the most influential factors on PhD completion versus attrition (Council of Graduate Schools, 2008), and Robb (2005) cited limited financial support as a key factor contributing to doctoral students’ slow progression and failure to finish. Anastas (2012, p. 82) reported that when doctoral social work students were surveyed in the year 2006–2007, 34.4% said they had not received any

8

C. DOUGHERTY ET AL.

aid and 52.9% reported receiving an insufficient amount of aid to cover expenses. Moreover, few students are funded through direct grants or faculty research grants, and a significant proportion of students rely on student loans (Anastas & Kuerbis, 2009). The 2013 CSWE annual survey indicated that 65.5% of doctoral students have loan debt, with a mean debt of $42,149 (CSWE, 2014). Student Outcomes

Programs that are exemplary are expected to produce students who complete the PhD in a timely manner, possessing a record of teaching and scholarship that enables them to successfully compete for jobs. According to the revised Quality Guidelines (GADE, 2013), 80% of students should complete the PhD within an expected time frame. The revised Quality Guidelines maintain that dissertations should be completed no more than 1–2 years following the proposal defense. Students are expected to have presented at least two or three times at national or international conferences prior to graduating. They should have at least one sole or first-authored publication in a peer-reviewed journal and at least two or three coauthored publications. In addition, they should have independently taught a course at the BSW or MSW level (Harrington et al., 2014). Finally, graduates are expected to have made a significant contribution to a research proposal submitted for funding (Harrington et al., 2014). A variety of best practices have been identified to reduce attrition, improve program quality, and enhance student satisfaction with their doctoral education experience. Nelson and Lovitts (2008) recommended participation in a new student doctoral orientation and in faculty–student social activities, dedicated space where doctoral students can work and interact, and opportunities for students to include families in the social activities of the department. Deneke, Fraiser, and Redd (2009) recommended family friendly leave policies to accommodate the life events that are common among young and midlife students and the restructure of fellowships to provide multiyear support, particularly for students from underrepresented groups. Adorno, Cronley, and Smith (2013) suggested providing strong mentorship, as well as offering anticipatory guidance, combined with structured, sustained support, particularly within the 1st year of doctoral study. Anastas (2012) identified a number of strategies that have been shown to improve degree completion and student satisfaction. Key recommendations included the following: improving financial aid to students, particularly during the dissertation phase, and advocating for loan forgiveness; instituting more robust recruitment efforts aimed at diverse students in earlier phases of study; implementing more frequent structured review of student progress to reduce time to degree and improve dissertation completion; adding faculty


9

training to enhance advising effectiveness; addressing any ethical violations or exploitation of students that may be occurring; offering students a range of supports (e.g., on campus work space, access to workshops and support groups); gathering and disseminating information about attrition and average time to degree completion on program websites; and involving both students and outside stakeholders in deliberations on program goals and standards. Through a retrospective examination of 10 years of challenges and successes encountered by the doctoral social work program at Virginia Commonwealth University School of Social Work, Bentley (2013) presented a program evaluation model focused on student engagement, learning, and program goals that could be successfully transferred to other programs. In this model, students are full members of the Doctoral Program Committee and participate in the design and administration of the assessment plan. Students, faculty, and alumni are actively involved in all phases of program assessment and evaluation. Strategies include cohort meetings, program retreats, focus groups, course evaluations targeted to the learning objectives, detailed dissertation questionnaires, analysis of former students’ dissertations, analysis of postcourse and postgraduation surveys, publicly filing of annual reports, and a rating of the quality of comprehensive examination questions. Nurius and Kemp (2014) highlighted the need to prepare emerging social work practitioners and researchers who are entering a changing landscape of research in which transdisciplinary (i.e., cross-discipline collaborations) and translational research skills (i.e., translation of knowledge into action) are becoming necessary. In an effort to expose doctoral social work students to transdisciplinarity early in their educational careers, the authors suggested that social work open up doctoral courses to students of other disciplines. They further recommended the use of cross-disciplinary committees, mentoring that would support students as emerging transdisciplinary scholars, and encouragement to publish and present beyond the field of social work. Based on our review of the existing literature, theoretical frameworks that advance the study of “what works and for whom” in social work doctoral education appear to be missing. Application of the Framework

The following discussion is an application of the ecological perspective to a framework for improving doctoral education at both the individual and programmatic levels. Based on our own experiences as students in social work doctoral programs, a review of the literature, and informal conversations with students and staff closely involved with social work doctoral programs, we suggest strategies and recommendations at each level:

10

C. DOUGHERTY ET AL.

individual, interpersonal, organization, community, and public policy (see Figure 1). Taking Stock Consistent with our recommendations at the individual level, we use the phrase “taking stock” to describe these strategies, as they are intended to help students critically examine their personal goals as well as inventory their ability to work toward these goals. Simply put, recommendations at this level include having programs guide students through self-reflection exercises in preparation for doctoral education (even before beginning doctoral programs, when possible) and encouraging students to do this individually as well. Through such selfreflection, students should embrace strengths and past experiences while recognizing areas for needed growth and support during the doctoral journey. Program directors, faculty, and staff should support students during the transition from practitioner to researcher. Practice experience should be highlighted as an asset to future academic endeavors and to research because such experience helps students determine important research questions, allows researchers to know what is feasible and practical in the clinical setting, and provides reallife examples to use when teaching. Taking stock can be done formally and informally, on paper or verbally, individually or in small groups, and will look different for each individual and each program. Programs could send “guided self-reflection prompts” to students as part of a preorientation packet to allow them to begin the integration process prior to the start of the program. Mentorship, Cohort Support, and Community Networks At the interpersonal level, where relationships are paramount, we call for an increase in positive interactions and connections between and among students, faculty, and others in students’ personal and professional networks. Programs should offer diverse mentorship opportunities with faculty, peers, and BSW/MSW students. Mentorship relationships with persons other than the primary advisor should also be encouraged, as the primary advisor may provide mentorship only in one area and not other key ones. Additional mentoring relationships that should be encouraged are those between 1styear and 2nd-/3rd-year students. Additional options might include 2nd-year doctoral students mentoring MSW students interested in completing research projects. Mentorship programs could also be useful to students applying to PhD programs. Encouraging students to share their writing and aid by editing one another’s manuscripts, for example, could be mutually beneficial, as well as build trust and enhance skills. Planning/Tracking, Financial Support, and Diverse Opportunities Programs and students should intentionally partner in the planning and tracking of course progress, manuscript submission and preparation, and


11

career planning. A planning form or workbook could be kept to record progress and hold students, advisors, and programs accountable and on track while helping students plan their futures. Suggestions include sharing the following: ● ●

● ● ●

Courses the student might consider taking (outside of the home unit) Professionals in the community whom students might want to get to know, given shared research interests, or agencies where students might have opportunities to serve as board members, or on advisory councils Upcoming conferences and workshops that students might consider attending or to which they might consider submitting proposals Potential journals and special issues to which students might submit papers written as part of their coursework Potential funding sources for dissertation research, fellowships, and scholarships

In addition to helping students track all of this information (possibly in a workbook, binder, or an electronic format), tracking and planning forms should be reviewed annually. This review process might be conducted with student advisors, program directors, or even with peers or more senior doctoral students. Ongoing review will allow for continuous feedback to students from program directors regarding broad professional development. In some ways, an ongoing review process can be seen as “taking stock” at the program level. These activities might lead a program to discover, for example, that many students are interested in a particular statistical analysis, prompting the program to develop a new course, or to bring in someone from another department for a summer statistics workshop. Another benefit might arise from an advisor learning that a student has written a course paper that could be easily revised to become a manuscript submission for a journal’s special issue. Anastas (2012) cited lack of faculty support as a reason for failure to complete the doctoral degree in social work. It should not be assumed that new faculty members intuitively know how to be good advisors and mentors to PhD students. This is an area in which deans and program directors should provide faculty development. By focusing on nurturing faculty–student relationships, deans and program directors could promote program completion. In addition to helping students track a variety of information over time, one of the best things a program could do to ensure timely matriculation would be to prioritize the making of financial commitments to students enrolled. In talking with students, and through our own experiences, we learned that many students must return to (or continue) social work practice to pay personal bills and school-related expenses, including tuition. Working outside the program to meet expenses hinders program progress by leaving

12

C. DOUGHERTY ET AL.

scant time to focus on the academic experience and preparing for a future as a faculty member. For instance, a student might forgo a service opportunity, such as joining a college committee or serving on the board of a professional organization, in order to work a few hours each week providing clinical services for a community agency at which she was formerly employed fulltime, to meet her financial obligations. Funding and financial commitments often are mentioned in discussions of the factors that keep students from moving through programs in a timely manner (Anastas, 2012; Robb, 2005). Sense of Belonging: University/Community Ties The sense of disconnection that social work doctoral students often feel from their programs, as described by Anastas (2012), could be alleviated through a purposeful integration of students into doctoral programs and the greater university community. Not only should programs work to build a sense of belonging for students within the social work unit, but promoting the program within the university and community should also be prioritized. When the social work program is well connected in the university and in the community, its students are more likely to become well connected, as well. Support National Agenda for Social Work Research, Legislation, and Loan Forgiveness Experienced social workers often criticize the profession for a lack of a national effort to promote professional goals, licensure, and education requirements. With this in mind, programs should work with students to advocate for the profession at the public policy level—locally and nationally. Greater support for pro-social work policies not only would impact practice in the field but could potentially provide increased research dollars, thereby enhancing funding for doctoral students. An increase in funding for facultyled research also could increase the number of paid graduate research associate appointments and postdoctoral positions. Advocacy for public policy reform could create a positive cascade of change in key areas of interest for social workers, such as educational loan forgiveness and the role of social work researchers in areas such as health and wellness, geriatrics, school reform, nonacademic barriers to school improvement, early childhood mental health and education, and other areas where social workers may not have typically been the research leaders. Cross-Cutting Factors This framework also includes “cross-cutting” factors that impact all levels of the social ecology frame. The factor of Self represents characteristics attributed to the individual, such as motivation, worldview, professional skill set, people skills, and willingness and ability to strategically plan for the future. These factors will be different for individual students and will impact their ability to


13

matriculate in a doctoral program. In addition, each PhD program will have its own characteristics that will influence student matriculation. Characteristics such as size, type of institution, public, private, religious auspices, geographic location, faculty expertise, and more, influence all the variables just discussed. Given this understanding, we suggest that programs consider a “menu of options” approach to implementing the preceding suggestions. By offering a variety of supports—some required and others optional—programs can allow student self-determination to drive the support options as students choose from this menu over the course of the programs.

Limitations and Conclusion This article shares a conceptual framework for making practical and feasible changes to doctoral programs; still, additional work is needed to identify programs utilizing some of these suggestions so that they can be studied further. Examining outcomes as a result of change implementation is a natural next step and would advance knowledge for directors and administrators of social work doctoral programs. Although these recommendations touch on many important issues currently of interest to doctoral programs, a number of additional questions are not touched on here. It is therefore important to note that these recommendations are not comprehensive when considering the wide range of social work doctoral programs and the variety of students enrolled in them. The theoretical application of the social ecological perspective to doctoral education and the strategies that we have highlighted in this article shed light on how to create learning environments that enhance the individual student experience while considering opportunities for growth in doctoral programs as a whole. By utilizing such an approach, many facets of a program are impacted and included in these areas for improvement. Implementation of these strategies holds potential for facilitating timely matriculation in PhD programs and aid in the planning of doctoral student career trajectories. Our hope is that we have offered a valuable framework that answers the important question posed by Anastas and Kuerbis (2009, p. 80): “Where can we make improvements in our doctoral programs?”

References Adorno, G., Cronley, C., & Smith, K. S. (2013). A different kind of animal: Liminal experiences of social work doctoral students. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 1–10. doi:10.1080/14703297.2013.833130 Anastas, J. W. (2006). Employment opportunities in social work education: A study of jobs for doctoral graduates. Journal of Social Work Education, 42(2), 195–209. doi:10.5175/ JSWE.2006.200400426

14

C. DOUGHERTY ET AL.

Anastas, J. W. (2012). Doctoral education in social work. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Anastas, J. W., & Kuerbis, A. N. (2009). Doctoral education in social work: What we know and what we need to know. Social Work, 54(1), 71–81. doi:10.1093/sw/54.1.71 Anastas, J. W., & Videka, L. (2012). Does social work need a “practice doctorate?” Clinical Social Work Journal, 40(2), 268–276. doi:10.1007/s10615-012-0392-3 Bentley, K. J. (2013). Toward an evaluation framework for doctoral education in social work: A 10-year retrospective of one PhD program’s assessment experiences. Journal of Social Work Education, 49(1), 30–47. doi:10.1080/10437797.2013.755089 Berzoff, J., & Drisko, J. (2015). Preparing PhD-level clinical social work practitioners for the 21st century. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 35(1–2), 82–100. doi:10.1080/ 08841233.2014.993107 Bettmann, J., Thompson, K., Padykula, N., & Berzoff, J. (2009). Innovations in doctoral education: Distance education methodology applied. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 29 (3), 291–312. doi:10.1080/08841230903018397 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In T. Husén & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (Vol. 3, 2nd ed., pp. 1643–1647). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. (Reprinted from Reading on the development of children, pp. 37–43, by M. Gauvain & M. Cole, Eds., 1993, New York, NY: Freeman) Brydon, K., & Fleming, J. (2011). The journey around my PhD: Pitfalls, insights and diamonds. Social Work Education, 30(8), 995–1011. doi:10.1080/02615479.2010.527936 Council of Graduate Schools. (2008). Ph.D. completion project. Retrieved from http://www. phdcompletion.org Council on Social Work Education. (2014). 2013 statistics on social work education in the United States: A summary. Retrieved from http://www.cswe.org/File.aspx?id=74478 Council on Social Work Education. (2015). Educational policy and accreditation standards for baccalaureate and master’s social work programs. Retrieved from http://www.cswe.org/File. aspx?id=81660 Denecke, D. D., Frasier, H. S., & Redd, K. E. (2009). The Council of Graduate Schools’ PhD completion project. In R. G. Ehrenberg & C. V. Kuh (Eds.), Doctoral education and the faculty of the future (pp. 35–52). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Drisko, J., Hunnicutt, C., & Berenson, L. (2015). A national content analysis of PhD program objectives, Structures, and curricula: Do programs address the full range of social work’s needs? Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 35(1–2), 14–28. doi:10.1080/ 08841233.2014.986356 Germain, C. B. (1973). An ecological perspective in casework. Social Casework, 54(6), 323–330. Germain, C. B. (1976). Time: An ecological variable in social work practice. Social Casework, 57(7), 419–426. Germain, C. B. (1978). General systems theory and ego psychology: An ecological perspective. Social Service Review, 52(4), 535–550. doi:10.1086/643676 Germain, C. B., & Gitterman, A. (1979). The life model of social work practice. In F. Turner (Ed.), Social work treatment (pp. 361–384). New York, NY: Free Press. Gitterman, A., & Germain, C. (2008). Ecological framework. In T. Mizrahi & L. E. Davis (Eds.), Encyclopedia of social work (Vol. 2, 20th ed., pp. 99–102). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/ 9780195306613.001.0001/acref-9780195306613-e-118 Goodman, H. (2015). Current issues in social work doctoral education. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 35(1–2), 29–45. doi:10.1080/08841233.2015.1007802


15

Greif, G. L., & Lynch, A. A. (1983). The eco-systems perspective. In C. H. Zmeyer (Ed.), Clinical social work in the eco-systems perspective (pp. 35–74). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education in Social Work. (2013). Guidelines for quality in social work doctoral programs (Rev.). Retrieved from http://www.gadephd.org Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education in Social Work. (2015). Membership. Retrieved from http://www.gadephd.org/Membership Harrington, D., Petr, C. G., Black, B. M., Cunningham-Williams, R. M., & Bentley, K. J. (2014). Quality guidelines for social work PhD programs. Research on Social Work Practice, 24, 281–286. doi:10.1177/1049731513517145 Kondrat, M. E. (2008). Person-in-environment. In T. Mizrahi & L. E. Davis (Eds.), Encyclopedia of social work (Vol. 3, 20th ed., pp. 347–354). Retrieved from http://social work.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.001.0001/acrefore9780199975839-e-285 Kurzman, P. A. (2015). The evolution of doctoral social work education. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 35(1–2), 1–13. doi:10.1080/08841233.2015.1007832 Liechty, J. M., Liao, M., & Schull, C. P. (2009). Facilitating dissertation completion and success among doctoral students in social work. Journal of Social Work Education, 45(3), 481–497. doi:10.5175/JSWE.2009.200800091 McLeroy, K. R., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A., & Glanz, K. (1988). An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Education & Behavior, 15(4), 351–377. doi:10.1177/ 109019818801500401 Mendenhall, A. N. (2007). Switching hats: Transitioning from the role of clinician to the role of researcher in social work doctoral education. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 27(3/4), 273–290. doi:10.1300/J067v27n03_17 Nelson, C., & Lovitts, B. E. (2008). Program environment: 10 ways to keep graduate students from quitting. Retrieved from www.phdcompletion.org/promising/environmentNelson.asp Nurius, P. S., & Kemp, S. (2014). Transdisciplinary and translastional research. Retrieved from http://socialwork.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.001.0001/acrefore9780199975839-e-1060 Robb, M. (2005). A deepening doctoral crisis? Social Work Today, 5(4), 13–17. Sowell, R., Zhang, T., Redd, K., & King, M. (2008). Ph.D. completion and attrition: Analysis of baseline program data from the Ph.D. completion project. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014, January 8). Occupational outlook handbook: Social workers. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/ooh/community-and-social-service/socialworkers.htm