How bad is the problem currently? We have data from the most recent Council survey of graduate programs regarding the number of unfilled openings for doctoral faculty These data are based on a new question in the survey, one that was not asked until the cycle; the question targeted the last three years We’ll call the number of unsuccessful tenure-line searches during these years, ‘the shortage’ The data suggest that the shortage has nearly doubled during that period Numbers represented in the next graph are based on figures adjusted to a 100% reporting rate, but of course the growing shortage is clear with or without adjusted figures
23
Quantitative Quantitative background on the background on the shortage of research shortage of research doctorates in CSD doctorates in CSD D. Kimbrough Oller D. Kimbrough Oller University of Memphis University of Memphis With lots of help from Howard Goldstein, With lots of help from Howard Goldstein, Cheryl Scott, Sarah Slater, Judith Cheryl Scott, Sarah Slater, Judith Cooper and the members of the Joint Ad Cooper and the members of the Joint Ad Hoc Committee on the Doctoral Shortage Hoc Committee on the Doctoral Shortage
Transcript
Quantitative background on Quantitative background on the shortage of research the shortage of research
doctorates in CSDdoctorates in CSD
D. Kimbrough OllerD. Kimbrough OllerUniversity of MemphisUniversity of Memphis
With lots of help from Howard Goldstein, Cheryl Scott, With lots of help from Howard Goldstein, Cheryl Scott, Sarah Slater, Judith Cooper and the members of the Sarah Slater, Judith Cooper and the members of the Joint Ad Hoc Committee on the Doctoral ShortageJoint Ad Hoc Committee on the Doctoral Shortage
The well-known problem of The well-known problem of positions and failure of recruitmentpositions and failure of recruitment
• Most searches for tenure-line faculty positions in Communication Sciences and Disorders are difficult to complete
• A recent survey by ASHA indicates there are only 2.3 applicants per open tenure-line position
• Many positions remain unfilled yearly• Programs are in jeopardy, sometimes for
survival, because of difficulties in recruitment of tenure-line faculty
How bad is the problem How bad is the problem currently?currently?
We have data from the most recent Council survey of graduate programs regarding the number of unfilled openings for doctoral faculty
These data are based on a new question in the survey, one that was not asked until the 2000-2001 cycle; the question targeted the last three years
We’ll call the number of unsuccessful tenure-line searches during these years, ‘the shortage’
The data suggest that the shortage has nearly doubled during that period
Numbers represented in the next graph are based on figures adjusted to a 100% reporting rate, but of course the growing shortage is clear with or without adjusted figures
Magnitude of the current problem Magnitude of the current problem as a proportion of full-time linesas a proportion of full-time lines
• The eight-year average of Council data make it possible to estimate that there are about 2680 full-time faculty positions in Communication Sciences and Disorders nationally (adjusted to 100% sampling)
• About 65% of these are doctoral lines over the same period; that’s 1723 doctoral lines
• At 50 unfilled positions in the year 1998, the shortage was 2.8%, and at 98 unfilled positions in the year 2000, the shortage was 5.4% (assuming that 65% of full-time lines and a base of 1723 is an appropriate level of research doctoral faculty in the field)
• At 50 the problem was already deemed a serious one by most academic participants in our field
• Many had thought the shortage would begin to accumulate sometime soon, based on demographic trends (graying of the profession), and it appears that the suspected accumulating shortage is already underway
The role of the graying The role of the graying of the professorateof the professorate
• We have long been warned that our professorate is older than is optimal
• Too many retirements could create tremendous flux and loss of research and training quality
• The primary data upon which the presumed graying of the professorate have been based actually come from the ASHA Constituent Database
• They indicate numbers of Ph.D. holders at various ages who are ASHA members
• The data were first addressed by Bruce Tomblin in 1996 in an address to the Legislative Council of ASHA when he was Chair of the Research and Scientific Affairs Committee
• In an ideal situation one might expect a relatively flat distribution
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
<38 40.5 45.5 50.5 55.5 60.5 65.5 70.5 >73
Distribution of Ph.D. holders by ageDistribution of Ph.D. holders by agefrom ASHA constituent database, 1996, from ASHA constituent database, 1996,
work by Bruce Tomblin and Sarah Slaterwork by Bruce Tomblin and Sarah Slater
Distribution of Full-time Ph.D. Distribution of Full-time Ph.D. Professors and Chairs by AgeProfessors and Chairs by Agefrom ASHA constituent database, 1996, from ASHA constituent database, 1996,
Distribution of Ph.D. faculty by age in Programs offering the Ph.D. from the Joint Ad Hoc Committee Survey, 2002
Mean full-time = 49.08Median full-time = 49.46
Mean part-time = 53.81Median part-time = 52.92
FULL-TIME N = 575PART-TIME N = 59
The demographic situation suggests The demographic situation suggests rapidly increasing retirements rapidly increasing retirements
over the next few yearsover the next few years• Several historical factors combined to produce a
distribution of Ph.D.’s by age that is not at all flat; in fact it is very peaked
• As years pass the number of retirements may go up rapidly as the peak in the distribution may move rightward
• If we judge correctly from the distribution, the major impact of massive numbers of retirements has not yet been felt
• But even now we are in a condition of shortage• The situation is already getting worse, but it may get
dramatically worse, over the next 10-15 years
Is the field adapting appropriately to the Is the field adapting appropriately to the impending decline in Ph.D. faculty?impending decline in Ph.D. faculty?
• In the most recent data there has been an increase in the production rate of new Ph.D.’s, but whether the increase will be maintained or accelerated remains to be seen – it could be merely a product of year to year fluctuation
• Number of programs (Master’s and Ph.D.) is not going down, not yet at least
• Over the past few years the number of faculty in the field has actually been rising fairly fast according to the Council data
• In some cases Master’s faculty appear to be filling lines that could not be filled in Ph.D. tenure-line searches, but the data are inconclusive on both the amount of growth in faculty and the role of Master’s hiring in that growth
Production rate for new Ph.D. scholars in Production rate for new Ph.D. scholars in Communication Sciences and Disorders Communication Sciences and Disorders
• Up to 1999 we see no important increase in the production rate of new Ph.D.’s based on data from the National Opinion Research Center
• Through 1998 the same is true of the Council survey• The 2000-2001 data from the Council and the NORC
suggest there may have been a significant upturn• It can be hoped this is not a short-term improvement,
but data on enrollment patterns are among the more difficult ones to interpret in the various available surveys
National Opinion Research Center data on National Opinion Research Center data on doctoral degrees granted in SLP and AUDdoctoral degrees granted in SLP and AUD
Council of Academic Programs data on Council of Academic Programs data on doctoral degrees granted in SLP and AUDdoctoral degrees granted in SLP and AUD
60708090
100110120130140150160
1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
Ph.D.Ph.D.degreesdegreesgrantedgranted
Council of Academic Programs data on Council of Academic Programs data on doctoral degrees granted in SLP and AUDdoctoral degrees granted in SLP and AUD
with breakdownswith breakdowns
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
slp degrees
aud degrees
sp & hr scidegrees
Council of Academic Programs data on Council of Academic Programs data on enrolled doctoral students in SLP and AUDenrolled doctoral students in SLP and AUD
60160260360460560660760860960
1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
adjusted numbers
Ph.D.Ph.D.studentsstudents
Number of all programs in the fieldNumber of all programs in the field
280
285
290
295
300
305
310
1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
all programs
Number of programs in the field Number of programs in the field with breakdown by disciplinewith breakdown by discipline
0
50
100
150
200
250
1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
slp programsaudiology programs
Number of Ph.D. programs in the fieldNumber of Ph.D. programs in the field
20253035404550556065
1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
slp programs
audiologyprogramssp & hr sciprograms
Number of full-time faculty inNumber of full-time faculty in Communication Sciences and Disorders Communication Sciences and Disorders
1,500
1,700
1,900
2,100
2,300
2,500
2,700
2,900
1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
The challengeThe challenge• We need to be proactive: the field is going to be
restructured one way or the other• Organize an academically significant plan for the future,
and guide it through an administrative structure with continuity – a standing committee, as was recommended by Fox, Minifie, Smit, and Hochberg in the Report of the working group on doctoral and postdoctoral education, 1997 (Council Proceedings)
• The forces will change, and if the Council and ASHA do not act, the field will change very unpredictably
• The question is how to maintain the academic foundations of the field in a time of enormous change
• Further, how can we govern our programs with an appropriate balance of academic and clinical activities
05101520253035404550
95 96 97 98 99 2000 Mean
applicationsfunded
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
95 96 97 98 99 2000 Mean
proportionfunded
FROM JUDITH COOPER, SLP APPLICATIONS AND FUNDINGAT NIDCD SINCE 1995
024681012141618
95 96 97 98 99 2000 Mean
applicationsfunded
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
95 96 97 98 99 2000 Mean
proportionfunded
FROM JUDITH COOPER, AUDIOLOGY APPLICATIONS AND FUNDINGAT NIDCD SINCE 1995
