Recommendations for Engineering Doctoral Education: Design of an Instrument to Evaluate Change

Jiabin Zhu, Monica F. Cox, Sara Branch, Benjamin Ahn and Jeremi London School of Engineering Education, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

jiabin.emily.zhu@gmail.com, mfc@purdue.edu, sbranch@psych,purdue.edu, bahn@purdue.edu, jslondon@purdue.edu

Abstract— In recent years, many studies and reports have highlighted concerns and problems with engineering doctoral degree recipients. Criticisms have come from professionals in both industry and academia, as well as from current and former Ph.D. students. Given the dissatisfaction of a variety of stakeholders, there have been calls from professional societies, disciplinary bodies and federal agencies to improve doctoral granting programs across the U.S. and to educate Ph.Ds. who are equipped with skills and attributes necessary to meet the highly-competitive and rapidly changing 21st century workforce [1, 2]. Within this context, this study focuses on the perspectives of working professionals from both academia and industry. Preliminary findings were obtained from one-on-one interviews with forty engineering Ph.D. holders who are from industry and/or academia. They recommended practical measures for engineering doctoral students to obtain desired characteristics upon graduation. Using the preliminary results, the work in progress precludes the design of an instrument to evaluate on-going changes to different aspects of doctoral education. The instrument will serve as a useful tool to understand the degree and scope of changes in engineering doctoral program. Portions of the instrument informed from these recommendations are provided.

Keywords— engineering doctoral education; recommendations; instrument development

I. INTRODUCTION The Doctor of Philosophy is typically the highest degree an

individual can earn within a field. It conveys a level of academic accomplishment that only a select group of individuals have chosen to pursue. Admissions criteria for doctorate programs draw a picture of an individual who is intelligent, curious, driven, and dedicated. Students from around the world choose to pursue graduate training in the U.S. because of the high caliber of programs and training and expertise produced by doctoral programs. Such pursuits have resulted in advances in science and engineering that were unimagined only a few decades ago [3]. However, recent years have witnessed a number of changes within the system of U.S. doctoral education. Criticisms of the current system, combined with economic and global changes, have forced universities and academicians to reevaluate the purpose of the PhD.

For example, employers of Ph.D. holders in non-academic sectors (e.g., industry, government, and non-profit organizations) have criticized doctoral recipients for being narrowly trained and educated and for lacking teamwork and management skills [4]. Similarly, many academics criticize recent Ph.Ds. for their limited teaching abilities, grant writing skills, and lack of familiarity performing interdisciplinary work

[5, 6]. Even current and past doctoral students have criticized graduate programs for providing limited information about employment opportunities after graduate school [6-8].

A review by Campbell et al. [9] identified a number of the major concerns within graduate education. Of primary concern is the disconnect between the training that graduate students receive and their future professional roles. The assumption that graduate students will pursue academic careers is no longer valid as an increasing number of students are pursuing work in non-research universities, industry, or other arenas [10]. However, while the career goals of doctoral students have changed, the focus of graduate engineering education has remained the same. Graduate programs that focus only on research, to the exclusion of other skills, are not preparing students for the responsibilities of the positions they will fill in the future [9]. It is imperative that engineering graduate educators begin to consider the attributes of a successful engineer at the doctoral level and implement curricula and training that develop these skills in their students.

Considering multiple concerns of engineering graduate education, there have been calls from professional societies, disciplinary bodies and federal agencies to improve doctoral granting programs across the U.S. and to educate Ph.Ds. who are equipped with skills and attributes necessary to meet the highly-competitive and rapidly changing 21st century workforce [4, 5]. Therefore, in recent years, some engineering and science doctoral-granting programs have developed in-house workshops and seminars to equip Ph.D. students for their future roles as professionals [11, 12]. However, there is a need for additional studies to identify improvements and assessments of these improvements within doctoral programs. One way to identify what needs to be improved in engineering doctoral programs is to examine the perspectives of engineering Ph.D. holders who work in industry or academia.

Such employers can reflect accurately the types of work that they do and can provide recommendations for improving engineering doctoral programs. In this study, forty engineering working professionals were interviewed. Their perspectives on ways to improve current engineering doctoral education were explored. Findings identified from these engineers were then translated into measurable outcomes to assess the improvements made in the doctoral programs.

978-1-4673-5261-1/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE

II. RESEARCH METHOD

A. Data Collection This study is part of a larger research study which examines

topics such as, the desired skills and characteristics of engineering Ph.D. recipients, the ways that current graduate education practices in engineering have or have not prepared the Ph.D. recipients for their current roles and functions at their workplaces in academia or industry, and practical measures that might help students to acquire desired characteristics for engineering Ph.D. holders. Researchers focus on the topic of practical measures to prepare students for desired characteristics. Semi-structured one-on-one interviews with 40 engineering Ph.D. holders working in industry or academia were conducted by the research team.

The original interview protocol included 16 questions. Here, researchers explored the results from the interview question, “What can be done at the graduate level to ensure engineering Ph.D. students are acquiring the desired characteristics to be successful in academic and industrial careers?”

B. Data Analysis A code book has been developed following a process

described by MacQueen, McLellan, Kay, and Milstein [13]. The use of a structured codebook helped to ensure consistency among team coders. Open-coding was used to classify the responses to the interview question. An inter-coder reliability test demonstrated a percent agreement higher than 75% among coders. The code book was used to code all of the forty transcripts.

III. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS The researchers are in the process of identifying the themes

and patterns of the data. In this report, the list of codes obtained through the interview question was summarized. Codes here will be later translated into items that will become part of an instrument to assess changes implemented in current engineering graduate programs. Preliminary results include all codes that emerged from the 40 transcripts. These codes can be grouped into recommendations to students, faculty members, and the doctoral program itself.

These codes emerged from the transcripts cover different aspects of doctoral students’ training. For students, the recommendations focused on diverse professional skill sets, experiences, or activities that would prepare students for their future careers. Interviews from the working professionals also stressed on the opportunities to which advisors or faculty members should pay special attention in the process of training and mentoring of doctoral students. Finally, the last set of recommendations indicated some areas that would require formal and informal support from administrators or other stakeholders of doctoral programs.

Sample recommendations to students include:

• Develop business skills. • Develop good communication skills. • Develop leadership skills. • Engage in regular research group activities.

• Engage in interdisciplinary activities. • Learn how to run a research program. • Present orally. • Participate in discussion-based learning. • Participate in experiential learning activities. • Teach and/or learn about teaching. • Understand connections between engineering and

society. Sample recommendations to advisors or faculty members

include: • Allow doctoral students to make mistakes. • Allow doctoral students to work independently. • Introduce doctoral students to the realities of the work

environment. • Encourage students to critique their work. • Encourage students to engage with industry. • Engage students in publishing.

Sample recommendations to other higher education doctoral

program stakeholders include: • Align programmatic activities with the institutional

mission. • Change the reward system for faculty. • Encourage faculty to acquire more industry experience. • Set high expectations for passing Ph.D. milestone

exams. • Teach students about finances. • Engage with non-academic stakeholders.

The recommendations from the perspectives of professionals

who have worked in industry and/or academia provide practical measures to improve current doctoral education. Some of these suggestions were based directly upon their lived experiences through their own doctoral education and their past and current work experiences.

IV. DISCUSSION Some of ideas proposed by the working professionals

directly address the criticisms discussed in current literature. For example, one of the main criticisms is that current doctorate training focus on preparing the doctoral students for academic positions [9]. Some of the recommendations identified in this research seem to respond directly to the concern that many Ph.D. recipients’ career choices have shifted to non-academic positions, especially the ones in industrial fields. These recommendations focused on developing students’ professional skills, such as, business skills, leadership skills, etc.

It should be noted that many recommendations refer to different skills or experiences that students should possess upon graduation. However, the working professionals also stress the important roles of advisors or faculty members and the doctoral program itself. The successful implementation of the recommended measures for improving doctoral students’ training experiences demands the engagement of multiple stakeholders.

These codes will be translated into short statements to be used for developing a survey instrument. The survey will be

divided into portions for students, faculty members and other stakeholders, such as administrators of engineering doctoral program (e.g. a department head).

Several sample statements for the part of students’ survey are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Sample statements in a survey for students

In my doctoral training,

Not at all Very Much 1 2 3 4 5

1. I was exposed to opportunities to understand the connections between engineering and society.

2. I learnt about how to teach through my own workshops, seminars, or other venues.

The design of the survey can be used to access the changes that are taking place in current engineering doctoral programs from the perspectives of different stakeholders, including the students, faculty members, administrators, industrial representatives, etc. Researchers envision that the instrument will be used within workshops and seminars and will include specific benchmarks and metrics focused on different areas identified in the interviews.

V. IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE WORK Preliminary results confirm that revisions to graduate education are needed, especially given the likelihood that the vast majority of engineering Ph.D. holders will obtain jobs in industry after graduation. Although many recommendations refer to students, interviewees noted that advisors, faculty members, and higher education administrators need to engage in efforts to reform doctoral education for engineering students.

The survey developed from this work will reflect different components for soliciting perspectives from students, faculty members, etc. By understanding these different perspectives, potential results obtain via this survey can be used to access the degree and scope of on-going changes in preparing students for diverse career options and related professional skills. The tool might serve as foundations for advising, mentoring, and for students’ self-reflections of doctoral progress.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT This work is supported by the National Science Foundation

under Grant #0747803. The views and conclusions expressed in the paper do not necessarily reflect those of Purdue University or the National Science Foundation.

REFERENCES [1] Nerad, Maresi. 2004. The PhD in the US: Criticisms, facts, and remedies.

Higher Education Policy, 17(2), 183-199. [2] Austin, Ann E. 2003. Creating a bridge to the future: Preparing new faculty

to face changing expectations in a shifting context. The Review of Higher Education, 26(2), 119-144.

[3] Nyquist Jody D. and Bettna J. Woodford. 2000. Re-envisioning the PhD: What concerns do we have? Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Center for Instructional Development and Research.

[4] Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy (COSEPUP). 1995. Reshaping the graduate education of scientists and engineers, Washington, DC: American Academies Press.

[5] Austin, Ann E. 2002. Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socialization to the academic career. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 94-122.

[6] Nyquist, Jody D. 2002. The PhD a tapestry of change for the 21st Century. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 34(6), 12-20.

[7] Golde, Chris. M., and Timothy. M. Dore, 2001. At cross purposes: What the experiences of today’s doctoral students reveal about doctoral education. Philadelphia: Pew Charitable Trusts.

[8] National Association of Graduate and Professional Students (NAGPS). 2001. The 2000 National Doctoral Program Survey.

[9] Campbell, Steven P., Angela K. Fuller and David. A. G. Patrick, 2005, Looking beyond Research in Doctoral Education, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3(3), 153-160.

[10] Cruz-Castro, Laura and Luis Sanz-Menéndez, 2005. The employment of PhDs in firms: trajectories, mobility and innovation, Research Evaluation, 14(1): 57-69.

[11] Fuhrmann, C. N., Halme, D. G., O’Sullivan, P. S., and Lindstaedt, B. 2011. Improving graduate education to support a branching career pipeline: Recommendations based on a survey of doctoral students in the basic biomedical sciences. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 10(3), 239-249.

[12] Benderly, Beryl. L. 2013. The new Ph.D. student entrepreneurship and a dearth of academic jobs prompt schools to re-engineer doctoral programs for the business world. ASEE Prism, 22(5), 31-34.

[13] MacQueen, Kathleen. M., Eleanor McLellan, Kelly Kay, and Bobby Milstein, 1998. Codebook development for team-based qualitative analysis. Cultural Anthropology Methods, 10, 31–6.

AUTHOR INFORMATION Jiabin Zhu, Assistant Professor, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Graduate School of Education, jiabin.emily.zhu@gmail.com Monica F. Cox, Associate Professor, School of Engineering Education, Purdue University, mfc@purdue.edu Sara Branch, Graduate Student, Social Psychology, Purdue University, sbranch@psych.purdue.edu Benjamin Ahn, Graduate Student, School of Engineering Education, Purdue University, bahn@purdue.edu Jeremi London, Graduate Student, School of Engineering Education, Purdue University, jslondon@purdue.edu