Service-learning in doctoral training & education.

Abstract

As the number of Ph.D. graduates entering non-traditional academic and non-academic careers increases, faculty and administrators must look for ways to enhance student training outside the typical realm of teaching and research. In this paper, we discuss how service learning can help answer this call. We begin by reviewing some of the common criticisms of current doctoral education and follow up by discussing how service learning may help fill current gaps in graduate training. Finally, we discuss barriers to implementing service-learning in doctoral-level curriculum.

The Crisis in Graduate Education

Stakeholders in higher education have raised concerns over the adequacy of current graduate training models with respect to the preparation of doctoral students for work in both academic and non-academic settings (e.g. Nyquist & Woodford, 2000; Cherwitz, 2000). While most would agree that doctoral training prepares students to conduct quality research, these training programs have been criticized for insufficiently preparing students to handle the increasingly wide array professional roles and responsibilities that they will face in their careers. Namely, current graduate training models have been criticized for offering students a very narrow and somewhat shallow picture of how, and in what professional settings, their technical expertise and training can be applied, and for offering little in the way of transferable skills that could be used in the variety of work settings now available to them (Golde & Dare, 2001). As one individual put it:

   We are producing smart, discipline-sophisticated scholars who are
   rhetorically challenged and unable to utilize their expertise to
   its fullest capacity. (Cherwitz, 2000).

These criticisms become increasingly salient in light of the numbers of Ph.D. graduates entering non-academic jobs in the private and public sectors as consultants and managers (Kannankutty & Kang, 2001), but they are also relevant to Ph.D.'s pursuing academic positions for which they are increasingly expected to engage in service and outreach as a part of their jobs.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the relevance of service-learning to the professional development needs of doctoral students. While service learning is typically cited for it's utility in K-12 and undergraduate education models, it is gaining popularity among graduate level faculty and students in programs such as the Preparing Future Faculty Program (e.g. at The University of Georgia) and other university-sponsored graduate professional development programs around the country (e.g. The University of Texas at Austin). We address both the benefits as well as some potential barriers to the implementation of service-learning in a doctoral-level curriculum.

Current State of Doctoral Education

Almost a century and a half after the first doctoral degree was granted in America, the traditional research-focused model of doctoral training is now under scrutiny. Doctoral students, faculty, administrators, employers, professional associations and national institutes such as the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching are pushing for a reconsideration of how institutions of higher education train and prepare doctoral students for careers both inside and outside of academia.

The traditional paradigm for doctoral education and training has been to prepare students for careers in academia. In the past, the Ph.D. graduate has been regarded as the "scientist" the "expert", the "scholar;" one uniquely suited to publish and educate others in their discipline. As a result, most doctoral training programs place emphasis on science over practice, research over teaching, and service last, if at all. Events of the past several decades, however, have created a shift in both the work and societal roles and responsibilities of the Ph.D. graduate. For a variety of reasons, including the increase in enrollment of undergraduate students, the establishment of more Ph.D. programs, and large scale investments in scientific laboratories, the last several decades have seen an over-enrollment of doctoral students and an oversupply of Ph.D.'s in many fields (Nyquist & Woodford, 2000; Golde & Dore, 2001). The result is that many doctoral students (either forced or by choice) are entering job markets other than that of the traditional academic.

According to the National Science Foundation (NSF), the majority of science and engineering Ph.D.s do not work in academia (Regets, 1997). In its 1997 survey of doctoral recipients, the NSF reports that only 47.8% of recent doctoral recipients in the sciences and engineering accept positions in academia and as little as 30.8% of the total number of science and engineering Ph.D.s in the U.S. were employed in academic positions (Kannankutty & Kang, 2001). In fact research published by the Pew Charitable Trust (Nyquist & Woodford, 2000; Golde & Dore, 2001) indicate that there has been a substantial increase in the enrollment of graduate students and that there are not enough academic jobs for them all. Increasingly new Ph.Ds find themselves searching for employment outside of academe. Results from the NSF study (Regets, 1997) reveal that many new Ph.Ds are working in industry or for the government as consultants or managers. Regardless of the specific roles, many of these students are unprepared for a professional life outside of academe. Leaders in business and industry claim that Ph.D.s often lack skills in collaborative thinking, decision-making, teamwork and leadership. In addition, they complain that often, Ph.D.'s lack a contextual understanding of how to apply their technical expertise to real-world problems (Nyquist & Woodford, 2000).

The gap between what doctoral students are trained for and what they are asked to do on the job is not unique to those entering industry and other non-academic positions. Colleges and universities complain that the emphasis on research in doctoral training leaves new Ph.D.s unprepared for faculty responsibilities such as teaching, collegial evaluation, curricular planning, and collaborative efforts. New graduates also appear to lack an understanding of professional ethics and an interest and commitment to community outreach and service, both of which are required by many public and private institutions (Nyquist & Woodford, 2000). Doctoral students themselves are complaining about the lack of sufficient training and career preparation. In 2001 the Carnegie Foundation released its report, "At Cross Purposes: What the experiences of today's doctoral student reveal about doctoral education" which was the result of a national survey of over 4,000 doctoral.. The findings suggested two problematic issues in doctoral education:

1. "The training doctoral students receive is not what they want, nor does it prepare them for the jobs that they take."

2. "Many students do not clearly understand what doctoral study entails, how the process works, and how to navigate it effectively" (Golde & Dore, 2001).

Although somewhat disappointing, these findings were not unique. Several other nationally recognized surveys yielded similar results. In 1998, the Association of American Universities' Committee on Graduate Education's Report and Recommendations outlined several criticisms of American doctoral education which included, "... narrow training ... insufficient mentoring, career advising, and job placement assistance." Their report goes on to suggest that,

   Student interests should also be paramount in designing a graduate
   curriculum that prepares students for a broad array of careers,
   and in building a diverse student body that enriches the
   educational environment and that prepares students to work
   effectively in a global environment. (Danforth, 1998)

In 2000, Jody Nyquist, director of the "Re-envisioning the Ph.D." project found similar results in her national study of students, educators, and leaders in the public and private sector. Nyquist's interviews revealed,

   Students feel ill prepared for, and under-informed about, jobs
   outside research universities, with some complaining of lengthy
   training and poor mentoring. (Nyquist and Woodford, 2000)

A recent article in the American Psychological Association's Monitor on Psychology discusses the variety of career paths that today's recent graduates are embracing. Kogan (2000) mentions that,

   The possibilities for future psychologists are endless--if students
   can look beyond the lessons of graduate school.

The Role of Service Learning in Filling the Gap

In order to address the needs of doctoral education today, the Carnegie Foundation (see Golde & Dore, 2001) recommended a variety of strategies, many of which may be accomplished through the incorporation of service learning into the graduate curriculum. Perhaps the most common definition of service-learning is that provided by Bringle and Hatcher (1995, p. 112), in which it is defined as "a course-based, credit-bearing educational experience in which students: (a) participate in an organized service activity that meets identified community needs and (b) reflect on the service activity in such a way as to gain further understanding of course content, a broader appreciation of the discipline, and an enhanced sense of civic responsibility."

As a form of experiential education, service-learning shares similarities with internships, coops, field education, practica, and voluntary service. Furco (1996) places these forms of education on a continuum. At one end are internships and practica, with their primary focus on student learning. At the other end are volunteer activities with an emphasis on service to recipients in the community. Service-learning is in the middle of the continuum with an equal focus on student learning and service to the community. As in most courses, students in service-learning enhanced classes may be learning new concepts and theory via readings and classroom discussion, but they can also expect to participate in individual or group projects in which they provide a service or consultation to a community organization. The true benefits of service-learning over traditional learning are recognized through classroom discussion of and reflection upon the unique successes, problems and issues faced by the students during the tenure of their service experience.

Service learning is already being successfully incorporated into doctoral level career preparation programs like the Preparing Future Faculty Program and in doctoral level coursework at the University of Georgia (UGA). Kecia M. Thomas, Ph.D., a UGA Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) in Psychology program coordinator has taught several service-learning enhanced doctoral seminars. Her students have benefited greatly from these supervised consulting experiences and have commented,

   The project provided significant opportunities for all members of
   the team to learn and practice many specific skills not required
   in a traditional classroom setting ... (Thomas & Landau, 2002,
   p. 94).

   Understanding the theories and processes in the abstract was not
   the same as understanding them in relation to a very specific
   situation, especially one where we would be responsible for
   implementation and outcome. Moreover, we had to integrate several
   aspects of classroom content into one cohesive project. Our
   incentive and interest had been turned up a significant notch
   (Thomas & Landau, 2002, p. 94).

   The project opened our eyes to what we could accomplish. It was
   very satisfying to discover how much we could do in such a
   limited time. We realized that we had more knowledge, skills,
   and ability than we suspected. We performed a valuable service
   and the project left us with a sense of accomplishment. If we
   could accomplish this much, then surely we are capable of
   accomplishing much more. The project left us with a legacy of
   success to build upon. (Thomas & Landau, 2002, p. 96).

Service learning presents a variety of ways and opportunities to address the professional development needs of current doctoral students. In line with recommendations made by the Carnegie Foundation, we will outline those here.

The first recommendation of the Carnegie study was that doctoral training should address the students' needs for career preparation. Specifically, they recommended that doctoral programs should (1) work to ensure that students' experiences prepare them for the careers they plan to enter, (2) expose students to the breadth of the academic profession, including the range of roles played by faculty and the range of institution types (3) make available and publicize opportunities to help students explore and prepare for a variety of careers, both in and out of academia and (4) encourage students to take advantage of activities and opportunities that provide both depth of breadth of experience, even if this means that students take some time away from research activities.

Service-learning aids in addressing these needs because it (1) helps the doctoral program meet the students' expectations of doctoral education as career preparation (2) prepares students for a variety of positions they could take after graduate school (3) prepares students for the diversity of faculty roles and responsibilities across a variety of institutions (4) encourages and supports an integration of teaching, research, and service in future faculty careers and (5) provides the opportunity for students to use their advanced knowledge, skills, and abilities for the benefit of those in their community. The second major recommendation of the Carnegie Foundation suggested that doctoral training should be the mechanism by which future faculty are socialized with the values and ethics of the profession. Specifically, graduate education should (1) "inculcate values and ethics in future faculty ..." and (2) "encourage students to learn about academic citizenship.... and application of expertise to the community."

Service-learning assists in accomplishing these goals in that it (1) supports the scientist-practitioner model of many Ph.D. disciplines, (2) enlarges students' understanding of the discipline and its value to the larger community (3) demonstrates the relevance of the discipline and its knowledge base to the broader community (4) demonstrates the overall value of higher education in general to the broader community. Several of the UGA students have expressed how service-learning helps in fulfilling their career related needs as well as enhancing their learning and ethical awareness. The following paraphrases students' comments regarding a service learning enhanced doctoral seminar in Organizational Effectiveness and Development:

   Initial experiences in the field shape future expectations,
   career choices, and heightens one's sensitivity to ethical issues.

   Created early opportunity to confront the ambiguities and
   messiness involved in work outside of academe.

   Allowed for early access to leadership and decision makers outside
   of academe.

Obstacles to Implementation in Doctoral Education

Although service-learning and engaged scholarship may help to satisfy many of the problems identified in doctoral education, implementing engaged initiatives may also be problematic. Faculty, departments, and institutions may resist the engaged scholarship route due to strong and inflexible institutional cultures that only value peer-reviewed empirical research. For some, providing or directing students' service experiences may seem like an additional faculty responsibility that will ultimately go unrewarded along the path to tenure and promotion. Those departments and institutions that are most resistant to the implementation of service-learning initiatives may be characterized by some of the following characteristics. Resistant Cultures:

* Perceive that service-learning takes time from research

* Perceive that service-learning takes from seeking and gaining external funding

* Perceive that service is generally un-rewarded at research institutions

* Perceive that within the research university environment, having a service-centered career may be stigmatizing and lead to perceptions of lack of productivity.

It will be important for faculty and administrators to consider the extent to which service related activities should be rewarded under their current system and the extent to which change in more traditional research institutions is possible. As mentioned in the recent APA monitor article on community-service scholarship (Murray, 2002), engaged scholarship can be peer-reviewed and often is, due to the large grants that frequently fund these initiatives. Our goal, according to Robert Bringle, is to think of engaged scholarship as a "unifying force for teaching, research and service, rather than as something separate" (Murray, 2002). By integrating these three responsibilities and modeling this integrated career to doctoral students, faculty can better fulfill the needs of students. The incorporation of service-learning in graduate education can also provide faculty with valuable opportunities to engage in community-based research, to fund their applied or field research, and to write for new and more diverse audiences. In order for faculty to feel supported in taking on service-learning responsibilities, university administration must appreciate service-learning enhanced graduate instruction, and the scholarship that comes out of service-learning activities, as fulfilling the research, teaching, and service missions of most colleges and universities, especially for faculty seeking promotion and tenure.

Conclusion

The full potential for service-learning is not yet clear, but the rewards for both graduate students and faculty seem promising. Typically considered as a vehicle for undergraduate education, service-learning enhanced graduate instruction can provide new Ph.D.s with important career and professional development opportunities that can help prepare them for increasing employment opportunities outside of academe

References

Bringle, R.G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1995). A service-learning curriculum for faculty. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2, 112-122.

Cherwitz, R. A. (2000). UT's rhetorical approach to professional development: Educating citizen-scholars for the twenty-first century. Presentation at the Conference of Southern Graduate Schools in Nashville, Tennessee, February, 19, 2000.

Danforth, W. H, Chairperson. (1998). The Association of American Universities' Committee on Graduate Education: Report and Recommendations. Retrieved March 28, 2004 from http://www.aau.edu/reports/GradEdRpt.html.

Furco, A. (1996). Service-learning: A balanced approach to experiential education. In Corporation for National Service (Ed.), Expanding boundaries: Serving and learning (pp. 2-6). Colombia, MD: Cooperative Education Association.

Golde, C.M. & Dore, T.M. (2001). At cross purposes: What the experiences of doctoral students reveal about doctoral education. Retrieved March 28, 2004 from http://www.phd-survey.org. Philadelphia, PA: A report prepared for The Pew Charitable Trusts.

Kannankutty, N., & Kang, K. (2001). Division of Science Resources Studies, Issue Brief: Employment Preferences and Outcomes of Recent Science and Engineering Doctorate Holders in the Labor Market. Retrieved March 28, 2004 from http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/issuebrf/nsf02304/sib02304.htm

Kogan, M.J. (2000). Future psychologists embrace novel careers. American Psychological Association's Monitor on Psychology, 31(9). Retrieved March 28, 2004 from http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct00/future.html.

Murray, B. (2000). The growth of the new Ph.D. American Psychological Association's Monitor on Psychology, 31 (10). Retrieved March 28, 2004 from http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct02/squeeze.html.

Murray, B. (2002). The service squeeze. American Psychological Association's Monitor on Psychology, 33(9). Retrieved March 28, 2004 from http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov00/phd.html.

Nyquist, J. T. & Woodford, B. J. (2000). Re-envisioning the Ph.D.: What Concerns do we have? Retrieved March 28, 2004 from http://www.grad.washington.edu/envision/project_resources/concerns.html. Philadelphia, PA: A report prepared for The Pew Charitable Trusts.

Regets, M. (1997). Division of Science Resources Studies, Issue Brief: What's Happening in the Labor Market for Recent Science and Engineering Ph.D. Recipients? Retrieved March 28, 2004 from http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/issuebrf/sib97321.htm.

Kecia M. Thomas, University of Georgia

Tracy Lambert, University of Georgia

Thomas, Ph.D., is Associate Professor and Coordinator of Graduate Education in the Department of Psychology. Lambert, M.S., is a doctoral candidate in Applied Psychology.