Quality Monitoring and Quality Criteria For Doctoral Programs
Quality Monitoring and Quality Criteria For Doctoral Programs, Resources Quality Monitoring and as Global Perspective, Resources And Infrastructure Of The University And School Of Nursing Resources. Quality Monitoring And Evaluation Of Doctoral Programs.
Resources And Infrastructure Of The University And School Of Nursing Resources
Institutions should have sufficient human, financial, and institutional resources available for research to achieve the goals of the schools of nursing for doctoral education and faculty research. Because doctoral students work relatively independently, it is essential that they have added academic support and physical resources to exploit.
University libraries with information technology experts/advisers are essential for carrying out adequate literature searches and for quiet spaces in which to study. Online facilities should be available students wherever they conduct their work. In Brazil, one of the accreditation and re-accreditation criteria of CAPES/MEC is the requirement concerning university infrastructure/resources.
The library must have bibliographic collections comprising books, national and international journals in areas that are relevant to the programmer’s research lines, as well as volumes of dissertations and theses and specific materials such as films and CD-Roms . The libraries must also offer online catalogues, Internet access, CD-Rom databases, and multimedia and study facilities.
As a result of technological innovation, various information networks are available for doctoral students, including CAPES’ own website (http://www.capes.gov.br), where a variety of journals can be found indexed in the Journal Citation Report ( JRC) database and Online Scientific Electronic Library (SCIELO; http://www.scielo.org).
This is also where students have free access to full texts, in addition to library periodicals to facilitate research development. Other sectors, such as audiovisual and scientific documentation facilities, memory centers in Brazil, and others, also provide support to doctoral students (Rodrigues et al, 2002).
Provision of postgraduate facilities is increasingly expected by students, many of whom make heavy personal sacrifices to enroll . Universities should provide space and resources for students; Many well-established postgraduate schools have private study areas and social areas with dedicated staff who are responsive and on hand to provide advice to students.
Infrastructure
Administrative support should always be clearly identified with every school/faculty. Availability of personnel is essential for doctoral students who have queries regarding procedures, payment of fees, registration, or submission. Information handbooks are essential as well; hard copies and web-based versions should be issued annually.
Administrators who are knowledgeable and helpful can make a real difference to the success of a program. They can produce promotional materials, arrange open days, create a good network among students and provide all necessary web-based information that is readily available.
They also serve the doctoral committees, keep supervisors aware of their duties, and maintain all the necessary databases. In addition, personal tutors may also help in the (hopefully exceptional) occasions when the supervisory relationship is problematic, by representing students’ problems to staff panels.
An essential feature of doctoral support is appeals procedures. In the unfortunate eventuality of failure and dispute over examiners’ judgment, students need to be clear that there is a higher or alternative route by which they can be re-examined. This should not be cumbersome, too time-consuming, or embarrassing for examiners.
Audit of the frequency, outcome and cost of appeals should be fully documented and maintained by university administrators. Research-intensive institutions usually have an office of research administration that keeps a record of peer-reviewed external funding, postdoctoral programs, and internal research funds, as well as providing grant management services.
In the USA, 56 schools (86.2%) had designated research support offices (Yoon et al, 2002). In addition, many nursing schools of exceptional quality have centers of research excellence and endowed professorships.
Quality Monitoring And Evaluation Of Doctoral Programs
Quality monitoring
In Brazil, the existence of a teaching and research base is the key component in the evaluation of the quality of doctoral education (Guimaraes, 1996). Research groups in doctoral programs are registered in the Directory of Doctoral Programs Research Groups of the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPQ)/Ministry of Science and Technology (http://www.cnpq.br) available to the scientific community.
The participation of doctoral students in these groups has favored greater development in research and, as a result, its dissemination in scientific meetings and periodicals. In addition to research results, the theoretical experience of the doctoral students has shown notable differences in the work market, particularly for academics.
According to the evaluation by undergraduates, graduates and supervisors, faculty qualification has allowed doctoral students to have closer contact with academic reality. The tripod of education, science and technology constitutes the basis for the progress of graduate programs in Brazil. The success of doctoral work across a faculty may be evaluated by the number of successful graduates from each cohort who complete their doctorate within the recommended timescale.
However, their experience and relationship with academic staff/faculty is equally important, given that one reason for training doctoral students is to produce the next generation of academic scholars.
Important research is undertaken as part of doctoral programs, and staff should invest energy in helping students. Staff too, gain from the process as their curriculum vitae cite the number of successful candidates they have supervised and joint papers they have published.
Faculty should have earned a doctoral degree with a program of research that is externally funded and have ongoing peer-reviewed publications of research, theory, ethical or philosophical essays. They should also be involved in scientific review activities of government funding agencies such as the National Institutes of
Health study sections in the USA, and other grant application review groups and/or editorial review activities. They should have national or international recognition as scholars in an identified area and demonstrate evidence of influence on science policy throughout the field. Faculty should devote a significant proportion of time to dissertation advice; Generally, each faculty member should serve as the major advisor/chair for no more than three to five students during the dissertation phase.
In nursing, students often choose to work with a specific member of staff /faculty because of their expertise, personality and previous success rate with doctoral candidates. Increasing specialization of postgraduate tutors/faculty members may mean that six to eight students, whether full or part time, can be appropriately supervised by one faculty during the program of study.
Established doctoral schools tend to be epitomized by clearly documented regulations, procedures for audit and evaluation, dedicated faculty, and a cohort of students who have regular seminars, good representation, and easy access to staff.
In time, academics have learned that they too flourish through creating a group of well-prepared doctoral students who, after graduation, may rapidly overtake them in research ideas and productivity. Increasingly, the quality of doctoral education is judged by the achievements of alumni in society and the number of postdoctoral fellows in the nursing unit (college or department).
Their contributions as leaders or leading members of policy-making bodies, corporate and academic institutions, clinical practice settings and social welfare agencies, both nationally and internationally, are credible proxy measures of quality outcomes of doctoral education.
The degree to which the institution carries the training program for postdoctoral fellows is another indicator of the maturity of the faculty research activities; Hence, it is an excellent measure of the quality outcome of the doctoral education.
Quality monitoring of doctoral programs varies widely among countries, ranging from a highly centralized government approach to a decentralized one in which individual universities bear the major responsibility of self-monitoring with periodic regional accreditation systems. Brazil belongs to the first category and the USA to the latter.
Quality Evaluation
In Brazil, the Evaluation Board of the CAPES/MEC evaluates national graduate programs (new programs and those in progress) and coordinates the work performed by the consultants who analyze the merit of applications for grants abroad, support linked to CAPES’ sponsoring programs and dissemination of the statistical data concerning graduate programs (MEC/CAPES, 2002).
The evaluation is done using a scale with scores from 1 to 7, the latter being the maximum score for doctoral programs. For instance, scores 6 and 7 are only awarded to programs offering excellent doctorates according to international standards for the area.
Doctoral programs present annual follow-up reports that include continuing evaluation; However, the final evaluation is conducted triennially (eg 2001,2002 and 2003 at once). This process has been structured with the participation of the scientific community and has been conducted by academic peers.
Nursing has been placed in the larger health science areas, whose criteria are homogenous and respect the particularities of that field of knowledge. This inclusion enables greater visibility of nursing, as it is given the same scientific status as other knowledge areas.
Brazil has a national evaluation system for graduate programs. Article I of the Resolution by the Federal Education Council (CNE) expresses that, stricto sensu, graduate programs , including doctorates, are subject to requirements such as program authorization, accreditation and accreditation renewal. Authorization applies only to having the project approved by CNE based on evaluations conducted by CAPES.
Therefore, all doctoral programs must begin their activities only after their approval by CAPES/MEC. With the new evaluation model for Brazilian graduate programs, there has been a progressive consolidation of programs. However, many items must still be discussed and implemented.
The nursing evaluation committee (1998–2000) mentions that interlocution among area representatives and committees has been intensified; However, it reports that, many times, changing the evaluation criteria in a short period of time damages the area (Erdmann et al, 2002).
By taking into account that international scientific production is a strong quality indicator of doctoral programs, nursing is re- discussing its inclusion in international events, projects, and exchange programs, in addition to ‘sandwich doctorates’ (training in international universities during the doctoral program ) and at the postdoctorate level for greater scientific productivity, which allows for greater international visibility of the Brazilian scientific production.
In the USA, the evaluation plan included in the Position Statement of the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (2001) serves as a useful guide. In many ways, AACN has been the watchdog for the quality of doctoral programs, but it does not have the formal authority to judge the quality of programs.
AACN holds an annual conference on doctoral education in which most doctoral program directors and deans of the colleges of nursing participate and discuss various aspects of doctoral education. It has published a set of indicators for quality doctoral education since 1986; the latest revision was published in November 2001, Indicators of Quality in Research-Focused Doctoral Programs in Nursing.
This document addresses overall indicators of quality for each domain of concern (criteria), but standards per se are not included. AACN noted that the ideal evaluation plan is:systematic, ongoing, comprehensive, and focuses on the university’s and program’s specific mission and goals; includes both process and outcome data related to these indicators of quality in research-focused doctoral programs; adheres to established ethical and process standards for formal program evaluation, involves students and graduates in evaluation activities; includes data from a variety of internal and external constituents; provides for comparison of program processes and outcomes to the standards of its parent graduate school/university and selected peer groups within nursing; includes ongoing feedback to program faculty, administrators and external constituents to promote program improvement; and provides comprehensive data to determine patterns and trends and recommend future directions at regular intervals; and is supported with adequate human, financial, and institutional resources. (AACN, 2001, p. 6)
These principles are made by the Quality Assurance Agency of the UK. In addition, examples of a similar program evaluation for a professional doctorate have been provided by Ingleton et al (2001) and Germain et al (1994). In the USA, the universities and their respective boards of trustees, and the state boards of higher education approve the doctoral programs.
Once approved, the universities receive accreditation by the regional accreditation authorities of higher education on a regular basis. Quality monitoring of doctoral programs in nursing in the USA is largely self-directed by the colleges of nursing with oversight of the graduate school, if the university has one.
National accreditation by either the National League for Nursing or the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education is for the baccalaureate and Master’s programs, and doctoral programs are not official components of these specialized accreditation systems.
Feedback from students is now documented annually in most schools/faculties and shared at the university/college level. A recent internal report from the colleges of the University of London found valuable feedback from their students regarding their experience.
Seventy-five per cent had a warm relationship with their supervisors; 70% wanted academic freedom, and for most this exists; and all students wanted more administrative structure in their relationship with their supervisors. Staff may not wholly accept sanctions for poor supervision, but students should be able to change supervisors in any event. Staff can be re-trained or return to co-supervision if they constantly receive poor feedback.
Most universities aim to increase the population of doctoral students to as much as 30% of the total student population, recognizing their worth for future research and academic life. In the UK, this is happening rapidly, and the associated emphasis on quality assurance has influenced further investment and energy by administrative and academic staff.
Aiming at a substantial research-active community in the UK, nursing is only realistic if doctoral preparation is excellent. Needless to say, having a critical mass of active researchers in the schools of nursing will ensure the quality of the doctoral program, thus contributing to excellence in evaluation.
Read More:
Read Also:
1 thought on “Quality Monitoring and Quality Criteria For Doctoral Programs: Resources Quality Monitoring and as Global Perspective”