The Reputations of Doctoral Training Programs in Special Education

Abstract

To assess the reputations of doctoral training programs in special education, questionnaires were distributed to the heads and junior and senior faculty members from the 81 programs nationally that grant the doctoral degree in special education. Respondents were asked to list the five programs with the most distinguished faculties and, separately, the five programs that graduate the best-prepared students. Altogether, 140 responses were received (59% return), nominating 50 different programs on at least one criterion. Responses to the two questions were highly related, and both were related to the number of graduates by program who returned questionnaires. Ranks given by program heads and senior faculties were more closely related to one another than either was to the ranks given by junior faculty.The reputations of colleges of education have been studied recently with both subjective and objective techniques. Subjective techniques include surveys of the opinions of administrators (Blau & Margulies, 1975) and faculty (Ladd & Lipset cited in Scully, 1979; The Cartter Report, 1977). Opinionnaires like these suffer many shortcomings, most notably that results represent no more than the subjective opinions of the respondents. Reputations are slow to die, and responses may fail to reflect current status. To overcome these shortcomings, researchers have conducted more objective analyses, including publication counts (Eash, 1983) and citation analyses (Kroc, 1984).The purpose of conducting reputational studies is to provide information about the quality of programs to consumers-prospective students and employees alike. Eash (1983) argued that the results of reputational studies permit colleges to &dquo;attract graduate students, expand employment opportunities for graduates, shape recruitment of faculty, and influence the flow of resources from governmental and private funding agencies&dquo; (pp. 5-6). To this list, Kroc (1984) added the importance of providing information to university administrators about the relative strengths of their units. In an era of budget tightening, this final purpose assumes greater importance, and nowhere is the struggle for survival more serious than in leadership training in special education. As we know all too well, the present administration has attempted to cut leadership preparation funding in each of the last two fiscal years.However, the rankings of colleges of education reported in this literature are of

Institutional and Faculty Influences on the Reputation of Doctorate-Granting Programs in Special Education

“…It should be noted that the programs reported by Sindelar and Schloss (1986) and the top 10 determined by this study have about a 90% agreement. An exact correlation is not possible to determine because Sindelar and Schloss' rankings were reported separately for program heads, senior faculty, and junior faculty, whereas this study produced a single ranking.…”

“…However, despite a growing literature about the empirical correlates of such rankings, there have been few studies utilizing multivariate techniques and even fewer attempts to build a theoretical model of academic quality. Several studies of quality in special education have been conducted by Sindelar and Schloss (Schloss 8c Sindelar, 1986;, 1987, who concluded that "a more complete picture of the strength of doctoral training programs in Special Education awaits the collection and reporting of more, and more objective, data" (Sindelar 8c Schloss, 1986, p. 59).…”

A Quantitative Analysis of Doctoral Dissertation Research in Special Education

“…Our findings also closely matched professional opinions about the reputations of doctoral programs. Of the 13 universities cited by Sindelar and Schloss (1986) as ranking highest on the reputations of either faculty distinction or student preparedness, 9 produced 20 or more doctoral graduates.…”

Academic Affiliations of Social Work Journal Article Authors

“…of assessment are reputational studies (e.g., Sindelar & Schloss, 1986; Margulies & Blau, 1973). productivity studies (e.g., Howard, 1983;Kirk, 1985;Jayarame, 1979;Kroll, 1976;Niemi, 1988).…”

“…or a combination of the two (e.g., Howard, Cole, & Maxwell, 1987). Reputational studies, such as that by Sindelar and Schloss (1986), generally involve a survey of some type, often requesting Deans or department chairpersons to complete a questionnaire, and/or ask other faculty members to complete the same questionnaire, which asks for appraisals of the "best" programs of schools in a given field or discipline.…”