Despite the growing demand for professionals with doctoral degrees in special education, doctoral programs are not producing enough graduates to fulfill this need. Although large attrition rates exist in doctoral study across discipline, very little is known about the attrition or satisfaction of doctoral students in special education. This article reports the results of a nationwide satisfaction survey of 619 students from 78 doctoral programs. Findings indicate that students appear generally satisfied with their programs. However, areas of concern include program structure, overall workload, and quality of preparation in research. Implications for doctoral programs are presented.
Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509-536). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2.
Deutsch Smith, D., Pion, G.M., Chowdhuri Tyler, N., & Gilmore, R. (2003). Doctoral programs in special education: The nation's supplier. Teacher Education and Special Education, 26(3), 172-181.
3.
Deutsch Smith, D., Pion, G.M., Chowdhuri Tyler, N., Sindelar, P.T., & Rosenberg, M.S. (2001). The study of special education leadership personnel with particular attention to the professoriate (No. H920T970006-00A) . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
4.
Gardner, S.K. (2004). Doctoral education in the United States: A synthesis of the literature. Unpublished manuscript, Pullman, WA.
5.
Golde, C.M. (1998). Beginning graduate school: Explaining first-year doctoral attrition. New Directions for Higher Education, 101, 55-64.
6.
Heward, W.L. (1995). Introduction to the topical issue: Training special education faculty for the 21st century. Teacher Education and Special Education, 18, 143-146.
7.
Higher Education Consortium for Special Education (HECSE). (2004). HECSE membership list. Available from http://hecse.uky.edu/hecse/memlist.html
8.
Jablonski, A.M. (2001). Doctoral study as professional development of educators in the United States. European Journal of Teacher Education, 24(2), 215-221.
9.
Janesick, V.J. (2000). The choreography of qualitative research design: Minuets, improvisations, and crystallization. In Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 379-400). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
Lovitts, B.E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure from doctoral study. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
11.
McCormick, A.C. (2000). The Carnegie Classification of institutions of higher education, 2000 edition. Menlo Park, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
12.
Nettles, M.T., & Millett, C.M. (2006). Three magic letters: Getting to Ph.D. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
13.
Personnel Center. (2005). Personnel preparation programs. Retrieved June 8, 2005, from http://www.personnelcenter.org/get.cfm
14.
Shulman, L.S., Golde, C.M., Bueschel, A.C., & Garabedian, K.J. (2006). Reclaiming education's doctorates: A critique and a proposal. Educational Researcher , 35(3), 25-32.
15.
U.S. Department of Education. (2005a). Personnel preparation to improve the education of students with disabilities: Preparation of leadership personnel. Washington, DC: Author.
16.
U.S. Department of Education. (2005b). Preparation of leadership personnel: Grant guidelines. Retrieved December 15, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov.programs/osepprep/2005-325dk.doc
17.
Vehovar, V., Batagelj, Z., Manfreda, K.L., & Zaletel, M. (2002). Nonresponse in Web surveys. In R. J. A. Little (Ed.), Survey nonresponse . New York: John Wiley.
18.
West, J. (2001). The shortage of special education faculty: Why it is happening, why it matters, and what we can do about it. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
