- Email: [email protected]
Is Transformation of PhD Nursing Education Needed?
EDITORIAL
IS TRANSFORMATION OF PHD NURSING EDUCATION NEEDED?
PATRICIA GONCE MORTON, PHD, RN, ACNP-BC, FAAN Editor
I
n September, I had the privilege of attending the PhD Summit in Chicago sponsored by the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN). The conference gave attendees an opportunity to reflect on how the changing nature of research will impact the preparation of nurse scientists. Dr. Lawrence Tabak, Principal Deputy Director, National Institutes of Health (NIH) discussed the current state of health science and the direction it needs to take for future sustainability. He summarized the four NIH priorities that include the human brain, reproducibility of findings, workforce issues, and big data sets. Next, a panel of expert nurse scientists that included Drs. Kerr, Grey, and Henley challenged the audience with their views of what the future of research education in nursing should look like. They addressed the questions: What does the transformation of health sciences mean for nursing and for the education of the next generation of nurse scientists? What knowledge and skills will faculty need to develop doctor of philosophy (PhD) programs of the future? On the second day of the conference, Dr. Dunbar discussed AACN's 2010 PhD Position Statement and charged the audience with deter-
mining what updates are needed so that the document remains relevant for the future. Working in small groups both days of the conference, the participants were then charged with the development of innovative strategies for PhD education in the future so that we can prepare nurse scientists capable of addressing complex health care questions. We also reviewed the position statement to determine its continued relevance and offered suggestions for revision. I participated in the small group discussions, and both days, my groups consisted of faculty from schools with PhD programs and faculty from schools that are developing PhD programs. As a small group participant, I was fascinated and frankly very worried by the divergence of opinions regarding research-focused doctoral education in nursing. In our small group discussions, the greatest controversy surrounded the question: Should colleges of nursing have a PhD program if they do not have faculty conducting research? Some took the stance that it was not possible to prepare the next generation of nurse scientists if students were being taught by faculty members who have no program of research. Others argued that there was no PhD program in their geographic region, so their school believed they were providing a great service to nurses by offering a PhD program even though the faculty was not engaged in
8755-7223/13/$ - see front matter Journal of Professional Nursing, Vol 29, No. 6 (November/December), 2013: pp 319–320 © 2013 Published by Elsevier Inc.
319 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2013.10.006
320
research. These participants further defended their position by saying that their faculty was producing scholarship through their publications and presentations and that their faculty members were experts in their field. These participants believed that expertise in a field and the scholarship of publication and presentations, although not ideal, was adequate to justify a researchfocused doctoral program. In addition, they argued that students were connected with researchers from outside the college of nursing to guide their dissertation research and that approach was an adequate substitute for the lack of faculty expertise. So, I was left to wonder. Can our profession sustain the existing 131 research-focused doctoral programs in our country? Should more programs be under development? How many of those 131 programs are characterized by an inadequate number of research-focused faculty members that is essential for the education of the next generation of nurse scientists? How can our profession ensure the
EDITORIAL
quality of the programs that claim to prepare nurse scientists? Some at the conference suggested that PhD programs should be subject to accreditation. Others argued that accreditation was not the appropriate solution, but some accreditation-like mechanism should be in place to ensure program quality. Another participant proposed that a program like the Magnet designation could be developed to designate excellent researchfocused doctoral programs. Some pointed out that quality indicators exist for research-focused doctoral education in nursing and that self-evaluation and voluntary peer review of programs were adequate. What are your thoughts about the future of researchfocused doctoral education in nursing? Are we preparing the nurse scientist with the skills and expertise needed to solve the complex health care problems for the future? How are we ensuring the quality of our programs? I hope you will attend the AACN doctoral conference in January of 2014 and help us wrestle with these difficult questions.
IS TRANSFORMATION OF PHD NURSING EDUCATION NEEDED?
PATRICIA GONCE MORTON, PHD, RN, ACNP-BC, FAAN Editor
I
n September, I had the privilege of attending the PhD Summit in Chicago sponsored by the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN). The conference gave attendees an opportunity to reflect on how the changing nature of research will impact the preparation of nurse scientists. Dr. Lawrence Tabak, Principal Deputy Director, National Institutes of Health (NIH) discussed the current state of health science and the direction it needs to take for future sustainability. He summarized the four NIH priorities that include the human brain, reproducibility of findings, workforce issues, and big data sets. Next, a panel of expert nurse scientists that included Drs. Kerr, Grey, and Henley challenged the audience with their views of what the future of research education in nursing should look like. They addressed the questions: What does the transformation of health sciences mean for nursing and for the education of the next generation of nurse scientists? What knowledge and skills will faculty need to develop doctor of philosophy (PhD) programs of the future? On the second day of the conference, Dr. Dunbar discussed AACN's 2010 PhD Position Statement and charged the audience with deter-
mining what updates are needed so that the document remains relevant for the future. Working in small groups both days of the conference, the participants were then charged with the development of innovative strategies for PhD education in the future so that we can prepare nurse scientists capable of addressing complex health care questions. We also reviewed the position statement to determine its continued relevance and offered suggestions for revision. I participated in the small group discussions, and both days, my groups consisted of faculty from schools with PhD programs and faculty from schools that are developing PhD programs. As a small group participant, I was fascinated and frankly very worried by the divergence of opinions regarding research-focused doctoral education in nursing. In our small group discussions, the greatest controversy surrounded the question: Should colleges of nursing have a PhD program if they do not have faculty conducting research? Some took the stance that it was not possible to prepare the next generation of nurse scientists if students were being taught by faculty members who have no program of research. Others argued that there was no PhD program in their geographic region, so their school believed they were providing a great service to nurses by offering a PhD program even though the faculty was not engaged in
8755-7223/13/$ - see front matter Journal of Professional Nursing, Vol 29, No. 6 (November/December), 2013: pp 319–320 © 2013 Published by Elsevier Inc.
319 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2013.10.006
320
research. These participants further defended their position by saying that their faculty was producing scholarship through their publications and presentations and that their faculty members were experts in their field. These participants believed that expertise in a field and the scholarship of publication and presentations, although not ideal, was adequate to justify a researchfocused doctoral program. In addition, they argued that students were connected with researchers from outside the college of nursing to guide their dissertation research and that approach was an adequate substitute for the lack of faculty expertise. So, I was left to wonder. Can our profession sustain the existing 131 research-focused doctoral programs in our country? Should more programs be under development? How many of those 131 programs are characterized by an inadequate number of research-focused faculty members that is essential for the education of the next generation of nurse scientists? How can our profession ensure the
EDITORIAL
quality of the programs that claim to prepare nurse scientists? Some at the conference suggested that PhD programs should be subject to accreditation. Others argued that accreditation was not the appropriate solution, but some accreditation-like mechanism should be in place to ensure program quality. Another participant proposed that a program like the Magnet designation could be developed to designate excellent researchfocused doctoral programs. Some pointed out that quality indicators exist for research-focused doctoral education in nursing and that self-evaluation and voluntary peer review of programs were adequate. What are your thoughts about the future of researchfocused doctoral education in nursing? Are we preparing the nurse scientist with the skills and expertise needed to solve the complex health care problems for the future? How are we ensuring the quality of our programs? I hope you will attend the AACN doctoral conference in January of 2014 and help us wrestle with these difficult questions.