Doctoral Programs in Physical Education: A Census with Particular Reference to the Status of Specializations

(1)

g

QUEST, 1987, 39, 153-162 d

Doctoral Programs

in Physical Education:

A

Census

with Particular Reference

to the Status of Specializations

Harry A. King and Susan J. Bandy

This study examined the nature and extent of specialized study offered in doctoral programs in U.S. universities during 1985. On the basis of infor- mation supplied from representatives of 61 programs, curricula were posi- tioned on a continuum from highly specialized to generalist. Most doctoral programs were classified either as highly or moderately specialized (42% and 43 % , respectively), while 15 % were classified as generalist programs. Overall, 26 areas of doctoral study were identified and collapsed into five "generic" categories. One of the categories, exercise science, accounted for more than half of the doctoral programs offered during the reporting year, education-related specializations accounted for approximately 30%, and so- ciocultural studies approximately 12 %. Among highly specialized programs, the majority of students graduated with specializations in exercise physiology (35%). The implications of these data for the future of the field are dis- cussed.

The feature that most markedly separates the focus of present-day programs of doctoral study from those of yesteryear is their emphasis on the development of specialized areas of study within physical education. It is crucial to examine this concept of areas of specialization in some detail if present-day programs are to be properly accounted for and understood.

At the time of Hewitt's survey and analyses in the early 1940s (Hewitt, 1942, 1946), courses of study for the doctoral degree in physical education uni- formly used a generalist approach requiring a broad scope of coursework cover- different aspects of the field. The purposes of doctoral curricula were still ed on principles expounded by Hetherington in 1925-the need to train lead- rs to oversee programs of physical education teaching and physical recreation (Kroll, 1982, pp. 67-70).

About the Authors: Harry A. King is with the Department of Physical Education

(2)

154 KING AND BANDY

Today in many programs the e~llphasis has changed greatly. In these programs the major emphasis is to provide an in-depth education in one of the particular, specialized subareas of physical education that have grown up "to prepare specialists in a single area instead of the total physical educator" (Kroll, 1982, p. 82). The purpose of such specialized programs is lo train scholar- researchers, capable of undemking scholarly study to uncover new knowledge and establish a theoretical base for the field. The particular, specialized subareas (e.g., biomechanics, psychology of sport, or teacher education) are most com- monly referred to as the areas of specialization.

Today, then, the term '"area of specidization"-its other equivalents, area of emphasis or area of concentration, are common terms denoting the same concept-has taken on a more specialized meaning: It is used to convey that within a course of doctoral study a high proportion of coursework (defined here to in- clude formal classes, individualized directed study, and dissertation work) is aimed toward the study of some narrow field of specialty. This coursework may be taken either within or outside the physical education department itself. For example, if we are referring to Exercise Physiology as the area of spialization, only courses directly impinging on it would be considered to be in the narrow field-specialties within physiology, medical courses, biochemistry courses, biophysics courses, and the like. Courses in such subjects as psychology of sport, biomechanics, or sociology of sport would not be considered to be in the narrow field.

Of course, a continuum exists between programs emphasizing preparation of the generalist at one end and those emphasizing preparation of the scholar- researcher at the other. Though today almost all the doctoral programs claim to have programs based at least to some degree on areas of specialization (thus im- plying aims towards the scholar-researcher modd), the extent to which they do so varies fairly widely. Many programs do not make it at all clear where their purposes lie along this continuum; their intent is further obscured by the lack of precision in the term "areas of specialization." In order to make a measurable accounting of what is available in present-day programs, we devised a quantitative measure of a program's place along the continuum from generalist to scholar- researcher.

The sixty institutions listed by Baker (1979), and several others also thought

to offer the doctoral degree in physical education, were contacted for departmen- tally written materials and university catalogs describing their program. Some of the institutions rated by Baker no longer had programs. All materials sent from each institution found to have a program were checked by each of us to extract the information desired. Particular care was taken in accounting the appoption- ment of different types of courses in "typical programs" in the materials provided. A summary report of information for each institution was then sent to each graduate advisor, who was asked to verify its accuracy and to provide information on matters that sould not be found (or were ambiguous) in the materials in- spected. If anything was still unclear, we telephoned the graduate advisors to get the quespionable information clarified. After repeated contacts, we obtained a 100% return rate.

(3)

Among various questions, graduate advisors were asked (or asked to con- firm) (a) what areas of specialization, if any, were currently in the department's doctoral program; (b) what proportion of a student's coursework, on average, would be devoted to narrow coursework experiences as opposed to broad ones (defined below); (c) how many students were presently enrolled in their department's doctoral program; (d) how many students had graduated from their program in the past 3 years; and (e) what was the apportionment of graduating students among the different areas of specialization that the program offers.

Quantij?cation of Program Intent

A quasi-quantitative scheme was devised to judge the degree to which each program followed the specialization model. The most salient criterion was judged to be the distribution of coursework (defined broadly, as noted above) that gained credit. The total credit units required to receive the degree were seen to come from four separate sources:

1. Credits for dissertation and other research experiences (e.g., directed special studies);

2. Credits for research tool courses-often in the form of research methods classes, statistics classes, language classes;

3. Credits for classes within the narrow specialization, as defined above; 4. Credits for classes of a more general nature than those of the specialized

area of study.

Programs to prepare the scholar-researcher will likely have a much higher proportion of credits from the first three sources, whereas programs preparing the generalist will likely emphasize acquiring credits from the fourth source. Three indexes were defined to quantify this expectation:

and

where N = number of credits in the narrow specialty, D = number of credits rtation or research experiences, R = number of credits for research tool and T = total number of credits required (or N

+

D

+

R

+

number s in courses of more general nature).

ve amounts of the different types of coursework (thus the sizes of PC3) were used to define programs as being of one

type

or another. which this decision of classification was guided, and the names h of the five defined program specialization types, are shown in

(4)

Table 1

Criteria Used to Assist In Judging the Specialization Type of a Doctoral Program in Physical Education

Index*

Specialization type PC1 PC2 PC3

1. General program

-

2. Low concentration >20 >35 >55

3. Some concentration >30 >45 X 5

4. Fairly high concentration >40 >55 >75

5. High concentration >50 X 5 >85

PC1 = Ohof coursework in the narrow specialty; PC2 = 010 of coursework in narrow specialty

and dissertationlresearch study; PC3 = Ohof coursework in narrow specialty and dissertationlresearch and research tool courses.

*Numbers show minimum percentages of coursework of the type defined by the Index in order to consider a program as being of a particular specialization type.

Limitations

This study was delimited to consider only programs in physical education andlor exercise science/kinesiology

.

Within an institution's specialized programs, of course, programs often varied, some specialized areas being wider in course requirements and some being narrower. Sometimes a program offered two degrees, one with a more specialized subprogram than the other. In such cases, an average across the different specializations was used to characterize the specialization type of the overall program.

It should be noted carefully that the descriptions given here of a program's specialization type are not, and were not intended to be, measures of quality (as has been attempted by other investigators). It is a relative measure of the extent to which a program seeks to stress a broad doctoral experience or a narrow, specialized one. Data reported in this study were current as of early to mid-1985.

Results

Results of the survey are summarized as follows:

1. A total of 61 doctoral programs sponsored by 57 different institutions

were identified. Of these 57 institutions, 54 have 1 program, 2 have 2 programs, and 1 has 3 programs. Thirty three states have doctoral programs. That is, 16 states have 1 program, 11 states have 2, 3 states have 3, 1 state has 4, and 2 states have 5. One program was under a moratorium while administrative changes were being made, and another was being phased out.

2. Ofthe 60 programs presently admitting students, 7 have no standardized examination requirement, 41 require the Graduate Record Examination (GRE),

(5)

7 require the Miller Analogy Test (MA), and 5 require either or both the GRE

and MA. The minimum score required on these tests is often flexible; on the

GRE,

where specified, it varies between 800 and 1100, with 1000 being the mo- dal value.

3. A total of 1,888 students were estimated to be presently pursuing doctoral work, an average of 3 1 students per program although most programs have relatively small numbers of students (Table 2). Recently programs have been graduating approximately 256 students per year.

4. The 61 degree programs carry nine different labels (Table 3). Twenty programs award two degrees, usually the PhD and the EidD.

5. The number of semester units required for the degree ranged from 54 to 96 after the bachelor's degree, and from 30 to 75 after the master's degree. (Quarter units were converted to semester units where necessary to make a common basis of comparison.) Two programs do not organize their degree program in terms of a required number of units (Table 4).

6. Twenty nine of the programs (48%) were in departments under the aegis of a school or college of education, 17 (28%) in departments under the aegis of a school or college of physical education.

7. Although the term area of specialization is the most common designa- tion of a subfield (21 institutions), 15 use "concentration," 10 refer to "area of emphasis," 3 to "specialty," 6 use other terms, and 6 use none.

8. There appeared to be limited relationship between a department's characterization of its program (specialization, concentration, etc.) and its classification according to the procedures used by the investigators. Some 42% of the programs were classified as highly specialized (Type 4 or 5), 43 % were classified as programs of a more middle-of-the-road nature (Type 2 or 3), and 15 %

were judged to be generalist programs.

Table 2

Frequency Distribution of Numbers of Students Enrolled in Doctoral Programs in Physical Education

No. of programs 17 10 8 3 61

.

,

(6)

KING AND BANDY

Table 3

Names of Degrees Awarded in 61 Doctoral Programs in Physical Education

Name of degree No. of degrees

PhD PhD (Education) PhD (Other) EdD EdD (Education) DEd DPE D A PED Table 4

Frequency Distribution of Credit Units Required* for the Doctoral Degree in Physical Education in Different Programs

After BA After MA

NO, of-units No. of institutions No. of units No. of institutions

Unspecified 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 Unspecified 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79

'In 7 programs, the credit units are recommended rather than required.

9. Twenty-six generic areas of specialization were reported being offered by the 61 programs. These can be classified in five general categories: Exercise Science, Sociocultural, Education, Sport, and Dance. Names that best seem to represent the 26 generic areas within the five broad groupings are shown in Table

5. Of course, individual institutions often use particular names (e.g., Kinemechan- ics) to signify what is shown in Table 5 as a generic specialization name (e.g.,

(7)

Table 5

Frequency of Occurrence of Different Specialization Areas Arranged by Specialization Type of the Institution's Program

Specialization type

Area of specialization 1 2 3 4 5 Total

Exercise Science Anatomy Biochemistry of exercise Biomechanics Exercise physiology Growthlmotor development Motor learninglcontrol Neuromotor aspects Sport psychology Therapeuticslsports medicine Exercise science (composite)

Sociocultural History Philosophy of P.E.lsport Psychosocial Sociology of sport Sociocultural (composite) Education Adapted P.E. Administration of P.E. Comparative P.E. Curriculum Elementary P.E. Measuremenffevaluation Teacher educationlbehavior Education (composite) sport Sport administ.1management Sport (composite) Arts Dance

(8)

Biomechanics). Table 5 also summarizes the frequencies of occurrence of the different generic specialized areas within each program specialization type.

10. On the basis of estimates of graduate advisors from the 25 Type 4 and Type 5 programs, it was estirnated'that 107 students graduate annually from these highly specialized programs (Table 6). By far the most common is exercise physiology (35 %). This specialization, and those of motor learninglcontrol and biomechanics, account for 52% of all degrees gained from highly specialized programs.

11. A total of 658 faculty were teaching or advising in the 60 doctoral programs in operation (one program was under a moratorium, as noted). Over two thirds of the programs had a doctoral faculty of between 5 and 14 profes- sors. Some 38 % of the programs employed none of their own graduates, but over- all, 112 faculty (17%) were teaching in the institution at which they earned the terminal degree.

Table 6

Estimated Numbers Graduating Annually in Different Specialized Areas From the 25 Most Specialized (Types 4 and 5) Doctoral Programs

Name of specialized area No. 010

Exercise physiology Motor learninglcontrol Biomechanics Administration of P.E. Sport psychology Curriculum Exercise science Adapted P.E. Sport administ.lmanagement Teacher educationlbehavior Neuromotor aspects Therapeuticslsports medicine Growthlmotor development Psychosocial Sociocultural (composite) History Elementary education Measurement/evaluation Biochemistry of exercise Sociology of sport Dance Philosophy of P.E.lsport Comparative P.E. Anatomy

(9)

Discussion

The profession of physical education has a long history of changes of mood and intention concerning the way new entrants to the profession are trained. Kroll (1982) has made a superb exposition of this history and its lessons for modern day appraisals of graduate study. In order to make such appraisals, however, we need to make available on a continuing basis a precise accounting of present trends. Nowhere is this more important than in the scrutiny of doctoral training programs, for it is in them that future directions are necessarily determined.

The census made here should provide a useful basis for an examination of future planning of doctoral programs. It is shown that a wide variety of models of training are being used. There seems to be a clear preponderance of intention to conduct programs following the model of specialization within narrow subareas rather than the model of preparing a generalist; however, there are wide diver- gences in how this kind of model is being applied. It is unfortunate that an ambiguous and inconsistent terminology has been adopted that obscures precise program intentions concerning the idea of specialization. It would be most help- ful if departments would, in the materials they routinely supply to advertise their programs, clarify them relative to their intended depth of specialization. This would benefit many people, particularly students applying to enter the programs and eager to know their makeup, and also colleagues at other universities who need to appraise a graduate's work in order to consider adding that person to the faculty. It is not our intention to argue for the generalist or the more specialized scholar-researcher model (or some compromise mixture) as most appropriate for doctoral study. Some have argued strongly for the latter (Alley, 1984; Thomas, 1985), but others have cautioned against its overinfluence (Hoffman, 1985a, 1985b; Miller, 1984). Preference for one model or the other should be planned at least partially in response to pragmatic considerations of the employment mar- ket (what kinds of skills are needed? what kind of vision do we want novice lead- ers to have?) as well as on heady goals about what standards define a graduate education.

It is clear that certain areas of specialized interest have, in the climate of laissez-faire planning, become highly popular. Over half (1401265) of the specialized programs are in the general area of Exercise Science, and less than a third (831265) are in Education (Table 5). Over one third of the specialization offerings are in the three subareas of Exercise Physiology, Biomechanics, and Motor Learning. Some subareas for which there would seem to be a special need, such as TherapeuticslSports Medicine or GrowthIMotor Development, seem to be seriously underrepresented. Whether the present kind of balance represents the needs and intentions of the profession as a whole is a matter we might ponder. The number of persons graduating with doctoral degrees in the different subareas of specialization parallels, to some extent, the number of programs offer- ing the specializations. It is somewhat startling to find that of the 107 persons estimated to graduate annually from the highly specialized (Types 4 and 5) programs, 37 are exercise physiologists (Table 5). Such a high proportion of graduates from one (or a few areas) is sure to have a very marked effect on future directions of the profession. Yet again, we must ask whether these are directions we would choose in foresight if broad professional planning rather than adapta-

(10)

tion to local opportunity was the determinant of how we structured doctoral programs.

In summary, we reiterate that a close examination of the details provided should enable us to establish better doctoral programs in our field, and programs adapted to what careful thought and analyses determine our future direction should

be. We hope that careful examination will be continued.

References

ALLEY, L.E. (1984). The specialization movement after 20 years. In C.M. Tipton & J.G. Hay (Eds.), Specialization in physical education: The Alley legacy (pp. 113-119). University of Iowa: Department of Physical Education.

BAKER, J.A.W. (1979). Determination of common characteristics of outstanding doctoral programs in physical education in the United States (Doctoral dissertation, Universi- ty of Iowa, 1979).

M ,

40, 6186A.

HEWITT, J.E. (1942). The graduate major in physical education. Research Quarterly, 13, 252-256.

HEWTI'T, J.E. (1946). The doctoral program in physical education. Research Quarterly,

17, 82-95.

HOFFMAN, S.J. (1985a). Hoffman replies. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 56(9), 23.

HOFFMAN, S.J. (1985b). Specialization

+

fragmentation = extermination: A formula for the demise of graduate education. Jouml ofPhysica1 Education, Recreation, and Dance, 56(6), 19-22.

KROLL, W.P. (1982). Graduate study and research in physical education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

MILLER, D.M. (1984). Philosophy: Whose business? Quest, 36, 26-36.

THOMAS, J.R. (1985). Physical education and paranoia-Synonyms. Journal of Physi- cal Education, Recreation, and Dance, 56(9), 20-22.