Search results

What contributes to US professional doctoral student success in the online space is the subject of this chapter. The online doctoral student occupies two underserved categories of higher education students: doctoral students and online students, both of which have historically low graduation rates (Bawa, 2016; Stone, 2017). A number of US online doctoral programs have significantly higher graduation rates than normal, demonstrating that it is possible to create highly successful online doctoral programs. In this chapter, we apply the R. E. Clark and Estes (2008) conceptual framework of human performance to understanding the factors contributing to doctoral student success in online programs. We look at three stakeholder groups, faculty, staff, and students, and review the factors and solutions that could allow each group to contribute to doctoral student success. This review of the literature is informed by examples drawn from two online professional doctoral programs for which the authors either designed and taught courses, and chaired dissertations, or were enrolled in as a student.

We examine and compare current practices in teaching preparation in U.S. accounting, finance, management, and economics doctoral programs.

We conduct an anonymous online survey of the pedagogical training practices experienced by Ph.D. students in accounting, finance, management, and economics programs in the United States.

Results indicate that accounting, finance, and management perform similarly with respect to providing doctoral students with first-hand teaching experience and requiring for-credit courses in teacher training. Accounting and management appear to utilize doctoral students as teaching assistants less than the other disciplines. A lower proportion of accounting doctoral students indicate that their program requires proof of English proficiency prior to teaching, and pedagogical mentoring is rare across disciplines. Accounting and management doctoral students feel more prepared to teach undergraduate courses compared to finance and economics students. However, all disciplines indicate a relative lack of perceived preparation to teach graduate courses.

This study provides empirical evidence of the current practices in pedagogical training of accounting, finance, management, and economics doctoral students.

The results highlight several areas where accounting could possibly improve with regard to pedagogical training in doctoral programs. In particular we suggest (1) changes in the teaching evaluation process, (2) development of teaching mentorships, (3) implementing a teaching portfolio requirement, and (4) incorporation of additional methods of assisting non-native English speakers for teaching duties.

The study fills a gap in the literature regarding the pedagogical training in accounting doctoral programs.

This chapter provides an overview of the challenges, opportunities, and successes facing contemporary doctoral programs. The authors outline the changing dynamics of doctoral studies, including the various degrees that are associated with doctoral programs and the changing demographics of doctoral students. Drawing from aspects of situated learning theory, the authors position the chapters in this volume in relation to learning communities and communities of practice in the ways that reimagine and re-invigorate traditional models of doctoral education.

To provide potential accounting doctoral students with relevant information on various doctoral program characteristics.

Current doctoral students in accounting, representing 60 different programs in the United States, completed a survey concerning various doctoral program characteristics at their respective doctoral institutions. We examine the survey responses along with program rankings and job placement data.

Doctoral programs in accounting differ on many dimensions such as the structure of the courses and deliverables required, the student cohort profile, student research support, and teaching expectations. In addition, top tier programs differ on a variety of these characteristics from lower tiered programs.

A single student at each doctoral program completed the survey. Doctoral students’ experiences may differ between each other and programs may change. However, we asked students to respond to the survey questions as a “typical student” and as a whole, doctoral programs appear to have remained similar over the past half of century.

The intended audience for this chapter is potential accounting doctoral students. Providing them with an awareness of the different program characteristics should prove to be useful in finding a program with the appropriate fit.

The present study develops, conceptualizes and validates a scale based on the transactional stress theory to assess the perceived challenge and hindrance demands of doctoral programs that impact doctoral students’ psychological well-being.

This research employs an exploratory-mixed methodology comprising five phases with a sequential qualitative-quantitative approach. A rigorous scale development process is adopted to validate the instrument’s psychometric properties. The study respondents are Indian full-time doctoral students in the management discipline.

The findings show that the construct of perceived challenge and hindrance demands is a first-order four-factor and a second-order two-factor model. The study has validated the scale to capture the challenge and hindrance demands of doctoral research programs with the following sub-constructs: doctoral program resource inadequacies, doctoral program ambiguity, doctoral program workload and complexity.

The recommended challenge demands and hindrance demands (CHD) scale provides a benchmark for doctoral institutes and program supervisors in focussing on research students’ perception of their doctoral education demands to reduce the strain and increase their well-being during their doctoral program journey.

Hindrance demands adversely influence the motivation resources needed for doctoral education; challenge demands positively impact the research students’ internal resources.

This paper aims to expand the theory of situated learning with the application of technology and provides a technology-based situated learning model with suggestions for doctoral program design.

A literature review of the relevant topics was conducted. Themes emerged by the systematic review of the relevant studies and theoretical framework.

Studies reveal that part-time doctoral students often feel unsupported, dissatisfied and disconnected with their program. Many of these issues may be mitigated by faculty and peer mentoring, and various forms of asynchronous communication through a situated learning framework with interactive communication technologies.

Research of doctoral education should pay more attention to part-time doctoral students and investigate the quality of their programs given their individual needs, and how their progression and completion can be achieved through the innovative approaches proposed in this study.

Program designers may use a technology-based situated learning approach in program design to fulfill part-time doctoral students’ needs toward enhancing mentorship, students’ academic self-efficacy and career preparation. Further support is offered through a virtual community of practice.

This paper draws researchers’ attention to program design and part-time doctoral students’ retention and completion of a doctoral program.

This study provides an innovative synergetic model that helps administrators and program designers to design doctoral programs and motivates researchers to conduct research regarding part-time doctoral students.

The purpose of this paper is to develop and validate the scholar–practitioner research development scale (SPRDS), an instrument to assess research competencies of students enrolled in professional doctoral programs.

In this instrument development study, an expert panel established the content valid. A factor analysis and internal consistency analysis was used to examine the validity and reliability of the instrument.

An expert panel deemed the scale as content valid. Results of a factor analysis and internal consistency analysis demonstrated that the scale is both valid and reliable, consisting of five subscales.

The current study provides evidence that the scholar–SPRDS is a valid and reliable instrument to assess research characteristics professional doctorate students’ research competencies, which can be used to extend research on the development of doctoral students in professional doctorate programs.

The instrument can be a useful tool to assess and inform the faculty and administrators about their students, the curriculum and program resources.

Equipped with an instrument such as this, faculty and administrators are better armed to assess students’ growth thought out the program, and, in turn, design and deliver research curriculum and mentorship that assists students in developing as scholar–practitioners, which may ultimately lead to success in the program and beyond, impacting the society.

There is not a formal or standardized scale to evaluate if professional doctoral students are progressing and developing as practitioner-scholars through their professional doctoral programs. There is not a standardized or universally adopted assessment to determine if professional doctoral programs are meeting the goals and objectives they have set forth. Thus, the aim of this study was to develop and to determine the validity and reliability of a scale to measure a scholar–practitioner’s research competencies in a professional doctoral program.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate mentors' and mentees' perspectives of the mentor role within an education doctoral mentoring program at a mid-sized public institution.

Data from individual interviews with mentors and mentees were collected as part of a larger case study of a doctoral mentoring program. Mentees were doctor of education (EdD) students in their first and second years of the program. Mentors were identified as individuals who graduated from or are further along in the doctoral program. Five (N = 5) mentees and seven (N = 7) mentors participated in interviews, which were then transcribed and coded to identify emergent themes, along with transcripts of presentations given by the mentors.

Four themes emerged within the data: differentiating support roles, mentoring as a way to identify gaps in doctoral student needs, mentoring as support for doctoral student success and ways to provide suggestions for mentoring program improvement. Results indicated that mentors and mentees viewed the mentor role as being unique from the roles of faculty advisor and dissertation chair. Mentors and mentees alike responded positively to virtual mentoring.

Participation by mentors and mentees was limited to first- and second-year doctoral students; thus, dissertation-stage students' perceptions of mentoring could not be determined. Implications include the value of mentoring in filling the gaps of support for doctoral students and the capability of mentoring programs to be adapted to unexpected circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

This study targets scholar-practitioner students in an EdD program, who are often overlooked by mentoring literature, and distinguishes research between faculty mentoring and mentoring performed by other students/recent graduates. Additionally, the pandemic gave the authors an opportunity to explore adapting mentoring to virtual formats.

Accounting doctoral programs have been ranked in the past based on publishing productivity and graduate placement. This chapter provides descriptions of accounting doctoral programs on a wider range of characteristics. These results may be particularly useful to doctoral applicants as well as to doctoral program directors, accreditation bodies, and search committees looking to differentiate or benchmark programs. They also provide insight into the current shortage of accounting doctoral graduates and future areas of research.

Doctoral programs can be differentiated on more variables than just research productivity and initial placement. Doctoral programs vary widely with respect to the following characteristics: the rate at which doctorates are conferred on women and minorities, the placement of graduates according to Carnegie classification, AACSB accreditation, the highest degree awarded by employing institution (bachelors, masters, doctorate), the extent to which graduates leave the USA, work in industry, are appointed to administrative positions, and hold endowed positions.