The Elderhostel K. Patricia Cross Doctoral Research Grant

2008 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Doctoral Research ◽  
Research Grant

Exploring Barriers to Doctoral Education in Communication Sciences and Disorders: Insights From Practicing Professionals

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. 1552-1563
Author(s):  
Denise A. Tucker ◽  
Mary V. Compton ◽  
Sarah J. Allen ◽  
Robert Mayo ◽  
Celia Hooper ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Doctoral Degree ◽  
Full Time ◽  
Doctoral Study ◽  
Doctoral Research ◽  
Part Time ◽  
Advance Research ◽  
Doctor Of Philosophy

Purpose The intended purpose of this research note is to share the findings of a needs assessment online survey of speech and hearing professionals practicing in North Carolina to explore their interest in pursuing a research-focused PhD in Communication Sciences and Disorders (CSD) and to document their perceptions of barriers to pursing a PhD in CSD. In view of the well-documented shortage of doctor of philosophy (PhD) faculty to attract, retain, and mentor doctoral students to advance research and to prepare future speech and hearing professionals, CSD faculty must assess the needs, perceptions, and barriers prospective students encounter when considering pursuing a doctoral research degree in CSD. Method The article describes the results of a survey of 242 speech and hearing professionals to investigate their interest in obtaining an academic research-focused PhD in CSD and to solicit their perceived barriers to pursuing a research doctoral degree in CSD. Results Two thirds of the respondents (63.6%) reported that they had considered pursuing a PhD in CSD. Desire for knowledge, desire to teach, and work advancement were the top reasons given for pursuing a PhD in CSD. Eighty-two percent of respondents had no interest in traditional full-time study. Forty-two percent of respondents indicated that they would be interested in part-time and distance doctoral study. The barriers of time, distance, and money emerged as those most frequently identified barriers by respondents. Conclusion The implications inform higher education faculty on how they can best address the needs of an untapped pool of prospective doctoral students in CSD.

Social attribution, correspondence bias, and the emergence of stereotypes *This research has been completed in partial requirement of a doctoral dissertation of the first author under the supervision of the second author. We wish to thank the members of the social psychology division at the University of Louvain at Louvain-la-Neuve, especially Steve Rocher and Emanuele Castano for their insightful comments on preliminary drafts. This paper has been enriched by feedbacks received from Russell Spears, Roos Vonk, Margit Oswald, and anonymous reviewers. Many thanks to Philippe Kemp and Christophe Remy for their assistance in running the study, and to the students who volunteered to appear on the video. This research has been presented at the Social Cognition workshop of the Kurt Lewin Institute, workshop held at the Free University of Amsterdam in April 1998: we want to thank participants of this workshop and especially Gün Semin for their useful feedback. Completion of this study benefited from a research grant from the Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research to the first author.

1999 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 233-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anouk Rogier ◽  
Vincent Yzerbyt
Keyword(s):  
Correspondence Bias ◽  
Social Attribution ◽  
The Social ◽  
Dispositional Attributions ◽  
Kurt Lewin ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Group Target ◽  
The University ◽  
Institute Workshop ◽  
Research Grant

Yzerbyt, Rogier and Fiske (1998) argued that perceivers confronted with a group high in entitativity (i.e., a group perceived as an entity, a tight-knit group) more readily call upon an underlying essence to explain people's behavior than perceivers confronted with an aggregate. Their study showed that group entitativity promoted dispositional attributions for the behavior of group members. Moreover, stereotypes emerged when people faced entitative groups. In this study, we replicate and extend these results by providing further evidence that the process of social attribution is responsible for the emergence of stereotypes. We use the attitude attribution paradigm ( Jones & Harris, 1967 ) and show that the correspondence bias is stronger for an entitative group target than for an aggregate. Besides, several dependent measures indicate that the target's group membership stands as a plausible causal factor to account for members' behavior, a process we call Social Attribution. Implications for current theories of stereotyping are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document