Does Pre-Doctoral Research Education Prepare Graduates for PhD Education? A National Survey

Research is a key part of all social work curricula.  Cournoyer & Adamek lament that EPAS standards don’t emphasize preparation for doctoral education. Yet we know little about how well prepared entering doctoral students are in research.  Fraser, Jensen & Lewis found the BSW to PhD “continuum” involves extensive repetition.  Carillo et al. argue for more single system designs.  Abell and Wolf argue for more intervention research.  Traube et al. argue for more evidence-based practice [EBP] content.  Specific recommendations, but no overall empirical appraisal, are found in the literature.

We examined a wide range of research content and skills.  We envisioned research broadly, i.e., including epistemologies, writing, APA formatting, etc.  We sought to 1) describe how well prepared the “typical” entering PhD student is, compared to 2) what research educators rate as “expected” preparation for entering students.  We then 3) compared these ratings by program characteristics.  Results profile the effective yield of MSW-level research education.   

Methods:  Using a national survey of PhD program directors and research instructors, respondents rated 1) the level of research knowledge found in typical students starting doctoral studies and 2) the levels they'd reasonably expect to seein entering students.  The survey design followed Dillman's Tailored Design Method with follow-ups.  Of 71 surveys, 41 were returned completed, a 58% response rate.

Survey items intentionally were wide-ranging.  Research concepts, group and single system designs, quantitative and qualitative methods, EBP, science, ethics, critical thinking, diversity and writing were addressed.  Descriptive statistics were used to identify the highest rated areas.  Ratings of typical entering students were contrasted with ratings of educator expectations.  Next, using ANOVA, comparisons were made by program characteristics across 16 research content areas.   

Results:   Descriptively, the five highest rated means for "typical" entering students were written communication, oral communication, ethics, literature review skills and human diversity.  The five lowest were meta-analysis, understanding common factors, effect size and qualitative research.  Using inferential statistics, across 16 topic areas, no differences were found by 1) PhD program enrollment or 2) faculty size. There were statistically significant differences by 3) Research Intensive vs other; 4) public vs. private auspices; 5) use of paid RAs and 6) MSW program enrollment on some content areas.   Qualitative comments indicated that some doctoral faculty expect little research knowledge and skill from entering students.  Instead, they seek core skills assuming research knowledge will be limited and/or quickly forgotten.     

Implications:  Faculty ratings question the effectiveness of pre-doctoral research education.  Knowledge of research design, methods and components of single system and EBP were rated only as fair.  Yet, in many respects the differences between the “typical” research profile of entering PhD students and what faculty “expected” of them was small.  Areas related to writing and APA style are 'research' content thought they are clearly curriculum-wide in impact!  There were some differences in emphases by program types. What educators expect of pre-doctoral research preparation, and what areas warrant greatest attention deserves empirically based review.  This study provides data to drive the discussion.  Pre-doctoral research education deserves strengthening.