Sac State University Policy Manual

Doctoral Programs

Policy Administrator: Vice President for Academic Affairs
Authority:
Effective Date: February 20, 1989
Updated:
Index Cross-References:
Policy File Number: UMD03300.htm

DOCTORAL PROGRAMS CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING REQUESTS TO NEGOTIATE

Permission to negotiate formally the establishing of a joint doctoral program with another institution in no way implies approval of the program which eventually emerges. For that reason, such requests need not be elaborate documents, and the criteria for evaluating them are relatively simple.

l. NEED: There should exist an evident population to be served. There should exist an evident social need and career opportunities for the graduates of such a program. There should exist a need for the program in the region and/or state. Mere duplication is not a deciding factor; the deciding factor is needed.

2. CSUS CAPABILITY: The CSUS department should possess prima facia a faculty with extensive experience with master's programming and master's theses, highly articulated, cohesive, and relevant research experience and interests, and demonstrated potential for obtaining needed funding for research. The department should append degree programs offered and of theses completed and number of degrees awarded.

3. COLLABORATING INSTITUTION CAPABILITY: If the collaborating institution already has a doctoral program in the field, information on degree programs offered and number of doctoral degrees awarded must be provided. If the institution does not have such a program, evidence of the general capability of the faculty along the lines indicated in #2 will need to be provided. In both cases, a rationale for the selection of the collaborating institution shall be provided.

In all cases it is presumed that these criteria will be applied in a spirit of collegiality.

Permission to negotiate formally the establishment of a joint doctoral program is the first formal step of a process to develop a program. It is not approval of a program; consideration of approval comes as a later and final campus step, with the results of the negotiation at hand.

REVIEW CRITERIA AND GUIDELINES FOR JOINT DOCTORAL PROGRAMS

l. Rationale for Doctoral Program:

a. The proposal should specify how the program grows out of the intellectual life of the department and what its purpose is. Conversely, it will need to show how the proposed program furthers the department's goals and objectives. It will also need to show how the proposed program will be integrated with the programming already in place.

b. The proposal should show how the program will interact with and affect undergraduate and other graduate programming at CSUS.

c. The proposal should indicate how the CSUS program compares with regionally and nationally recognized programs in the field. The proposal should indicate what features, specialties, or lines of inquiry it may possess which are unique to the discipline.

d. The proposal should indicate how the program responds to the needs of the region and/or state, needs which are not currently being met. The proposal should also describe what new constituencies the program is expected to attract, as well as the competition it will encounter.

2. Rationale for Collaboration:

a. The proposal will need to indicate why the department has chosen to collaborate with its counterpart at the particular external institution. It will need to delineate the interests and purposes to be served by the program at each institution.

b. The intellectual connection with the other department will need to be developed: how do the areas of research, methodologies, and intellectual concerns of the two faculties complement and interface with each other?

3. Faculty:

a. The proposal will need to provide a list of all the faculty who teach in the program indicating their research, publications, grants, etc. Full CVs of all these faculty will be appended to the proposal. The review will be both individual and collective.

b. The proposal will list all participating faculty from the collaborating institution in the same way and with similar materials. These faculty will be similarly reviewed to ensure that they meet CSUS standards. No faculty member from either institution will subsequently teach in the program without being first reviewed and approved. 1

4. Students:

a. The proposal should review the character and standards of the department's current graduate students. It will analyze the department's productivity in terms of its students during the past five years, answering questions like: How many theses were produced during this period? What is their significance? How many resulted in publications? A list of their titles should be appended to the proposal.

b. The proposal should also analyze the department's productivity in terms of graduate student placement: Where have the last 10-20 graduates found employment or continued their studies? Would any of these be likely to return for doctoral study at CSUS?

c. The proposal should indicate the numbers of full and part-time students the department anticipates attracting to its program. What proportion of these students does the department anticipate supporting? 2

d. The proposal should discuss the employment prospects of graduates from the new program and what placement mechanisms it intends to establish.

5. External Funding:

a. The proposal will need to provide a table which lists and describes what grants, contracts, fellowships, etc., the faculty have (a) applied for and (b) won during the past five years.

b. The proposal will describe what funding objectives are now on line.

c. The proposal will indicate the number of graduate students the department anticipates funding through these awards and the level of their support.

6. Internal Funding and Resources:

a. The proposal will describe existing facilities at CSUS indicating whether they will be adequate to the proposed program. Part of the proposal will be a report on the result of consultation with the appropriate library faculty regarding library resource requirements needed to support the proposed program. What further expenditure on library, technical facilities, equipment, space, etc., is anticipated within the next five years to ensure that the program meets quality standards? Will these costs be one-time or recurring? 3 (see section 8)

b. The proposal will need to indicate what additional faculty appointments are envisioned over the next five years to ensure the program meets quality standards. (see section 8)

c. The proposal shall include a five year budget projection indicating enrollments, direct and indirect costs, and budget requests to the state.

7. Admission Standards

The proposal will compare its admissions standards with those of the strongest programs nationally. How does the department justify its standards?

8. The Program:

The outline of the program should include the following features:

a. joint governing mechanisms
b. core courses, options, special areas of emphasis
c. course descriptions, syllabi, examinations, etc.
d. qualifying examinations: samples, when administered, how evaluated
e. special requirements: foreign language, etc.
f. residence requirements at each institution
9. External Evaluation:

The proposal should have appended to it at least three letters from qualified individuals (chair of department at another institution, figure in the field, member of an accrediting board, and the like), discussing both the proposal and its potential constituencies.

10. Appendices:

a. faculty curriculum vitae
b. theses titles from the department for the past five years
c. syllabi or proposed syllabi, sample qualifying
examinations, sample doctoral thesis topics, etc.
d. accrediting body criteria
e. external comment
f. proposed catalog copy


Endnotes

l. Faculty teaching in doctoral programs and serving on doctoral committees will inherently be participating in educational experiences of a high level and quality. It is therefore essential these faculty meet standards appropriate to such an undertaking. These standards include:

a. Have specific expertise (theoretical, methodological, or topical) in the area(s) of the doctoral program

b. Exhibit a strong, continuous professional record of published research through monographs refereed journal articles, chapters in edited volumes, grants, and presentations at national and international conferences of relevant professional associations

c. Possess a doctoral degree in an appropriate discipline

d. Be tenured or have tenure-track appointment

e. Have demonstrated ability in directing others in research activities (e.g., master's theses)

The above is not intended to preclude a department from establishing additional criteria.

2. In many fields, doctoral programs have been regarded as needing a nucleus of full-time, funded students in order to be viable. But this has not always been the case. The proposal will describe and justify the student profile it anticipates.

3. A proposal must identify existing research library standards for its specific subject collections. Attention in shaping the budget request will need to be given to the availability of core journals, access tools, research publications, collection development costs, cataloging support.