Faculty As Doctoral Students: Policies of Doctoral Programs in Nursing

the practice arena could serve as in- centives for nurses to apply research findings and participate in research ef- forts as well as to seek advanced theo- retical preparation. When a network support system is set in action, collab oration can promote a viable system of cross fertilization.

In addition to the findings of the dis- parate nature of what i s performed in reality and what is perceived by practioners as priorities, there is the problem of a lack of dissemination and utility of research being performed. Too few nurse researchers even publish their findings in the jour- nals widely read by practicing nurses.

When the problems selected reflect the concerns of nurses, when they are well-conducted studies and are p u b lished in broadly read sources, their solutions will shape gerontologic nurs-

Research Priorities

ing in a way that is recognizable by patients and physicians as well as nurses (Fuller, 1978.)

REFERENCES

Basson, P. H. The gerontological nursing literature.

Berstrom, N., Clinton, I., 81 Hansen, B. W. Issues in the cunducf of clinical nursing research. In j. A. William- son (Ed.), Current perspectim in nursing education. St. Louis: The C. V. Mosby Co., 1978.

Brimmer, P. F. Past present and future in gerontological nursing research. Joumd of Gerontological Nurs- ing, 1979 5,2734.

Brown, M. 1. Social theory in geriatric nursing research. Nursing Research, 1968 17,213-217.

Committee of the Division on Gerontological Nursing Practice. A challenge for change: The role of geron- tobgica! nudng, Kansas C i , Mo: American NUS- es Association, 1982.

Dye, C. The aging society and nursing research. In The aging society: A challenge for nursing education. Atlanta, Cia: Southern Regional Educational Board, 1983.

Fuller, E. 0. Selecting a clinical nursing problem for re search. Image, 1982,14,6061.

Nursing m r c h . 1967 16.267-272.

Gunter, L. M., & Miller, J. C. Toward a nursing geron- tology. Nursing Research, 1977,26,208221.

Kayser-Jones, J. Gerontological nursing research revisited. Journal of Gemntologiul Nursing, 1981a 7,217-223.

Kawr-Jones, J. Old, alone and neglected. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1981 b.

Lindeman, C. Priorities in clinical research. Nursing Outlook, 1975,23,693-698.

Nichols, B. Nursing rho- and nursing within the bng-term cam setting. Unpublished Testimony be- fore the H w s e Selea Committee on Aging, 1980.

Oberst, M. Priorities in cancer nursing research. Can- cer Nursing, 1978,1,281-290.

Schlotfeldt, R. M. Planning for progress. Nursing Out- look, 1973,21,766-769.

Stone, S., 81 Berger, M. Nursing service and education: An analysis of interorganizational relationships. In J. A. Williamson (Ed.), Current perspeclives in nursing education. St. Louis: The C. V. Mosby Co., 1978.

Wells, T. J. PrOMems in geriatric nursing care. New York Churchill, Livingstone, 1980.

Acknowledgments: This study was sup- ported by grants from the Beta Tau Chapter of Sigma Theta Tau and DHHS Division of Nursing, Nurse Practitioner Section DHHA, BHM, HRA, 1 D24, NU 00157

Faculty As Doctoral Students: Policies of Doctoral Programs in Nursing

Kathleen C. Brown, R.N., Ph.D. Carol Dashiff, R.N., Ph.D.

Beverly M. Henry, R.N., MA, Ph.D. Phyllis N. Horns, R.N. D.S.N.

Kathleen C. Brown, R.N., Ph.D., is Coordinator and Associate Professor, Community Health Nursing, in the graduate program at the University of Alabama School of Nursing and Assistant Professor, School of Public Health, University of Alabama in Birmingham. Carol Dashih: R. N., Ph.D., is Associate Professor at the School of Nursing, University of Alabama in Birmingham and a graduate faculty member in psychiatric-mental health nursing. Beverly M. Henry, R. N., M.S., Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Nursing at The University of Florida. Phyllis N. Horns, R.N. D.S.N., is Professor and Assistant Dean, Baccalaureate Program at the University of Alabama School of Nursing in Birmingham.

Abstract The purpose of this study was to describe

and analyze existent policies of doctoral programs in nursing with respect to the dual assumption of the student and faculty member roles. A 7-item instrument was developed to ascertain policies used by doctoral programs in nursing. All of the 22 programs surveyed responded. The majority of schools had doctoral students in nursing who were also on the faculty in their own program. Equal proportions of the sample (40.9%) either prohibited enrollment of faculty members in the doctoral programs at their schools or permitted enrollment with restrictions in at least one of the following areas: number of dual faculty/ students, rank, credit hours, and limitations to undergraduate teaching only. Each of the four schools having no regulation on the dual role were in private universities and had less than 9% of their faculty enrolled in their doctoral programs. Stringent policies were more likely to be found in

public institutions and to have emanated from university regulations. The results in- dicated that the issue of dual role had achieved policy agenda status in schools of nursing with doctoral programs and that the concern is of such magnitude that it has resulted in policy formulation university-wide. A variety of enrollment policies appear to have been accepted and valued.

cademic nativity among faculty A and student bodies has been as- serted to be detrimental to the quality of education institutions. Beginning with Eliot’s (1908) statement that inbreeding presents ”grave dangers for a university,” academic nativity has been a source of debate in higher education generally and in nursing particularly. The basis of this debate rests in the need to maximize diversity among students and faculty and to minimize

Page 27 Winter, lQ85, Volume XVII, No. 1 Image: The Journal of Nursing Scholarship

Faculty as Doctoral Students

conflict of interest and role incompatibility. One mechanism by which institutions attempt to increase diversity and reduce conflict is to generate policies regulating participation of the faculty in the role of graduate student seeking a degree within the system. The purpose of this investigation was to describe and analyze existent policies of doctoral programs in nursing relevant to the dual role of student and faculty member.

Anderson (1 979) cites scientific, professional, and political factors as the three major reasons for studying policy. From a scientific perspective, policies are studied to gain knowledge about policy origins, the processes by which they developed, and their con- sequences. By contrast, the professional vantage point asserts that policy analysis is undertaken to apply scientific knowledge to the solution of prac- tical problems. On the other hand, the political study of policy attempts to ensure that decision-making parties adopt appropriate policies.

The present writers are a group of doctoral faculty members concerned with a rapidly expanding number of doctoral programs and with a relative scarcity of doctorally prepared teachers; this study was thus undertaken for professional and political reasons. Specifically, although the origin and nature of policies governing faculty/ student enrollment were deemed important, our immediate interest was in obtaining information that would be helpful to schoois of nursing for making policy decisions that would be in the best interests of nursing faculty members and doctoral students alike.

Bac kgrou n d Higher Education Enrollment Policies

The United States takes pride in the great diversity and lack of conformity of its colleges and universities. Since diversity of colleges depends substan- tially on diversity of faculty and student bodies, colleges historically have had considerable autonomy in estab- lishing faculty policies and enrollment criteria. Many undergraduate colleges stress diversity within the faculty and student body as an important aspect of the education climate. Concern for selection of unlike groups of students and faculty, however, is greatest in

Page 28

graduate and professional schools, es- pecially at the doctoral level (Man- ning, 1977).

Institution censure of faculty matric- ulation in academic programs within an institution is common in higher education and represents a powerful technique for the reduction of inbreeding. The philosophic foundation for this censure is that inherent conflict exists between the role of student and that of faculty member, and for an individual to occupy both roles simultaneously is counter both to student learning and to faculty productivity. Consequently, many education institutions establish policies to regulate the dual role of studentlfaculty member.

These policies vary in content, rang- ing from total preclusion of degree- seeking study within the system to limitations on the manner of pursuing advanced degrees, for example, re- striction of rank while pursuing the advanced degree, control of matricu- lation within the department where faculty rank is held, and regulation of the extent of involvement in the graduate student role. Although the intent of these policies is not usually record- ed in faculty handbooks or university catalogues, the policies do exist and are undoubtedly aimed, in whole or part, at preventing conflict of interests and curtailing the undue influence of the individual's status within the system, a factor that could affect the objectivity of the evaluation process and the ease of obtaining academic credentials. . .

Despite regulatory policies, however, there is no doubt that a significant proportion of faculty and student inbreeding has been consistently present at all levels of education and in all types of education institutions (Wells, Hassler, & Sellings, 1979). McGee (1960) reported that one third of the faculty at the University of Texas ob tained degrees from that institution. Crane (1970) found faculty inbreeding from 8% to 24% across a nationwide spectrum. Moreover, Crane conclud- ed that the oldest and most prestigious institutions had the highest proportions of inbred faculty.

Nursing Doctoral Education Policies Since 1960 there has been a signifi-

cant increase in the number of doctor-

Image: The Journal of Nursing Scholarship

al programs in nursing. The first phase of doctoral education, beginning in 1926 and ending in 1959, is character- ized by Murphy (1981) as an era of functional preparation for roles as teachers or administrators. Doctoral. degree recipients came primarily from the field of education. Consequently the opportunity for assumption of dual faculqdstudent roles was limited.

With the proliferation of doctoral programs, doctoral education in nursing has become more accessible to nursing faculty members, particularly those who teach in schools that offer a doctoral program in nursing. Obvious- ly this increased accessibility enhances the likelihood that these faculty members will enroll in doctoral programs where they are employed to teach. Thus accessibility-coupled with Leininger's (1976) identification of a priority need in the profession for more highly qualified faculty to teach in masters and doctoral programs- may have contributed to faculty members' assuming the dual role. While role theory suggests an inherent conflict in these situations, there has been no systematic investigation of the fre- quency of the dual role in doctoral programs in nursing. Neither has there been an investigation of the policies that regulate entry into the dual facul- tylstudent role.

Policy and Role Concepts Clearly, when studying institution

policies, some criterion of relevance on which to focus one's work is nec- essary. Both the policy-making and role perspectives proved to be helpful in the present study. Policies reflect legitimate expectations in a particular social context. Generally speaking, policy, as defined by Hummel and lassak (1980), is "designed to satisfy human needs or wants" (p. 102). Ac- cording to Anderson (1979), the purpose of policy is to aid members of institutions in their dealing with problems, conflicts, and other matters of concern. Policies reflect what are considered legitimate expectations in a particular social context.

An expected role is defined by Bid- dle (1979) as "the set of expectations for the behavior (in context) of identi- fied object persons that are consensu-

Winter, 1985, Volume XVII, No. 1


ally held by one or more subject persons” (p. 307). The role of teacher is generally accompanied by the expec- tation that the role occupant will have superior relevant expertise. This con- trasts with the reciprocal role of student, wherein the occupant of the student role is generally expected to be concerned primarily with the pursuit of learning. These roles are interde- pendent and are defined in relation to one another, differentiated in that they cannot be simultaneously held. Like- wise these roles are proximal to one another. According to Burr (1977) the characteristics of expected roles are important to examine because the degree of incompatibility of various roles within an individual or between individuals produces the subjective expe- rience of role strain.

In social systems in which individuals assume multiple roles, role conflict is inevitable both within an individual and between individuals. Burr (1977) defines role conflict as incompatible expectations to which an individual i s exposed, whether in awareness or not. The case of the faculty member who is also a student in the system is an example of contingent role conflict. Contingent role conflict, according to Gullahorn and Gullahorn (19631, results from incumbency in two statuses, both of which have legitimate sets of expectations that cannot be filled at the same time. The teacher of this faculty memberlstudent is also in a situation of contingent role conflict because the roles of colleague and teacher cannot be occupied simultaneously. Furthermore, as Bates (1962) suggests, conflict involving proximal or structurally close roles and active roles as opposed to latent roles will result in greater disruption of the system. Bates adds that moral conflict, as opposed to behavioral conflict, is be- lieved to be associated with greater system disruption. When one norm elicits a behavior defined by another norm as being taboo, a moral conflict exists. For example, a faculty member feels free to discuss teaching situations and students with other faculty col- leagues, but moral conflict may arise when a usual faculty confidant is also a student and, even more particularly, a student of this faculty member.


Getzels and Cuba (1 954) believe that in situations of role conflict there seems to be a major role to which an individual must commit to determine what action to take at certain choice points. The role selected as the major role will probably be the one most compatible with personal needs, and other competing roles will be incorpo- rated within the major role.

In laissez-faire or permissively struc- tured situations this criterion may be sufficient for making a choice; however, in most situations the legitimacy of expectations as manifested in policy statements is a significant additional criterion to be considered. Policy that defines the more legitimate expectations in a particular situation results in the individual’s being less affected by conflict or threats of sanction inherent in the personal choice of a less legitimate role. Getzels and Cuba therefore suggest that role effectiveness during situations of role conflict is based on two primary considerations: (a) the match between personality needs and role expectations, and (b) the selection of the major role that is the most legitimate one.

Policy choices, according to Ander- son (19791, are a result of numerous contingencies-social pressures, economic conditions, the pressure of time, and the values or beliefs of the decision makers involved. Beliefs about what is proper or morally cor- rect; beliefs guided by the desire of institutions to survive and thrive; and personal values that promote one’s own financial well-being, reputation, and position-all serve as policy criteria that in turn have the potential for re- ducing conflict and threats for role incumbents.

Methodology To ascertain the policies used by

doctoral programs in nursing with regard to the dual doctoral studentlfaculty member role, a one-page, seven- item instrument was developed and mailed in the fall of 1982 to the 1980- 1981 list of doctoral programs in nursing compiled by the National League for Nursing (1980). Solicited were an- swers to two major classes of questions-policy contexts and actual stu- dendfaculty policies. Also obtained

Image: The Journal of Nursing Schotarship

was contextual information about the age of the doctoral program, number of faculty employed, number of full- time and part-time doctoral students, and number of doctoral students in nursing who were also faculty members.

Data on type of university and age of university were collected from school of nursing catalogs. Moreover the respondents were asked to indi- cate the following categories that best described their policies with regard to the doctoral studentffacufty member issue: (a) “Faculty members at this school are not permitted to enroll in this doctoral program”; (b) “The doctoral program has a fixed limit on the number of this school’s faculty members who may enroll”; (c) “Faculty members who are doctoral students are limited to teaching in the Under- graduate Program”; (d) “Faculty members who are doctoral students give up faculty rank above an instructor”; and (e) ”Faculty members at this school may enroll in this doctoral program; there is no regulation on any facet of this activity.”

Two final policy questions complet- ed the questionnaire. One asked whether the policies regulating facul- tylstudent enrollment were stipulated by the school of nursing or by the university of which the school was a part. The last item was open-ended and asked the respondents to describe any other school policies that related to faculty memberldoctoral student enrollment.

Second mailings and telephone calls were used as follow-up procedures. All 22 of the doctoral programs con- tacted responded to the request for information.

Results Measures of central tendency were

used to describe the composition of faculty and student bodies in the 22 responding schools (see Table 1). The mean number of faculty in the sample was 99.4; the range was 15 to 240. Doctoral students were almost evenly distributed in the full-time (F = 30.1) and part-time (X = 28.5) categories. More than two thirds (f = 15, 68.2%) of the doctoral programs were less than 10 years old. One third (f = 8,

Page 29


Table 1 Number rf hedty, tkctonl studmtt. and

DwlFacunymdentsitl22 D o c b n l ~ r n s i n ~

Made Mean Median ww S.D.

Faculty 80 99.4 90.5 225 (15-240) 50.6 DactIldstudem

Ful-tkm 20 30.1 20.5 91 ( 5- 96) 22.8 Part-tbne 0 27.8 17.5 100 ( 0-100) 31.6

Dactwrlstudents 0 4.1 1.5 17 ( 0- 17) 5.1 Dwl WIIBY/

Number of Dual ! x Facunylstudetr

None 10 47.6 One to five 3 14.3 Six to ten 6 28.6 Eleven to seventeen 2 9.5

TOTAL 21. 100.0 aOne school did not respond to this item

in nursing who were also on the faculty in their own programs. One school did not answer this question. Of those schools permitting the dual role of faculty member/doctoral student, the mean number was 4.1 , with a range of 0 to 17 persons in the dual role (see Table 2). In nine (40.9%) of the schools in this sample, faculty members were not permitted to enroll in the doctoral program at their schools (see Table 3). Exactly the same number of schools (40.9%) permitted enrollment with restrictions on the num-

Enrelnrcntpopcy f n Not allowed 9 Teach only undergraduate level 1 Instructor rank only 6 Hours of study limited 1 Limited to undergraduate teaching and limit on number

No regulation 4 of faculty who can enroll 1

40.9 4.5

27.3 4.5

4.5 18.2

TOTAL 22 99.9’ .Does not equal 100% because of rounding

36.4%) of the schools had a two-year to five-year history of offering a doctoral program. A similar proportion (f = 7, 31.8X) of the programs were more than 1 1 years old.

Regarding policies on enrollment of faculty as doctoral students in the nursing program, only four schools had no university or school of nursing regulations. In the majority of the schools (f = 3, 59.1%) the regulations were stipulated by both the university and the school of nursing; and in five schools (22.7%) the policy was stipulated only by the school of nursing.

The majority of the schools (f = 11, n = 21, 52.4%) had doctoral students

Page 30

ber of dual faculty/students, rank, credit hours, and limitations to undergraduate teaching only. Six schools had a regulation that faculty members enrolled in the doctoral program could hold only the instructor rank. Of the four schools having no regulations on the dual role, three schools had offered the doctoral program for 15 years or longer, and one school offered the program for less than 5 years. All four schools were in private universities, and less than 9% of their faculty were enrolled in their doctoral programs.

Policies regarding faculty enrollment as doctoral students were further ex-

Image: The Journal of Nursing Scholarship

amined by the X2 statistic. Significant relationships were found between type of policy and type of university (X’ = 12.12, df = 5, p = .03), and source of the regulation (X’ = 26.40, df = 10, p = .003) (see Tables 4 and 5). Stringent policies were more likely to be found in public institutions and to have emanated from university regulations. No significant relationships were found between types of policies and number of years the school had offered a doctoral program in nursing, age of the school of nursing, age of the university, or number of faculty in the school of nursing. Furthermore, no significant correlations were found between the source of the regulation and the number of years the school had offered the doctoral program or the age of the university.

Discussion The initial question raised in the de-

sign of the study was whether or not the issue of dual role had achieved policy agenda status in schools of nursing with doctoral programs. Al- though review of university catalogues provided little or no evidence, personal observations and concerns with role conflict implied in the literature sug- gested otherwise. And indeed this proved to be the case.

According to Anderson (1 979), policy agenda items are those demands that policy makers feel compelled to act on. In the present study at least 18 of the 22 doctoral programs apparent- ly had had the issue of the dual role on their university or school of nursing policy agendas at one time or another inasmuch as the respondents reported which policies had been formulated and adopted. The four schools that had no university-wide or school regulation concerning the dual role may have had one of a number of experi- ences. At one of these schools the faculty members must have at least,one doctoral degree to be hired; hence there is no necessity for regulation. The other schools may have ad- dressed the problem and placed it on their policy agendas but had adopted no policy, preferring instead to let matters work themselves out. The problem may have emerged but not sufficiently to have required placement on the school’s policy agendas;



Tabk 4 Correlation between Enrdlment Policy and Type of University

Enrollment Poky Type of University

Not allowed 8 1 Teach only Undergraduate level 0 1 Instructor rank only ’ 3 3 Hours of study limited 1 0

who can enroll 1 0 No regulation 0 4

TOTAL 13 9 Xz = 12.12, df = 5, p = 0.33

Pubiic PliVatc

Limited to undergraduate teaching and limited number

Tabk 5 Relationship b e e n Enrollment Poccy and Source of Regulation

Enrollment Policy source of Regulation University School of Nursing

Not allowed 7 Teach only undergraduate level 1 Instructor rank only 4 Hours of study limited 1

who can enroll 0 Limited to undergraduate teaching and limited number

TOTAL 13 5

X2 = 12.12, df -- 5, p = 0.33.

or, in an unlikely case, the universities or the schools involved may have been unaware or unconcerned about the problem.

The results of this study regarding policies of schools of nursing on enrollment of faculty members in their doctoral programs revealed that more than half of the schools in this sample permitted the dual role. Of the 13 schools that permitted enrol I m e nt, however, 9 had some restrictions on the rank, credit hour enrollment, and number of faculty who could matricu- late into the doctoral program. Thus, in the schools sampled, more than three fourths of the schools had policies governing the enrollment of faculty members who wished to pursue doctoral study in nursing.

Given the proliferation of doctoral nursing programs in the past decade, the subsequent high demand for doctorally prepared faculty members to teach in these programs, and the short supply of such faculty, it was not surprising that the majority of the schools had policies permitting the

dual role. In terms of the purposes and goals of graduate education and the problems that the dual role portend, it also seems reasonable that 41 % of the schools did not permit the dual role.

It appears likely that in the five nursing schools in which enrollment policies were not stipulated by the university, the anticipation of complaints against an inbred faculty may have triggered the placement of the dual role problem on policy agendas. Also, protests from faculty members who found themselves working with individuals in the dual role may have given rise to institutional problems and to subsequent policy statements.

Another possibility is that a sufficient number of disequilibrating crises may have arisen for the institutions studied to have sought recourse in policy statements; that is, crises arising when faculty productivity or student learning is threatened by the dual role or when the dual role elicits questions concerning conflict of interest, evaluation objectivity, and the quality of academic credentials.

Winter, 1985, Volume XVII, No. 1 Image: The Journal of Nursing Scholarship

Anderson ( 1 979) stresses that policies cannot be adequately understood apart from the context or environment that generates and constrains them. Contextual factors such as demo- graphic variables of population size, age distribution, spatial location, and the political and economic cultures all appear to be related to the policies that emerge in any given time and place.

The contextual variables that these researchers thought most likely related to the dual role policies were the age of doctoral programs, the size of doctoral programs, overall size of the faculty, type of university, and source of regulations. In this sample, types of policies were independent of the program, the age of the university, and the size of the student body and faculty. Policies did not become more restrictive as the size of the doctoral student body or the age of the program increased. Furthermore, policies did not appear more restrictive in schools with a smaller faculty.

A notable finding was that enrollment policy was related to type of university. Public universities were more likely to prohibit enrollment of faculty members in their doctoral programs in nursing. Perhaps these institutions, which are under the watchful eye of legislators and taxpayers, exercise cau- tion to minimize concerns and conflicts in such academic matters. On the other hand, it is possible that public institutions have developed restrictive policies because these schools have enrolled native faculty in doctoral programs and have experienced conflicts ensuing from the matricula- tion of these faculty.

In addition, enrollment policy was found to be associated with source of the regulation. The source of regulation restricting faculty enrollment in doctoral programs in the schools in which they teach was more likely to be the university rather than the school of nursing. It is important to note that policies regarding faculty enrollment were for the most part gener- ated for the general university faculty rather than for the specific nursing faculty. The dual faculty memberktudent issue appears to be a concern of such magnitude that it resulted in policy

Page 31

Documents

Faculty As Doctoral Students: Policies of Doctoral Programs in Nursing