1.1 Cohort doctoral preparation programs: neo-institutional  (Page 6/16)

Observations

In this section we provide analysis that establishes the foundation for the framework recommended later. We first explore the level of cohort use in doctoral preparation programs. Then we analyze isomorphic processes that may account for the level of use reported.

Cohort Usage as Reported in Extant Research

In his 1999 monograph on the state of the educational leadership profession, Murphy noted that changes in preparation programs have included changes in program structures. He also noted that“perhaps the most distinct piece of the structural mosaic has been the widespread implementation of cohort programs”(p. 42). This widespread use of cohorts is also supported by three recent studies. Norton (1995), in a survey of UCEA institutions, found that 30 (70%) of responding institutions reported use of cohorts. Most institutions that used cohorts did so for doctoral programs (70%). Half of the institutions had been using cohorts for six or more years, while the other half had adopted this program structure within one to five years of the study.

In 1994, McCarthy&Kuh (1997) surveyed chairs or coordinators of 371 educational administration / leadership units in four-year colleges and universities in the United States. Responses were received from 254 (68%) of those surveyed. Responding chairs/coordinators reported that more than half of EdD students were enrolled in cohorts. McCarthy and Kuh also conducted discriminant analyses in order to identify characteristics (program and faculty variables) that differentiated between research, doctoral, and comprehensive institutions. The use of cohorts was not found to be a distinguishing variable among the different types of institutions.

Barnett, Basom, Yerkes, and Norris (2000) surveyed 383 United States and Canadian university educational administration programs listed in the Educational Administration Directory (Lane, 1996 in Barnett, et al., 2000). Two hundred twenty-three programs responded (58% response rate) and of this number 141 (63%) reported using cohorts in some or all of their preparation programs. Barnett et al. also compared cohort usage on the basis of institutional size and priority on teaching, research and service. They found that cohorts tended to be used more frequently in institutions with 10,000 or more students and in institutions that emphasized research rather than teaching or service.

Cohort Use as Reflected in the Field’s Literature

Another gauge of the field’s interest in cohorts is the extent to which cohorts are a focus of the field’s literature. As noted earlier, we conducted a literature search in order to track the frequency with which cohorts have been addressed in selected sources from 1985 through 2005. We conducted this analysis recognizing that cohorts have been explicitly or implicitly recommended as program structures since the 1950s (Achilles, 1994), if not before (Basom, Yerkes, Norris,&Barnett, 1995). However, our interest was to focus on a recent era in order to investigate the current level of interest in cohorts and to confine our analysis of isomorphic processes to the past twenty years, and especially to the past decade.