Revisiting the Doctor of Arts

The truth is, teaching colleges and community colleges didn't value doctoral-trained candidates prepared for teaching their disciplines. They wanted the PhD. This killed the DA.

That's why I proposed in my hypothetical thought exercise that it could be repurposed to prepare people--inside and outside the academy--for teaching adults. Not subject-matter experts who'd gone through some "train the trainer program" (and I've conducted those both inside and outside the university setting), but someone who's truly masterful at facilitating adult learning and has doctoral-level expertise in the discipline.

Anyone who's been through a lousy training session can appreciate that!

In my field, talent development, I hold both the highest professional credential (the CPTD) and the highest academic award in it (the doctorate). I know both what that field can do and could do. So I thought I'd share it here. Perhaps after the "yeahbutts" wear off, we can discuss how something like this can be of use and be brought about?

 

Well, that could go either way.

 

Uh...no. Please, no.

 

Yes and no.

Yes, because that's a large part of it. No, because it's not all of it, nor was that its design and purpose. The DA is a mix of pedagogy (I'm suggesting andragogy instead), one's academic discipline, and original research.

But it was...spiffy!

 

I am aware of its significance. My point is that it breaks from an otherwise clear pattern.

Also comes off as a bit needlessly elitist in light of other degrees. "Oh, you have a doctorate in science? That's nice. My doctorate is in wisdom."

 

Your post betrayed that.

As it should

No, that's not what it says. Philosophy, in this sense is the love of wisdom, not the possession of it.

But it is a distinction without a difference, a word in a title that no longer evokes any meaning. There are plenty of cultures where the term isn't even used to describe the doctorate.

So, there are two perspectives here: assertions and assessments. I've countered the errant assertions. The assessments I'll leave alone.

 

That's really my point, it's a word that has lost meaning. There's a reason why we see so many people with non-PhD doctorates referring to their doctorate as a PhD (aside from the ones that are outright fraud). In many circles doctorate and PhD are synonymous. This isn't really meant to be a point of disagreement unless we delve too far into the nitty gritty. My point is that 30 years ago the Doctor of Arts might not have been well tolerated due to its lack of familiarity and not overwhelmingly impressive post-nominal abbreviation.

Nowadays, many people seem unaware that there is a different between an EdD and a PhD, for example, or that not all doctorates are PhDs, in general. You have the JD that the ABA is saying is equivalent to a PhD (it's not). You have super specialized professional doctorates the likes of which we never would have seen in years past, like the Doctor of Information Assurance.

Seems like if ever there was a time for the Doctor of Arts to stake its claim it would be now.

 

If King Canute were successful in his efforts, I would say that the stupid renaming of first professional degrees as "Doctor of" this or that should be reversed. He wasn't and neither should I be.

 

Fine, but it isn't the title per se. It's the concept re-imagined in two ways:
1. Andragogy instead of pedagogy for the teaching element
2. Focused on preparing adults to facilitate adult learning wherever it occurs, not just at the undergraduate level (the original purpose of the DA).