Non-traditional route to full-time professorship

It would have to.

Even then, both inductive and deductive approaches are available.

Deductively, one could either (a) test an existing theory that would be applied to these circumstances and tested. I would probably use interviews of people who have successfully made this journey...and those who have not. The goal would be to see if the theory being tested is valid here and explains how people make this transition. I don't know of an extant theory; that's what a literature review should uncover.

Inductively, one could plunge into the data and develop a grounded theory that explains the phenomenon. Again, that is if it is a "thing" and a theory explaining can emerge. Again, interviews, but also any other extant data available, including interviews with university officials who make such decisions.

Such a study could make original contributions to scholarship in a couple of different fields--higher education and human capital management come to mind. I could easily see it becoming a doctoral thesis. However, it's been my observation that doctoral committees are sometimes hostile to doing inductive studies because of their somewhat limitless nature. They like deductive studies--grab a theory, write some hypotheses, test them, and write it up.

That would be the scholarly approach, appropriate for a PhD. Another approach would be a professional doctoral program and do a thesis that elides theory buy explains the practice itself. Less rigorous, but perhaps more useful. This would be appropriate for an EdD or DBA.

 

Thank you, Rich. This is very helpful!

 

https://www.ut.edu/directory/land-jordan
Ph.D., Northcentral University
Visiting Assistant Professor of Criminology/Criminal Justice

 

Seem like she earned all her degrees online.

Anita Borja Enriquez, Senior Vice President and Provost

• A.A., Computer Studies, University of Maryland University College
• B.S., Management, University of Maryland University College
• MBA, University of Guam
• DBA, International Business, Alliant International University (Calif.)

https://www.uog.edu/directory/enriquez-anita.php

 

You're probably right. She earned all her degrees before online learning was prevalent (B.S., 1987; MBA, 1992; DBA, 1995). I know UMGC offers courses in person, several locations in the U.S., and globally. Even though she may not have earned them online, she earned them non-traditionally.

 

Not sure how one can have a DBA from Alliant International that was earned in 1995. Alliant didn't come into being until 2001. Before then, the school that would award such a degree would have been US International University. USIU merged with the California School of Professional Psychology to form Alliant.

This subject is an old debate. Do you use the name of the school at the time you graduated, or do you use the new name? I think it boils down to whether or not the distinction makes a material difference. If you graduated from Ashford University, but now tell people you graduated from the University of Arizona, I think that is a material difference and you shouldn't do it. But the move from USIU to Alliant was pretty seamless and not much changed on the USIU side.

Although I graduated from the USNY Regents External Degree Program and my degrees were awarded by USNY, I don't now list them as being from Excelsior College. But I wouldn't be concerned if someone else did. A distinction without a difference.

 

Her LinkedIn lists United States International University for her DBA. I also saw people using Purdue University Global though they graduated from Kaplan. For me, I would probably list XYZ University (formerly ABC College) on my resume/CV.

 

As I mentioned, there is no material difference between USIU and Alliance, so I'd be good with either one.

There is a huge difference here, and I find doing that to be deceptive.

This is honest and accurate, but I don't know if it will be effective. Will it raise questions? If so, it might be better just to go with the original name. If not, accuracy is good, as long as you don't leave the impression you graduated from a more prestigious school than you did.

 

From Thomas Edison to the Medical University of South Carolina...

Randy D. Kearns, D.H.A.
Assistant Professor, Healthcare Management at UNO (LA)

https://www.uno.edu/profile/faculty/randy_kearns

 

A guy at an R1.

Assistant Professor at Virginia Commonwealth University. Ph.D. and master's from Walden.

https://wilder.vcu.edu/people/faculty/chernoh-wurie.html

 

If you liked or followed Kaplan University on social media, the name change to Purdue University Global would have propagated on your liked or following list without any action on your part.

Is it possible some people tagged Kaplan as the source of their credential and the change to Purdue Global propagated without any action on their part?

 

On LinkedIn, that would make sense.

I don't feel there is a material difference when a school changes its name, even if they changed the name after being purchased. The school themselves makes the distinction based on your graduation date. It took more than a year before the school completed the purchase, but anyone attending from the day they announced the change was eligible to use the new name and get a re-issued diploma. If they're going against the guidance of the school (e.g. they graduated in 2016 but are claiming Purdue's name) then that is deceptive.

 

I just discovered that NCU now has co-presidents.

https://www.ncu.edu/president

 

Listing both the newer name and the name at the time you graduated shouldn't be considered deceptive, even if the newer name provides a status upgrade.

I'm also not convinced that listing the name under which the continuation of the school you graduated from is listed in directories of accredited schools most recently is ever quite wrong, even if it's not done in the same way as the institution's style guidance, and even if it coincidentally provides a status upgrade.

 

Another success story. This person has a Master's from Capella and a PhD in Psychology from Northcentral. They're an Assistant Professor Of Psychology at Michigan State: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kandyshoup/

 

UMUC/UMGC do offer classes on base even on the ship. Usually, courses are taught by Military Officers, paid by DoD TA, and UMUC/UMGC is the middleman.

 

This is excellent. - a Capella Ph.D. at an R1 institution. Some will say there are "rules" about who becomes faculty in higher education. However, countless examples demonstrate there are no such rules. I couldn't imagine so many people being "exceptions" to the "rules."

 

When graduates of DL doctoral programs routinely compete for and secure traditional positions in academia through the traditional process, I'll be glad to drop the concept of "exceptions." Or, if someone could document the process for nontraditional candidates with nontraditional doctorates to pursue these positions.

It doesn't matter how many anecdotes are presented. Until we see the magnitude of the phenomenon, I don't think any changes to traditional thinking about this is supported. My position is:

1. Distance learning doctorates do not position their graduates to compete with graduates of traditional doctoral programs through traditional processes.
2. Graduates of distance learning doctoral programs can and do secure traditional positions in academia.
3. We do not know the extent of this phenomenon.
3. The process(es) for this is/are not well documented or even well discussed.
4. If a school wants to hire you, it will pull you through their process, largely rendering the source of your degree (assuming it is acceptably accredited) moot.
5. The existence of anecdotal examples of people holding traditional academic positions at traditional schools while having graduated from a distance learning doctoral program indicates it is possible and nothing more. Yet, much more is left unknown. Thus, we do not know if this is even a phenomenon, or merely an aberration.