The Case for the NA Doctorate

I was wondering how much longer the protocol race to the bottom would be allowed to continue. Thank you for the awaited moderator intervention Randell.

 

Well stated Pugbelly…

We should all consider the utility in heeding your proposals.

 

You are welcome.

 

So, how about we talk about some NA doctorates?

I went through and decided to take a look at what the current offers were just to guide this discussion.

For our purposes, I'm thinking we can ignore the Doctors of Ministry as their applicability is religious in nature. While I might earn a D.Min., I may even include it on my professional resume, it is likely not going to impact my secular career in any appreciable way (and if I try to force it as an issue some people might get uncomfortable).

So, here are the programs I found. I didn't include dual-accredited schools (as those would be RA doctorates):

Doctor of Business Administration - The University of Management and Technology (DEAC)
Doctor of Business Administration - Apollos University (DEAC)
Doctor of Business Administration - Columbia Southern University (DEAC)
Doctor of Business Administration - Taft University (DEAC)
Doctor of Business Administration - California International Business University (ASICS)
Doctor of Business Administration - California Miramar University (ASICS, formerly DEAC)
Doctor of Business Administration - Globe University (ASICS)
Doctor of Business Administration - Lincoln University (ASICS)
Doctor of Business Administration - Northwestern Polytechnic University (ASICS)
Doctor of Business Administration - Pacific States University (ASICS)
Doctor of Business Administration - Statford University (ASICS)

Doctor of Education (Educational Administration - Cal Coast (DEAC)
Doctor of Education (Educational Psychology) - Cal Coast (DEAC)
Doctor of Education (Organizational Leadership) - Cal Coast (DEAC)
Doctor of Education (Leadership and Learning) - Aspen University (DEAC)
Doctor of Education - Taft University (DEAC)
Doctor of Education (Transformational Leadership and Coaching - Wright Graduate University (ASICS)

Doctor of Science (Computer Science) - Aspen University (DEAC)
Doctor of Computer Engineering - Northwestern Polytechnic University (ASICS)
Doctor of Computer Engineering - Silicon Valley University (ASICS)
Doctor of Information Technology - Stratford University (ASICS)

Misc Doctorates:

Doctor of Pharmacy - American University of Health Sciences (ASICS, WASC candidate)
Doctor of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine - Texas Health and Science University (ASICS)

So, I didn't look at the faith based accreditors for the same reason that I excluded the smattering of DEAC Doctorates in Ministry. Also, if we're being really technical here, faith based accreditors are not the same as National Accreditors. Also excluded from this list are the doctoral programs accredited by the New York Board of Regents because, again, while NYSBOR is not a regional accreditor they are also not an NA, either. They only accredit programs in the state of NY.

But, I think this is a decent starting point. This is the field as it exists today (please feel free to add to the list). The two miscellaneous doctorates are obvious outliers because they are both directed toward licensed professions. If either of those degrees lead to licensure in the applicable jurisdiction then they pretty much do what they are intended to do without the need for RA. The rest are spread across three general areas: Business, Education and IT.

There are some exceptions to the above buckets, of course. One can argue that a degree in leadership isn't properly represented by a Doctorate in Education, etc.

So, my first thought is that there are an awful lot of DBAs out there right now. It's interesting because people don't tend to think of the DBA, IMHO. The MBA is definitely more well known that the DBA. While schools also offer "mini-MBA" certificate programs, I've yet to see anyone try offering a "mini-DBA." Aside from being prone to abuse I think it's just simple marketing. I would bet if we looked at the keyword count in Google there are simply more searches for MBA than for DBA. As Rich has noted, the doctorates put the user in a unique situation. A CPA is already qualified for his or her profession by the time he gets to the DBA. If that CPA has no desire to teach then acceptance by academia is less of an issue.

Personally, I feel like the most utilitarian degrees to the broader private sector are the IT and CompSci doctorates.If one of our software developers wanted this degree they could easily make a case that the course of study would really cause them to start thinking outside the box and make them an even better developer. Theirs is a profession where innovation and creativity is expected.

While creativity and innovation is expected in all areas, to some degree, I'm also not able to implement a new idea with the same ease that a software developer can. For the "general business" sort of folks in an organization I can see the DBAs just not being as beneficial to an overall organization (at least, at first glance) as the IT/CS doctorates.

 

That's really cool! The one thing I didn't like about the UK was the cold fish! Yuckl

Abner :smile:

 

Taking a professional doctorate isn't meant to improve one's performance. That presumably was accomplished with lower degrees, other forms of learning, and experience. The doctorate is a different animal.

Scholarly doctorates--the PhD and its equivalents--prepare a person to not only master the academic discipline, but to contribute to it. Ideally, the graduate will have made a significant contribution to the theories that drive his/her discipline.

The professional doctorate, properly designed and executed, also involves mastery of one's (applied) discipline. It also involves making a significant contribution, but to the discipline's practice. See "Achieving Your Professional Doctorate" by N-J Smith and "Professional Doctorates" by Scott and Brown for these and other distinctions.

Because of this difference, the professional doctorate is better suited for workplace practice. This fact, plus the fact that it--unlike lower degrees--has no role as an academic prerequisite, makes me wonder about the NA doctorate as a means to achieve what I described above.

It's not just--or even very much--about impressing employers. It's about improving one's practice and contributions to that practice.

My argument isn't about whether or not getting a doctorate is a good idea. Rather, it is about whether or not the idea of getting a professional doctorate from an NA school (as compared to RA) is worth entertaining. I suggest that it is worth consideration.

Neuhaus brought up a relevant point about WISR. This post stems from my experiences in doctoral learning. What little work I've done for WISR has been narrow and pro bono.

 

If it wasn't for ethnic restaurants I would've gone hungry. I once ordered a club sandwich in a pub. I don't know what club it came from, but I'm not a member!

 

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that the doctorate needs to improve performance but I'm suggesting that many employers would want to see it add value.

This is the case whether the employer is paying for the degree of an existing employee or using it to weigh candidates against one another. It's the reason that a company will pay for an engineering tech to earn a bachelors degree in engineering (or business or any number of other fields they may wish to get into). But they won't typically pay for a degree in philosophy. The study of philosophy could very well make that individual a wiser and more well-rounded individual. It could even enable them to better develop critical thinking skills which would indirectly translate to their work. But, I think that an engineering tech asking a company to pay for a BA in Philosophy would be at a disadvantage (as would an engineering tech whose formal education is in the field of philosophy).

But, as you note, it isn't always about impressing an employer. That's certainly an element for a lot of people, though, in weighing the ROI of any program. I also appreciate the nuance of saying that it is about the "improvement of one's practice" compared to the improvement of "performance."

I suppose that the most obvious counter to that is that the majority of professionals don't grasp that nuance. For the bulk of people who go to work, receive pay and then repeat until retirement (or death) the concept of developing one's "practice" is not easily understood. Or, perhaps more clearly, it is not easy for many of these professionals to separate their practice from their job.

To use myself as an example, I'm an HR person. I view myself as an HR professional who is currently employed by Corporation X in the same way that a physician doesn't cease to be a physician when switching employers. Nor does that physician lose his or her areas of specialty, unique contributions and skills rooted in the practice of medicine.

So, in that mindset I could, I believe, use an NA doctorate to take that concept and run with it. But, the question is whether that is the best use of my time and resources. Previously I addressed the ability to work on projects and put in the extra time to make my employer feel I am worthy of advancement. Let's take it beyond that, if you will. How do I make myself a stronger, more capable and skilled HR Professional irrespective of my present employer?

Could doctoral level research help me there? It could. But, if academia is not my goal, there is nothing that prevents me from conducting said research without a doctorate. Indeed, if I publish my backside off I might even find myself earning a PhD by publication, down the road (for the scholarly route) and, for the applied route, I could dedicate myself to research and projects around, say, SHRM, to add to the practice of Human Resources.

I could add to the practice of human resources as a doctoral candidate. Or I can do it as Neuhaus, MSM. Let's not forget that a number of people have built the HR practice despite not having advanced degrees at all.

That's just using HR as an example.

The question then becomes not "would a doctorate do all of the things Rich Douglas says it might" but "is the doctorate the best vehicle for accomplishing this? Perhaps it would be more cost effective to students and organizations to simply encourage this sort of contribution to professional practice without a doctorate at all as many people in many industries currently do right now."

 

Again, the OP (me) was talking about the NA route to the professional doctorate, not the concept of earning one vs. not. Different argument.

There are other ways to understand the world besides the organizationally based approach of impressing an employer (or his/her HR rep.) I would recommend Jobshift by William Bridges for a practical discussion of what HRD research calls "protean" and "boundaryless" careers. But again, this isn't about whether earning a doctorate of any sort is a good idea. That's one person's perspective here.

 

All right, that's a fair response and I concede that the question of whether to earn a doctorate is, indeed, a different discussion.

So, let me redirect.

We have a fairly comprehensive list of NA doctorates on the prior page. I would imagine that the differences between these schools can be somewhat drastic (based upon my own experiences with different NA schools).

What would you say to the would-be doctoral student who is looking for the best program for them? What, aside from cost, would compel me to sign up for the UMT DBA rather than, say, the Walden DBA?

 

Excellent question. Without examining the particulars of any one school, I'd say the distinguishing factors could be (a) that the degree program was truly designed as a professional doctorate and not an scholarly doctorate with another name and (b) that the school had a practitioner-oriented bent.

These criteria might be met at some RA schools.

Remember, I'm not saying that opting for a professional doctorate from an NA school is a better idea than one from an RA school. I just made the simple suggestion that it could be a good idea.

Part of this is personal, too. I've been called "RA-or-no-way" many times, even though I've been a fan of what NA-accredited schools have contributed to nontraditional higher education. I've always felt my stance was more nuanced than the two extremes of abject rejection or strident advocacy. This is consistent with my previous statements.