Thread on Union Disappeared?

Maybe I don't see the whole picture, but I think the reaction on this issue has been a little heavy handed. I especially don't understand why anyone was banned, as rlevant seems to have been. Maybe some clarification is in order?

Tony

 

A quick look at the Union web site shows that they are currently issuing only degrees in interdisciplinary studies….

“While all learners graduate with a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree in Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, they leave the program with specific direction in a field of their choice, having customized their program to fit their individual backgrounds, learning styles, passions, and goals.”

Nonetheless, when I graduated in 97, my learning plan, program summary, transcript, PDP, etc. all state Ph.D. in Environmental Science with an emphasis in Environmental Health. If the school wants to say that it is a Ph.D. in Interdisciplinary studies with a concentration in Environmental Science now, after the fact,… we’ll saying it don’t make it so.

Other than being annoying, I think that it is largely an issue of semantics. Would someone with a current (2004 or beyond) Ph.D. be able to teach in a field that is only designated as their “concentration”… all things being equal, I don’t think it will be a disqualifying factor. People teach in areas outside of their specific degree designations all the time. How many professors were there 15 years ago who had Information Systems degrees? Not many.

Academic disciplines splinter, evolve, and re-form all the time. The substance of the education, however, is what remains constant. As long as transcripts and discipline descriptions (majors, emphasis areas, concentrations… what have you) are accurate regarding the exact nature of the work, I think the rest is academic.... pardon the pun.

Is a Ph.D. in Interdisciplinary Studies with an emphasis in Economics fairly equitable to a Ph.D. in Economics… in my opinion, yes. Anyone checking their transcript and PDP/dissertation will likely see that… unless the degree truly is one that is focused on interdisciplinary aspects, in which case, no problem.

Cheers,
Tony Maranto

P.S. If anyone asks, my degree is STILL in Environmental Science.

P.P.S. IMHO, nothing in this set of threads has been overly aggressive, abusive, or deserving of locked threads or barred accounts. Just my observation. Cheers.

 

My impression is that the whole point of the Union Institute has always been interdiscipinarity. That's the reason why the place was originally created. It certainly has never been a secret.

http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~hendra/Briefhis.html

I don't think that the intention was ever to have it duplicate Ohio State, offering conventional disciplinary doctoral degrees in every imaginable subject. The idea was to create a venue for new and innovative dissertation topics that swerve across disciplinary boundaries.

So if subsequent students tried to treat the Union Institute as if it were a DL version of a conventional university, then they were probably misunderstanding and/or misusing the program.

As to what the resulting degrees are called, I think that I prefer calling them a "Ph.D. in Interdisciplinary Studies with an Emphasis in XYZ" as opposed to a "Ph.D. in XYZ". That's factually more accurate and it honors the interdisciplinary ideal.

But it's certainly not unheard of to refer to interdisciplinary self-designed majors as degrees in whatever. One example that I know of is Jeffrey Mislove, the only man to ever earn a Ph.D. in Parapsychology from UC Berkeley. How did he do it? He used a program then in existence to create a self-designed major-subject that drew from the resources of several Berkeley departments.

I don't see a scandal in any of this, either way. If students are complaining that they were misled, then they must not have been very familiar with the school where they earned their Ph.D. That's awfuly hard for me to believe.

 

Bill, I'm afraid, overstates the interdisciplinary aspect of Union, especially in the days before the change in the degree title. Interdisciplinarity was talked about, but it was something "fit into" the degree, rather than being the basis for the degree program. (It appeared like Bill tells it, but it didn't function that way.)

Ironically, this is all about semantics, for now. As it relates to degree content or process, little has changed. (I think the school is pressing interdisciplinarity more, as well as research methods competencies.) I suspect there are big changes on the horizon for Union's doctoral programs, and not just the implementation of the Psy.D.

Students entering when I did in the 1980's were certainly pursing degrees in their fields, not concentrations. But I also think it matters very little. And, as Bill mentioned, the Union is unique. I'm proud to have taken a degree that more reflects the original spirit of Union. In the year and a half since I graduated, no one has questioned the Interdisciplinary Studies/cocentration/specializatrion (not "emphasis" as Tony referred to it) issue. For practical purposes, my degree has been accepted as a Ph.D. in Higher Education with a specialization in Nontraditional Higher Education.

(My current employer, at the local level, never looked twice. But when my record was reviewed at the home office, they specifically mentioned the interdisciplinarity of the degree as a solid reason for placing me in my position. Who knew it would be an asset?)

 

Bill, I would 100% agree that the interdisciplinary nature of the Union degrees is an important concept… but there is interdisciplinary and INTERDISCIPLINARY. As Rich states, prior to the recent shift, it has always been up to the learner and his/her committee to decide the degree of cross-discipline inclusion. With some disciplines there is a greater margin of latitude in the acceptance of a broad cross section of academic elements… in others (like the hard sciences) there is less acceptance of it in the general academic world. The term interdsisciplinary is a subjective one and Union has always traditionally allowed a fair amount of flexibility in how those elements were incorporated into a program.

Now, that being said (and speaking for myself), I was still able to craft a program that let me draw upon elements of public health, ecology, environmental chemistry, agricultural factors, socio-economic analyses, and many other aspects of indirectly related disciplines (including some issues related to organizational management, architecture, and cultural history). In the end, I still was able to produce a good piece of solid scientific research (published in a peer reviewed journal) and craft a program that has been well received in the very conservative world of traditional science. For me, the interdisciplinary elements were a meaningful part of the program, but they were not, in and of themselves, the entirety of the program. That was (is?) the beauty of the Union model. There was a lot of flexibility to do what made sense from an individual programmatic sense (with mentor and committee approval, of course).

Long live Union.


Cheers,
Tony

 

Two points. 1) Teaching at a university with a concentration rather than a specific doc in a topic is common. Frankly they most often look at the dissertation and its relation to the topic (e.g. I teach rehabilitation with an Ed.D. in Occupational and Adult education, but my dissertation and all of my research were on rehabilitation teaching. Additionally I bring a great deal of experience, publications, and national credibility to the table.) Ultimately you do not have to have a doc in topic, the concentration is the same as having a major and most schools recognize that. 2) To become licensed as a psychologist in most states requires graduation from an APA program. Union, to my knowledge has never made that claim. As a matter of fact, years ago I looked into their psychology program and they gave specific guidance to check with state officials about whether their degree would qualify. They were aware that each state had its own regulations and said so up front. Anyone choosing a psychology option would have known this going in to the program

 

This is a good discussion

Why are we having it in "off topic?"

BRUCE?

 

Why its not just semantics

Whether it matter or not varies by what you what to Do with the degree and also what state you are to be employed

I gave an example of the difference for clinical psychology. And that is the difference between employment and unemployment


I have heard in some states higher education credentials also matter in a similiar fashion.


In humanities, it may not make a difference to teach as an adjunct somewhere or at a community college and even some small colleges.

However, to teach at the graduate level and at a serious college it makes all the difference in the world.

The issue there is whether or not you have the doctorate in your field. If not you are not qualified to teach graduate students in your field.

Also, Appleson gave me an example of someone who was being employed as a expert witness. The courts called the NCA to confirm his credential. When the credential was not confirmed