21st Century Competencies for Doctoral Leadership ... - Springer Link

Innov High Educ (2011) 36:53–66 DOI 10.1007/s10755-010-9157-5

21st Century Competencies for Doctoral Leadership Faculty L. Hyatt & Peter E. Williams

Published online: 30 July 2010 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Abstract Graduate and post-graduate programs were initially developed by universities to increase discipline-specific mastery. Faculty members impact both the content and quality of such programs as they are responsible for making it relevant in the current climate while also addressing the changes envisaged for society tomorrow. Although studies exist regarding faculty competencies in various disciplines and for preparing future faculty members, there is a paucity of research specific to competencies necessary for faculty members who currently teach in doctoral leadership programs. This Delphi study explored 21st century competencies required in the next decade for faculty who currently teach in doctoral leadership programs in U.S. institutions. Key words Doctoral faculty . Competencies . Post-graduate . Leadership Graduate and post-graduate programs were initially developed by universities to increase discipline-specific mastery. Doctoral programs in leadership prepare students for important roles in our society; highly educated leaders are in demand, and universities that provide leadership education are necessary (Bowden and Rudenstine 1992; Green et al. 2001; Smallwood 2004). Faculty members are a central component of graduate and post-graduate programs as they are responsible for facilitating student learning and are often a pivotal determinant for student L. Hyatt earned a doctorate degree at Pepperdine University and is currently Associate Professor in the Doctoral Program in Organizational Leadership at the University of La Verne. Her research focuses on the intersections of learning and change and the powerful climates created by our convergent stories as individuals, organizations, and communities. Peter E. Williams received a Ph.D. in Educational Human Resource Development from Texas A&M. He is Assistant Professor in the Department of Organizational Leadership at the University of La Verne. His research interests include self regulation in online and blended environments and leadership competencies. L. Hyatt (*) : P. E. Williams University of La Verne, College of Education and Organizational Leadership, La Verne, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected] P. E. Williams e-mail: [email protected]

54

Innov High Educ (2011) 36:53–66

selection of a university (Bryant 2003) or for leaving a program (Lovitts 2001; Pauley et al. 1999; Smallwood 2004). The emphasis, type, and content of doctoral degree programs in leadership are evolving rapidly to the extent that discovering faculty competencies necessary for the future could help define a roadmap for the next decade (Crawford et al. 2002). This study was exploratory and reports on the 21st century competencies for doctoral faculty who currently teach in leadership programs. Prior studies have focused on preparing graduates to become new faculty to teach in traditional undergraduate settings (e.g. Austin et al. 2008; Gardner 2005; Purcell 2007); however, there is little research specific to the new-century skills necessary for doctoral faculty who currently teach in leadership programs. The literature suggests that information technologies will continue to bring about global changes and that educating potential leaders is our best hope for the future (Bowden and Rudenstine 1992; Green et al. 2001; Hyatt et al. 2009). To address the challenges going forward, it is important, then, to discover requisite competencies for this group of doctoral faculty members.

Background Overview of Doctoral Education in the U.S. In the mid-nineteenth century U.S. higher education institutions recognized a need for further intellectual preparation (Nerad 2004; Storr 1969). The need to prepare students in fields such as medicine and law initially drove the development of graduate and post-graduate education (Storr 1969). The value of the U.S. doctorate is best illustrated by an upward growth trend. In 1900 fewer than 20 U.S. universities conferred about 250 doctorates; however, by the start of the 21st century, 426 higher education institutions in the U.S. had awarded approximately 1.4 million doctorates in a variety of disciplines (Thurgood et al. 2006). In addition to varied disciplines, there are several types of doctoral degrees granted including the Ph.D., Ed.D., D.B.A., and the Psy.D.. Historically, the Ph.D. has generally been viewed as a research-intensive degree compared to the other scholar-practitioner doctoral degrees; however, today the distinctions are somewhat vague depending on the institution, the program, and the discipline. The U.S. doctorate is conceptualized as education arranged around rigorous realworld research experiences that prepare students to “discover, integrate, and apply knowledge, as well as communicate and disseminate it” (Council of Graduate Schools 1990, p.1). Graduate education in U.S. universities continues to be focused on “bringing the student to an understanding of the conceptual structure of his [her] field at the frontier, and research that is aimed to push the frontier a little further” (Rees 1972, p. 144). In-depth study and mastery of disciplines allow for the expansion of research in an organized manner. A focused graduate or post-graduate program increases the competencies of students and prepares them for a society that needs leaders to guide it into the future. Leadership Emphasis and Context for the Study Questions Doctoral programs that emphasize leadership prepare students for work in for-profit, and non-profit organizations, K-12 schools, higher education, and government. Leadership programs commonly integrate interdisciplinary theories from other fields including education, psychology, philosophy, and organizational studies. Rost (1991) suggested that this “allows scholars and practitioners to think radically new thoughts about leadership that are not possible from a unidisciplinary approach” (p. 2). The faculty impacts both the content and quality of such programs as they are responsible for making the program


55

relevant in the current climate while also addressing the changes envisaged for society in the next decades. Doctoral faculty members are expected to expand and improve their proficiencies for teaching, scholarship, and praxis continuously. Technological advances, increased cultural diversity, geographically distributed students, and immediate access to abundant information are just some of the factors influencing the changing landscape of leadership and related doctoral programs. The competencies necessary for faculty in doctoral leadership programs to carry out their responsibilities in a rapidly changing environment today and in the future are not well defined. A number of studies related to the preparation and skills needed for various professions have been conducted including those of Lindeman (1938), who focused on adult learning, and Knowles (1962), who studied the competencies of doctoral candidates in education. In the field of human resource development, studies of skills and abilities are a common approach to defining roles necessary within organizations (Foshay et al. 1986; Hale 1989; McLagan and McCullough 1983; McLagan and Suhadolnik 1989; Pinto and Walker 1978; Piskurich and Sanders 1998; Rothwell and Cookson 1997; Stein and Hutchison 1988). More recently, researchers have concentrated on preparing prospective and new faculty in areas other than leadership (e.g. Andenoro 2005; Austin 2002; Austin et al. 2008; Gilis et al. 2008). Purcell (2007) studied senior faculty perceptions about preparing new faculty in biological sciences, English, mathematics, and non-clinical psychology. Austin and McDaniels (2006) used Boyer’s (1990) four types of scholarship to look at graduate programs in general as preparation for future faculty. Gardner et al. (2007) applied professional socialization as a framework to explore dispositions necessary to earn a Ph.D. in education. With an eye towards performance evaluation, Tigelaar et al. (2004) developed a framework of teaching competencies for faculty in higher education. Specific to technologymediated learning in higher education, including roles beyond those of faculty members, Thach (1994) and Williams (2003) identified competencies for distance education programs. However, there is limited literature specifically related to the competencies that current doctoral faculty will need to teach in leadership programs in the near future. Given the paucity of research specific to future competencies necessary for this group and the changing trends in teaching and learning, the following questions were explored:

& & &

What issues will faculty who teach in doctoral leadership programs face in the future? What competencies will faculty who teach in doctoral leadership programs need in the second decade of 21st century? What are the primary competencies ranked by doctoral faculty who teach in leadership programs relative to the predominantly evaluated categories of teaching, advising, scholarship, service, and colleagueship?

Method This study was modeled after previous competency studies, using a panel of experts to determine competencies in a multi-round format (McLagan 1989, 1997; Rothwell 1996; Rothwell and Cookson 1997). Expert panels have been found to be more productive and efficient than other questionnaire methods (Presser and Blair 1994) and also appropriate when the panel is geographically dispersed (Linstone and Turoff 1975; Turoff and Hiltz 1996; Williams 2003).

56


The Delphi technique was chosen to structure the group process because of its strength in exploring the pooled, subjective judgments of experts regarding the future (Linstone and Turoff 1975; Ziglio 1996); and, as Fish and Busby (1996) stated, the Delphi “attempts to negotiate a reality that can then be useful in moving a particular field forward...” (p. 470). Typically, the Delphi includes an initial exploration of the question(s) in a broad sense and results in a list of the items to be used in subsequent rounds (Isaac and Michael 1995; Ziglio 1996). The second round of a Delphi allows participants to rate or rank items; as Ziglio (1996) pointed out, “issues can be clarified, areas of agreement and disagreement can be identified, and an understanding of the priorities can be developed” (p. 9). Subsequent rounds can then be used to allow re-rating with the purpose of building consensus and exploring minority points of view (Ziglio 1996). Three rounds were employed to discover the competencies doctoral faculty in leadership programs will need to address the challenges of the future. Research began with data gathered from the literature, and an initial round of interviews was conducted with an expert panel of faculty members currently teaching in a doctoral leadership program. Rounds two and three involved participants rating the identified items. Data Sources Following receipt of approval from the University Institutional Review Board, the authors selected Very Good University (VGU) as the site for the study (Hyatt and Goor 2009). Established in the 1890s, VGU is classified as a doctoral granting university according to Carnegie rankings. This private, nonprofit, regionally accredited institution grants bachelors, masters, and doctoral degrees and serves a diverse student population of approximately 8,000. It is located in a small community in California surrounded by a concentration of private and public universities and is situated within 40 miles of an urban metropolis. Developed over 30 years ago, the doctoral program in leadership continues the tradition of quality education at VGU, which is recognized as a leading university in the state (Ewalt and Alberts 2009). The sample consisted of 10 participants (N=10), who met the following criteria established for inclusion in the study:

& & &

an earned doctorate from a regionally accredited university, designation as a faculty member in a leadership doctoral program at a regionally accredited university, and service in a faculty position in a leadership doctoral program at a regionally accredited university for at least one year.

Writings related to Delphi methods suggest that there is no set sample size of the panel (Schmidt 1997; Williams and Webb 1993). A panel size of “...as few as five to ten” is considered appropriate when working with a group of experts (Loo 2002, p. 765). Further, Delbecq et al. (1975) found that larger groups were not likely to generate substantially more new ideas. Ten of the doctoral faculty who teach in the leadership program agreed to participate and thus became the expert panel for the research project. Data Collection and Analysis Subsequent to a review of the literature, data collection began after the development of an interview instrument. The interview instrument consisted of demographic questions and semistructured interview questions. Semi-structured questions were used to query participants first about issues, trends, and challenges that will impact doctoral faculty who teach in leadership


57

programs as they function in various expected roles in the next 10 years. The next set of questions asked participants to identify skills and competencies that doctoral faculty will need to function in the roles of teaching, advising, faculty scholarship (researcher), university and community service, and colleagueship. The interview instrument was reviewed for validity and reliability by a panel of three experts all of whom had an earned doctorate degree and served as faculty members in a leadership doctoral program in various regionally accredited institutions other than VGU. None of the review panel for the interview instrument served as participants in the study. This review panel reached consensus that the interview questions would yield data to inform the research questions. Round one of the Delphi consisted of face-to-face or telephone interviews conducted by the researchers, transcribed, and sent to the participants for verification. The verified transcripts were then reviewed for prominent themes and patterns. Content analysis was employed using reduction (searching for all possible themes and meanings); horizontalization (individual statements that lead to the creation of meaning units followed by clustering the meanings); textural description (what was experienced); and structural descriptions (how it was experienced) (Miles and Huberman 1994). The co-authors provided inter-rater reliability with resultant themes discussed and agreed upon for clarity and reliability (Patton 2001). In the second and third phases of the Delphi study, each participant of the expert panel was sent the list of items generated from round one and asked to rank each item. This is most commonly achieved through a five to seven-point Likert scale (Clayton 1997; Jenkins and Smith 1994). In rounds two and three, participants rated the previously identified items on a five point scale in which 1=not important; 2= less important; 3= important; 4= very important; and 5= critical. The data from the second and third round questionnaires were analyzed using descriptive statistics appropriate for small samples: median and interquartile range (IQR) where the IQR is the difference between the 75th and 25th percentiles. The median and corresponding IQR are less sensitive to extreme scores in small groups (Gall et al. 2006) and have been utilized by various researchers in Delphi studies to determine consensus or convergence (e.g. Hahn et al. 1999; Jones 1975; Wicklein 1993; Williams 2003). Results are displayed and discussed in the following section.

Results The data yielded a list of ranked issues and competencies for doctoral faculty who currently teach in leadership programs. The issues and competencies noted will assist faculty members in identifying areas to prepare to meet future challenges. Issues Impacting Doctoral Faculty in the Next Decade Seven issues emerged from the first round of interviews and were ranked in subsequent rounds as very important or critical (see Table I). With consensus determined by using the IQR of one or less which indicates that fifty percent of ratings fell within one point, the top three issues participants agreed upon were the changing nature of organizations and leadership, globalization, and funding and resources. Given the scale (1=not important; 2= less important; 3= important; 4= very important; and 5= critical), even an IQR up to 1.75 at the upper end of the scale may not indicate much divergence. While not intended to be a comprehensive list, the issues identified represent an attempt by the expert panel to describe the salient features of the future landscape for faculty who teach in doctoral leadership programs. In addition, these issues will also likely impact other

58


Table I Doctoral faculty issues with median and interquartile range (IQR) Issue

Median

IQR

1. Changing nature of organizations and leadership

5

1.00

2. Globalization

4

0.75

3. Funding and resources

4

0.75

4. Abundance of accessible information 5. Student diversity (including diverse levels of preparation)

4 4

1.50 1.50

6. New technologies

4

1.75

7. Accountability

4

1.75

faculty groups in various graduate fields as well as leaders in different professions. It is clear; however, that the faculty on the expert panel thought it was important to highlight imminent changes because those changes help to describe the environment in which leaders will learn and work. As such, the issues represent important elements of an environmental scan necessary for program development and innovation in addition to being the rich context in which faculty must operate. Along with key issues, the expert panel identified competencies necessary for doctoral faculty in the second decade of the 21st century and maybe beyond. A summary of those results follows. In the initial interviews, the faculty panel described several issues that would impact them including rising intercultural contact referred to as globalization, which brings with it increasing diversity in student populations as well as in organizations. The increasingly networked global economy is facilitated by another issue they discussed, i.e., new technologies that impact how learning opportunities and resources can be delivered. The technologies that are emerging and being deployed in organizations make possible new and varied practices such as virtual teams and allow for productivity regardless of location. These new possibilities offer opportunities along with potential challenges. Doctoral Faculty Competencies Given the small sample size, the scale used, and the level of consensus achieved, there was a narrow margin between competencies. They are listed in Tables II, III, IV, V, and VI, are numbered for ease of reference, and represent the role-specific categories of: 1. Teaching, 2. Advising, 3. Research, 4. Service, and 5. Colleagueship. The competencies, then, represent those skills, abilities, knowledge, attitudes, and attributes that will be needed given the identified issues. The list was meant to be a starting point for doctoral program faculty to Table II Teaching role competencies Competency

Median

IQR

1. Communication and facilitation skills

5

0.00

2. Teach theory and practice

5

0.75

3. Use of technology

4

0.75

4. Model and teach ethics

4

0.75

5. Knowledge of and experience with organizational trends

4

1.00

6. Pedagogical understanding

4

1.00

7. Model lifelong learning

4

1.00


59

Table III Advising role competencies Competency

Median

IQR

1. Knowledgeable about research methods, tools, and technologies

5.0

1.00

2. Guide quality written work

4.5

1.00

3. Be available to students

4.0

1.00

4. Engage students as co-researchers 5. Coaching skills

4.0 4.0

1.00 1.75

6. Responsible for dissertation advisement

4.0

2.00

7. Teach research ethics

3.0

1.00

use in moving toward an uncertain future. Several observations related to the competencies associated with each role are discussed. Teaching role The seven competencies identified for the role of teaching were: 1) communication and facilitation skills, 2) teach theory and practice, 3) use of technology, 4) model and teach ethics, 5) knowledge of and experience with organizational trends, 6) pedagogical understanding, and 7) model lifelong learning. Table II depicts this list. Faculty members are the greatest asset in the doctoral leadership program and university (Gappa et al. 2007; McDonald 2004). It is worth noting that the faculty panel in this study displayed a focused consensus (IQR=0) on communication and facilitation skills. Pedagogical skills, not just presentation skills, are of utmost importance in the future environment described by faculty. The panel rankings indicated that, with abundant and accessible information in a globally connected world, the teaching role of the faculty member consists of communicating well and helping students learn how to learn and adapt in a rapidly changing environment. The importance of what are usually called soft skills including communication, valuing others, or interpersonal skills is consistent with other competency studies (e.g., Williams 2003). The consensus and high rating of the competency “teaching theory and practice” (Median=5; IQR=0.75) may indicate the inevitable tension felt between the pull to keep the program relevant in a rapidly changing organizational environment and the need to remain rooted in theoretical frameworks. Emerging technologies and adaptability as teacher, facilitator, and learner appeared as a theme within disparate roles. This was summarized as the ability to use instructional

Table IV Research role competencies Competency

Median

IQR

1. Able to view issues from multiple perspectives

5.0

1.00

2. Understand the role of faculty research in teaching and learning 3. Continuous development of scholarly skills

4.0 4.0

0.00 0.75

4. Innovative and adaptive

4.0

0.75

5. Contribute to the field through publications and presentations

4.0

1.00

6. Understand and promote the role of faculty research to increase program and university prestige

3.5

1.00

7. Use of technology for research

3.5

1.75

60


Table V Service role competencies Competency

Median

IQR

1. Team and collaborative skills

5

1.00

2 Be active in University and professional communities

4

0.00

3. Consultancy skills

4

0.00

4. Ability to work with diverse groups 5. Use of technology skills for service

4 4

1.00 1.00

6. Support the University mission

4

2.00

7. Be active in the broader community

3

1.00

technologies to promote collaboration and do research. Also important was the pedagogical competency to craft meaningful, blended learning experiences using the variety of delivery modes available such that each mode is used according to strengths of the media and the nature of the learning activity. Finally, participants noted that faculty members will be expected to innovate and adapt academic programs so that they are relevant in a rapidly changing society while also maintaining academic rigor. Advising role The seven competencies that were attributed to the role of advisor for doctoral faculty for the future are described in Table III and are as follows: 1) knowledgeable about research methods, tools, and technologies; 2) guide quality written work; 3) be available to students; 4) engage students as co-researchers; 5) coaching skills; 6) responsible for dissertation advisement; and 7) teach research ethics. Advising students is an important faculty role particularly in doctoral work because of the intense nature and duration of the dissertation process (Council of Graduate Schools 1990). While there is a variety of advising tasks, completing the dissertation begins from the student’s first day of class and can continue for several years beyond coursework. Although the competency of being “knowledgeable about research methods, tools, and technologies” was number one, the expert panel closely ranked “guide quality writing.” This competency is related to the issue of “student diversity including diverse levels of preparation.” Varied levels of preparation especially regarding writing and research skills have received attention previously (Council of Graduate Schools 1990). Research role Participants acknowledged the following competencies for doctoral faculty as researcher: 1) able to view issues from multiple perspectives, 2) understand the role of faculty research in teaching and learning, 3) continuous development of scholarly skills, 4) Table VI Colleagueship role competencies Competency

Median

IQR

1. Accept and value others

5.0

0.00

2. Interpersonal skills

5.0

0.00

3. Encourage diverse thinking

4.5

1.00

4. Be a mentor and servant leader

4.5

1.00

5. Knowledge and support of the program mission and goals

4.0

0.75

6. Use technology for collaboration

4.0

0.75

7. Understands the culture and politics of the university, college/school, and department

4.0

1.00


61

innovative and adaptive, 5) contribute to the field through publications and presentations, 6) understand and promote the role of faculty research to increase program and university prestige, and 7) use of technology for research (see also Table IV). There has been a steady rise in the emphasis placed on faculty research for promotion and tenure in higher education institutions of varied types (Braxton et al. 2002; Fairweather 2005; Hyatt and Goor 2009; O’Neill and Sachis 1994). Research is the subject of much discourse in higher education literature; however, while discussions regarding the nature of faculty scholarship persist, current and anticipated key measures of productivity are scholarly publications and presentations (Middaugh 2001; Zamarripa 1995). This trend is expected to continue into the next decade; therefore, for this study the role of faculty member as researcher encompasses contributions to the field in the form of publications and presentations in peer-reviewed venues. In addition to current research role requirements, the list of competencies also reflects new thinking as indicated by the first entry: “Able to view issues from multiple perspectives,” noted by the expert panel as integral for researchers in a rapidly changing and diverse environment. This competency is closely tied to the issues described initially, an increasingly global, networked world in which leaders will have to understand and appreciate many perspectives in order to be sustainable. Moreover, the second competency, to “understand the role of faculty research in teaching and learning” is critical to curriculum relevancy and application. The “continuous development of scholarly skills” represents the growing importance of research and how it informs the field and contributes to advancing the discipline. Additionally, it points to the changing and increasingly complex nature of scholarly publication venues. The growth of open and accessible scholarly journals is one example of the publishing evolution. The Directory of Open Access Journals, administered by the Lund University Libraries, for example, began in 2003, contained 3,000 journals in 2007 and at the end of 2009 reported containing 4,535 journals (Bjornshauge and Johansson 2009) Service Role Seven competencies listed for service are: 1) team and collaborative skills, 2) be active in university and professional communities, 3) consultancy skills, 4) ability to work with diverse groups, 5) use of technology skills for service, 6) support the university mission, and 7) be active in the broader community. Table V includes the service role competencies and their respective ratings for doctoral faculty. The faculty service role is defined in multiple ways (Brazeau 2003). For the purposes of this study, service was defined as, “Activities deemed of value by the educational institution that may, or may not, be related to a faculty member’s formally recognized area of expertise, but that contribute to the functionality of a specific institution, organization, group, or community” (Arreola and Theall 2005, p. 1). Faculty competencies related to service included team and collaboration skills (Median=5; IQR=1). The identification of the importance of teamwork and collaboration skills for faculty members coincides with other studies related to competencies (Thach 1994; Williams 2003). Being active in university and professional communities are key expectations for faculty members. Two competencies, “ability to work with diverse groups” and “use of technology skills for service” exhibit a relationship to the previously discussed issues of “globalization” and “new technologies” that were raised by the expert panel. Consultancy skills, also rated as integral to the service role, encompass both expertise and interpersonal skills necessary for helping others to identify needs and facilitate solutions. Colleagueship role The role of colleague is defined by relationships, and the seven competencies noted here and in Table VI reflect this. The competencies are: 1) accept and

62


value others, 2) interpersonal skills, 3) encourage diverse thinking, 4). be a mentor and servant leader, 5) knowledge and support of the program mission and goals, 6) use technology for collaboration, and 7) understands the culture and politics of the university, college/school, and department. The quality of collegial relationships influences faculty satisfaction and morale. Several studies have indicated that an organizational culture of support and collegiality is a component of faculty retention and recruitment (Blau 1973; Scott and Bereman 1992; Tierney 1988). Colleagueship, as used here, is to be understood as faculty interaction that is congenial and fosters fulfillment through a reciprocal exchange (Finkelstein 1982). Further, academic departments that emphasize and model transparency, supportive behaviors, and cooperation encourage colleagueship (Massey et al. 1994). The top four competencies related to colleagueship identified by the faculty panel were: 1) accept and value others, 2) interpersonal skills, 3) encourage diverse thinking, and 4) be a mentor and servant leader; and this listing appears to support Krovetz and Cohick (1993), who found that working cooperatively allows for diverse ideas and opportunities for increased productivity. Faculty members who trust, respect, and support one another, create professional opportunities for growth and development.

Discussion The findings of this study are intended to add to the current knowledge in the field of post-graduate studies, most particularly faculty development in doctoral education. The surge in technology innovations and sweeping global changes will impact universities with doctoral programs in leadership, affecting hundreds of faculty members who teach in these programs. In addition, doctoral program administrators and the institutions they serve will find this information useful as they plan for the future. Limitations and Future Research Recommendations This exploratory study identified the competencies needed by faculty members who currently teach in doctoral leadership programs. The participant sample that formed the expert panel was derived from one university doctoral leadership program. Even though a limited sample size is common to Delphi studies, participants from multiple institutions may provide diverse viewpoints. Although the expert panel represented varied education backgrounds and experiences, the doctoral leadership program in this study was located in the college of education. Doctoral faculty who teach leadership in other program disciplines (e.g. business schools) might offer different information and perspectives. While the results of this study could potentially be extrapolated to doctoral programs other than those with a leadership focus, the results are preliminary; and the authors recommend additional research. Further research could explore views of leadership faculty members from various universities and across different geographical regions. Many of the competencies in this research were wide-ranging; and therefore, additional studies might elaborate on the constituent skills, knowledge, attitudes, and attributes of each competency. Similarly, further research could be undertaken to identify how such competencies might be developed, nurtured, and otherwise promoted.


63

Implications While there are limitations to this study, the implications are several. Of note, was the close alignment between the role-specific competencies and the issues identified by the expert panel in the initial round. For instance, the top issue identified was the “changing nature of organizations and leadership” (see Table I), which dovetailed with the teaching competency of “knowledge of and experience with organizational trends” (see Table II). The issues of globalization and new technologies emerged as prevalent themes revealed through competencies distributed across the majority of faculty roles. The implications related to both issues are varied and complex. Globalization corresponded with such competencies as “able to view issues from multiple perspectives,” “ability to work with diverse groups,” “accept and value others,” and “encourage diverse thinking” (see Tables IV, V, and VI). American universities with doctoral programs, by nature, have consistently drawn international students. Over the past 50 years, there has been a rise in the variety of cultures that call the U.S. home. Currently, there are purported to be over 310 languages spoken in the U.S. (Rhein 2007). The ease of travel, the predominance of English as the preferred second language combined with the prestige of a U.S. degree serve to attract a diverse student population. “Increasing globalization obligates those engaged in leadership education to adequately prepare future leaders for the challenges that lie ahead” (Hyatt et al. 2009, p. 113). Contemporary leaders will need to function effectively in a culturally diverse, globally connected environment (House et al. 2004; Kagan and Stewart 2004; Starrat 2005; Trompenaars and Woolliams 2007). The impact of new technologies was another pervasive issue evidenced by competencies identified for multiple roles: “use of technology [in teaching]”, “knowledge about research methods, tools, and technologies,” “use of technology skills for service,” and “use technology for collaboration” (see Tables II, III, IV, V, and VI). The competencies identified pointed to the increasing mediation of many tasks by technology, most notably the personal computer, internet related technologies, and mobile communications. The study panel emphasized the need for the faculty to feel comfortable integrating appropriate technologies and the importance of modeling the thoughtful adoption and use of technologies for students in leadership programs. It will be increasingly important for the faculty to craft meaningful blended learning experiences using a variety of delivery modes according to strengths of the media and the nature of the learning activity. Changes in graduate education are fueled, in part, by new technological tools that enable rapid access to abundant information. This creates a phenomenon that Hyatt et al. (2009) termed “knowledge velocity” characterized by information proliferation and complexity (p.118). Ultimately, faculty members will be expected to employ technology to adapt academic programs so that they are relevant in a rapidly changing society while still maintaining academic rigor.

Conclusion This Delphi study explored 21st century competencies required in the next decade for faculty members who currently teach in doctoral leadership programs. A panel of experts identified seven prominent issues and 35 essential competencies apportioned into five role-specific categories. Examined individually, some of the issues and competencies have historically been important and remain so. However, viewed collectively, the results garnered from this research provide a powerful snapshot of the immediate future with which to initiate a professional development dialogue about how best to build the requisite competencies.

64


The initial findings, albeit preliminary, represent important elements of an environmental scan necessary for program development and innovation in addition to representing the rich context in which faculty must operate. This study focused on the competencies necessary for existing doctoral faculty members as considerations for growth and professional development in order to design and deliver today’s content that will, in turn, prepare students for leadership tomorrow.

References Andenoro, A.C. (2005). Competencies of leadership professionals: A national study of premier leadership degree programs. Ph.D. dissertation, Texas A&M University, Texas. Retrieved on July 11, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 3246442) Arreola, R. A., & Theall, M. (2005). The meta-profession project. Retrieved on July 11, 2010, from http:// www.cedanet.com/meta/service.htm Austin, A. E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socialization to the academic career. Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 94–122. Austin, A. E., & McDaniels, M. (2006). Using doctoral education to prepare faculty to work within Boyer’s four domains of scholarship. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Analyzing Faculty Work and Rewards: Using Boyer’s Four Domains of Scholarshi (pp. 51–65). New Directions for Institutional Research, 2006(129). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Austin, A. E., Connolly, M. R., & Colbeck, C. L. (2008). Strategies for preparing integrated faculty: The center for the integration of research, teaching, and learning. In C. L. Colbeck, K. O’Meara, & A. E. Austin (Eds.), Educating Integrated Professionals: Theory and Practice on Preparation for the Professoriate (pp. 69–81). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bjornshauge, L., & Johansson, A. (2009). Directory of open access journals (DOAJ). Lund University, National Library of Sweden. Retrieved on July 10, 2010, from http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=loadTempl& templ=090401b Blau, P. M. (1973). The organization of academic work. New York, NY: Wiley. Bowden, W. G., & Rudenstine, N. L. (1992). In pursuit of the Ph.D. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Braxton, J. M., Luckey, W., & Helland, P. (2002). Institutionalizing a broader view of scholarship through Boyer’s four domains (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report (Vol. 29, No. 2). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Brazeau, G. A. (2003). Revisiting faculty service roles: Is “faculty service” a victim of the middle child syndrome? American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 67(3), 1–6. Bryant, M. T. (2003). The portable dissertation advisor. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Clayton, M. J. (1997). Delphi: A technique to harness expert opinion for critical decision-making tasks in education. Educational Psychology, 17(4), 373–386. Council of Graduate Schools. (1990). The doctor of philosophy degree: A policy statement. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools. Crawford, C. B., Brungardt, C. L., Scott, R. F., & Gould, L. V. (2002). Graduate programs in organizational leadership: A review of programs, costs and delivery methods. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(4), 64–74. Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques for program planning: A guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman Company. Ewalt, D. M., & Alberts, H. R. (2009). Forbes list of America’s best colleges. Retrieved on July 6, 2010, from http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/02/best-colleges-ratings-opinions-ranking-2009_land.html Fairweather, J. S. (2005). Beyond the rhetoric: Trends in the relative value of teaching and research in faculty salaries. Journal of Higher Education, 76(4), 401–422. Finkelstein, M. (1982, March). Faculty colleagueship, patterns, and research productivity. Presented at the 1982 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), New York, NY. Fish, L. S., & Busby, D. M. (1996). The Delphi method. In D. H. Sprenkle (Ed.), Research methods in family therapy (pp. 469–482). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Foshay, W., Silber, K., & Westgaard, O. (1986). Instructional design competencies: The standards. Iowa City, IA: The International Board of Standards for Training, Performance and Instruction.


65

Gall, M., Gall, J., & Borg, W. (2006). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Gappa, J. M., Austin, A. E., & Trice, A. G. (2007). Rethinking faculty work. New York, NY: Wiley. Gardner, S. K. (2005). Faculty preparation for teaching, research, and service roles: What do new faculty need? Journal of Faculty Development, 20(3), 161–166. Gardner, S. K., Hayes, M. T., & Neider, X. N. (2007). The dispositions and skills of a Ph.D. in education: Perspectives of faculty and graduate students in one college of education. Innovative Higher Education, 31(5), 287–299. doi:10.1007/s10755-006-9029-1. Gilis, A., Clement, M., Laga, L., & Pauwels, P. (2008). Establishing a competence profile for the role of studentcentered teachers in higher education in Belgium. Research in Higher Education, 49(6), 531–554. Green, M. T., Alexander, J., & Boryczka, R. (2001). Developing an interdisciplinary doctoral program in leadership studies. In C. L. Outcalt, S. K. Faris, & K. N. McMahon (Eds.), Developing non-hierarchical leadership on campus: Case studies and best practices in higher education (pp. 225–237). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Hahn, E. J., Tourney, C. P., Rayens, M. K., & McCoy, C. A. (1999). Kentucky legislators’ views on tobacco policy. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 16(2), 81–88. Retrieved on July 10, 2010, from: http:// www.ajpm-online.net/article/S0749-3797(98)00134-2 Hale, J. (1989). Training manager competencies: The standards. Batavia, IL: The International Board of Standards for Training, Performance & Instruction. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., Gupta, V., & Associates (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hyatt, L., & Goor, M. B. (2009). Creating a faculty research culture: Charting a course for change. Scholar and Educator: Journal of the Society of Educators and Scholars, 29(1–2), 150–165. Hyatt, L., Evans, L., & Haque, M. D. (2009). Leading across cultures: Designing a learning agenda for global praxis. In M. A. Moodian (Ed.), Contemporary leadership and intercultural competence (pp. 111–125). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Isaac, S., & Michael, W. (1995). Handbook in research and evaluation (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: EdITS/ Educational and Industrial Testing Services. Jenkins, D. A., & Smith, T. E. (1994). Applying Delphi methodology in family therapy research. Contemporary Family Therapy, 16(5), 411–430. Jones, C. (1975). A Delphi evaluation of agreement between organizations. In H. Linstone & M. Turoff (Eds.), The Delphi method: Techniques and application (pp. 160–167). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Kagan, S. L., & Stewart, V. (2004). International education in the schools: The state of the field. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(3), 229–235. Knowles, J. (1962). A general theory of the doctorate in education. Adult Education Quarterly, 12(3), 136–141. Krovetz, M., & Cohick, D. (1993). Professional collegiality can lead to school change. Phi Delta Kappan, 75 (4), 331–335. Lindeman, E. (1938). Preparing leaders in adult education. In S. Brookfield (Ed.), Learning democracy: Eduard Lindeman on adult education and social change (pp. 48–52). London, England: Croom Helm. Linstone, H., & Turoff, M. (1975). The Delphi method: Techniques and application. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Loo, R. (2002). The Delphi method: A powerful tool for strategic management. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 25(4), 762–769. Lovitts, B. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure from doctoral study. Lanham, United Kingdom: Roman and Littlefield. Massey, W. F., Wilger, A. K., & Colbeck, C. (1994). Overcoming “hollowed” collegiality. Change, 26(4), 10–20. McDonald, R. (2004). From wires to users. EDUCAUSE Review, 39(2), 56–57. McLagan, P. (1989). Models for HRD practice. Alexandria, VA: The American Society for Training and Development. McLagan, P. (1997). Competencies: The next generation. Training & Development, 51(5), 40–47. McLagan, P., & McCullough, R. (1983). Models for excellence: The conclusions and recommendations of the ASTD training and development competency study. Alexandria, VA: The American Society for Training and Development. McLagan, P., & Suhadolnik, D. (1989). Models for HRD practice: The research report. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development. Middaugh, M. F. (2001). Understanding faculty productivity: Standards and benchmarks for colleges and universities. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A source book for new methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Nerad, M. (2004). The PhD in the U.S.: Criticisms, facts and remedies. Higher Education Policy, 17(2), 183–199.

66


O’Neill, G. P., & Sachis, P. N. (1994). The importance of refereed publications in tenure and promotion decisions: A Canadian study. Higher Education, 28(4), 427–435. Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Pauley, R., Cunningham, M., & Toth, P. (1999). Doctoral student attrition and retention: A study of a nontraditional Ed.D. program. Journal of College Student Retention, 1(3), 225–238. Pinto, P., & Walker, J. (1978). A study of professional training and development roles and competencies. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development. Piskurich, G., & Sanders, E. (1998). ASTD models for learning technologies: Roles, competencies, and outputs. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development. Presser, S., & Blair, J. (1994). Survey pretesting: Do different methods produce different results? Sociological Methodology, 24, 73–104. Purcell, J. M. (2007). Perceptions of senior faculty concerning doctoral student preparation for faculty roles. Ph.D. dissertation, University of South Florida, United States—Florida. Retrieved February 14, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 3306885) Rees, M. (1972). Graduate education—a long look. In L. J. Kent & G. P. Springer (Eds.), Graduate education today and tomorrow (pp. 139–151). Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. Rhein, J. (2007). How many languages are spoken in the U.S.? Retrieved on July 12, 2010, from http://www. gadling.com/2007/09/30/how-many-languages-are-spoken-in-the-u-s-exactly Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York, NY: Praeger Press. Rothwell, W. (1996). ASTD models for human performance improvement: Roles, competencies, and outputs. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development. Rothwell, W., & Cookson, P. (1997). Beyond instruction: Comprehensive program planning for business and education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schmidt, R. C. (1997). Managing Delphi surveys using nonparametric statistical techniques. Decision Sciences, 28(3), 763–774. Scott, J. A., & Bereman, N. A. (1992). Competition vs. collegiality: Academe’s dilemma for the 90’s. Journal of Higher Education, 63(6), 684–700. Smallwood, S. (2004). Doctor dropout. Retrieved on July 16, 2010, from: http://chronicle.com/article/ Doctor-Dropout/33786 Starrat, R. J. (2005). Responsible leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 124–133. Stein, F., & Hutchison, C. (1988). Instructor competencies: The standards, Vols. 1 & 2. Batavia, IL: The International Board of Standards for Training, Performance and Instruction. Storr, R. J. (1969). The beginnings of graduate education in America. New York, NY: Arno Press. Thach, E. C. (1994). Perceptions of distance education experts regarding the roles, outputs, and competencies needed in the field of distance education. Ph.D. dissertation, Texas A&M University, Texas, U.S. Retrieved July 10, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 9506728) Thurgood, L., Golladay, M. J., & Hill, S. T. (2006). U.S. doctorates in the 20th Century. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, NSF 06–319. Tierney, W. G. (1988). Organizational culture in higher education: Defining the essentials. Journal of Higher Education, 59(1), 2–21. Tigelaar, D. E. H., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2004). The development and validation of a framework for teaching competencies in higher education. Higher Education, 48(2), 253–268. Trompenaars, F., & Woolliams, P. (2007). Developing global leaders: The critical role of dilemma reconciliation. In J. F. Bolt (Ed.), The 2007 Pfeiffer annual leadership development (pp. 211–223). San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Turoff, M., & Hiltz, S. (1996). Computer based Delphi processes. In M. Adler & E. Ziglio (Eds.), Gazing into the oracle: The Delphi method and its application to social policy and public health (pp. 56–88). London, England: Kingsley. Wicklein, R. (1993). Identifying critical issues and problems in technology education using a modifiedDelphi technique. Journal of Technology Education, 5(1), 54–71. Williams, P. E. (2003). Roles and competencies for distance education programs in higher education institutions. American Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 45. Williams, P. L., & Webb, C. (1993). The Delphi technique: A methodological discussion. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19(1), 180–186. Zamarripa, E. J. (1995). Evaluating research productivity. Journal of the Society of Research Administrators, 26(3), 17–26. Ziglio, E. (1996). The Delphi method and its contribution to decision-making. In M. Adler & E. Ziglio (Eds.), Gazing into the oracle: The Delphi method and its application to social policy and public health (pp. 3–33). London, England: Kingsley.