Jump to content

Talk:Doctor of Management

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

reference suggestions

[edit]

http://www.aasa.org/publications/content.cfm?ItemNumber=9280 this article from the AASA discusses the doctor of management programs at different univerisities. It may help as a reference.

http://www.doctorofmanagement.com/index.php/index.html a site about doctor of management programs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.240.133 (talk) 06:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=6624 link for the above article from AASA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.62.214 (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Doctor of Management. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced and MOS-violating material

[edit]

An unregistered editor is insisting that these edits remain in this article. First, much of the material is completely unsourced. Second, some of the material, particularly the section headings, violate the Manual of Style. Third, some of the material is complete nonsense e.g., "As a doctor within the management academy, this practitioner is part of a group of authorities and leaders in this field of scholarship and practice and is permitted to generate theories, dictate standards, prescribe methods, and scrutinize new and existing concepts or ideas pertaining to managerial thought [emphasis added]." ElKevbo (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the material needs to be either sourced or removed, and even if sourced needed to be re-written to sound less like it's been copeid straight from a promotional brochure for the degree. There also seem to be a number of unqualified statements that the D.M. is considered a research doctorate, which seems rather strong as it isn't on the NSF list (I've removed the speculation – which I don't think even deserves the name original research – that the NSF would be adding it 'soon'). Robminchin (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if they do not have specific reliable references for these statements, I would suggest they are fair game to remove. The wording appears to me to be WP:POV at least in terms of style with the use of words like permitted, dictate, scrutinize. These are generally the type of POV that some in academia use to promote positive and elitist view of specific fields. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis

[edit]

As currently written, this entire article is synthesis as not a single cited source discusses this topic; there are only Wikipedia-editor selected examples of the topic that are inappropriately generalized. Without sources that specifically discuss this topic, it doesn't even seem to pass the basic bar of notability required for the topic to warrant an article and it's in danger of being considered for deletion. ElKevbo (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There are statements such as 'many universities require the same research rigor and expertise for their DM programs' that are synthesised from examples (four in this case) rather than a source actually saying that many universities do this. All of the sources are associated with DM degrees, rather than being third-party sources, so as you say it does seem dubious that the degree passes basic notability requirements. Robminchin (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on building more information from primary and secondary sources to help give the article more credibility. So far, I have gathered 8+ sources which are a combination of journal articles and other source material that are not directly associated with universities. The information I have found confirms most of the information that already exists in the article, but there will be some further edits and clarification that will take place. Having multiple universities who are saying the same information about the degree does have a level of credibility. We can gather themes from this information and make generalizations from those themes about the program. This means there is some level of consistency from university-to-university. If there was only one source being used then there would be a conflict of information and a probable sense of promotion. However, I understand the importance of having other sources that confirm and solidify those findings. Furthermore, ask yourselves where "third-party sources" are getting their information to write their articles that would deem their information reliable. They need sample sizes of data and information from universities to come to their conclusions, unless they are conducting independent research using research methods and analysis. The focus here is too much about where the information is coming from versus the validity and reliability of the information that is being shared. Noambiguity
Additional comments: You mentioned "the degree passes basic notability requirements". This about the credibility of the article and topic, not the degree. I am assuming this was a mistake in words. Noambiguity —Preceding undated comment added 20:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Gather[ing] themes from this information and mak[ing] generalizations from those themes" is precisely what we are NOT supposed to be doing here. Instead of looking at primary sources - university materials about their own programs - you should be looking for secondary and tertiary sources - materials that are written about multiple programs and the degree in general. If those sources don't exist then we probably shouldn't have an article on this topic. ElKevbo (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This was already addressed and understood in my original comment above. I stated "So far, I have gathered 8+ sources which are a combination of journal articles and other source material that are not directly associated with universities. I understand the importance of having other sources that confirm and solidify those findings." Everything beyond that is me speaking out loud and sharing open thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noambiguity (talk • contribs) 06:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added insights and information

[edit]

I am adding additional insights below. Please add something substantial to advance the discussion on the topic as opposed to why you "feel" certain elements should not be present or meet a standard. Please be objective.

The topic of Doctor of Management is about a specific doctoral degree program and the objectives, requirements, and expected outcomes which is public information that can be found and verified on numerous accredited university websites who offer the program. The DM program has been around for some time, but not nearly as long as the PhD. The DM has continued to evolve over the years which requires staying current on the progressions of the program format. The DM is a professional doctorate degree, but more universities have transitioned the DM program from the traditional professional doctorate and have equipped their programs with more research requirements emulating the PhD format.

If people are basing the research requirements off the Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) published by the National Science Foundation (2019), the NSF claims they only base their survey eligibility on the completion of a dissertation or equivalent project oriented toward preparing students to make original contributions in a field of study that are not primarily intended for the practice of a profession (p. 23). This is NSF's only eligibility requirement and they only review 18 distinct types of research doctorates. The title of their survey is misleading because the aim of NSF and their research is to understand analytics only revolved around people who completed RESEARCH doctorates in specific fields. Their research is not intended to account for all doctorates or doctoral degrees. The NSF explicitly stated, professional doctorates, such as the MD, DDS, JD, and PsyD, are not covered by their survey (p. 22). The NSF's excluded list is not all inclusive of other professional doctorates such as DBA, DM, EdD, DNP, DrPH, DHsc, etc. While it can be easily argued that most of these professional doctorates are not rooted in research but rather practice, some programs like the DM and DBA do produce dissertation research.

People can find many published research dissertations by Doctor of Management graduates on www.proquest.com or www.ebsco.com who wrote and defended their research in front of a qualified research committee which meets the requirements outlined by the NSF. However, the NSF decided if a doctoral degree was primarily intended for professional practice they would not consider them in their survey. This is a topic and area the NSF should revisit if there are professional doctoral students who have shown they can perform and complete independent research in their field. If a DM student completes and defends a traditional five-chapter dissertation they are recognized as a researcher AND practitioner in their field. The only difference is one is grounded in practice (DM) and the other in theory (PhD). However, when a dissertation is completed by either program, both have roots in research.

The DM at its core is still a professional doctorate. However, what this may look like for a DM program is 50% professional practice and 50% theory and research where a PhD is 100% theory and research and not concerned with practice. If the standard and requirement to be qualified as a research degree is conducting independent research through the completion and oral defense of a dissertation then the DM meets the PhD and research requirement. It is academically equivalent. DM graduates would not claim to be a PhD, but have demonstrated they are capable of conducting and defending independent research. It could be argued since the DM is not 100% theory and research based it does not align with the research focus of the PhD. However, to completely dismiss the DM degree as not being research based is highly inaccurate when a dissertation is involved while the requirements demand the same (dissertation) for a research degree. The findings reveal the DM is practice and research based and people would have to look at other factors associated with a research degree (PhD) completely separated from the dissertation to put it in a research class by itself OR start including professional doctorates with independent research requirements in the discussion of hybrid research doctorates.

Reference

National Science Foundation (2019). Doctorate recipients from U.S. universities 2018. Retrieved from https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf20301/assets/report/nsf20301-report.pdf— Preceding unsigned comment added by Noambiguity (talk • contribs)

You need independent reliable secondary sources stating that the DM is considered to include research at the same level as a PhD for such a claim to be made in the article. The argument you are constructing here would be WP:original research and is not suitable for Wikipedia. The DM is not considered a PhD-equivalent research doctorate by the NSF, as has been shown, and this should be included – along with any countervailing opinions – in any discussion of academic equivalence. At the moment, it is unclear whether there are even independent reliable secondary sources that discuss the DM, so the notability of this topic and its suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia is uncertainty. Robminchin (talk) 02:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been provided sources to find the information. Search and find the dissertations using the links as noted in the original discussion and you will find dissertations from DM graduates that show and prove they perform research at the same level as a PhD which is the five-chapter dissertation. The evidence is there, but you are not doing your due diligence to confirm the information. You do not need a secondary source when there are published dissertations made to the public signed off by qualified chair and committee members (who are PhDs themselves). You keep using a bias argument of the NSF as your standard which has already been addressed and refuted above. As noted, there are plenty of well known accredited universities who have this information publicly on their website in terms of the research rigor required for their program. I can post numerous published dissertations from DM graduates who performed a traditional five-chapter dissertation which is your primary source of evidence.

The foundation in which you are trying to build your argument is not critical or sound. The DM is a doctoral program with outlined curriculum by universities. This means you will find the requirements and classes clearly outlined for the program by a university. You are implying two things: 1) Universities are not being honest about the requirements which would be a university and academic violation 2) There should be hundreds of peer-reviewed articles on a specific degree program and curriculum that is evolving. This is the responsibility of universities to bring clarity to their degree programs they offer and the requirements based on accreditation. This is why there are accreditation standards and requirements. Researchers are not spending copious amounts of time studying their degree programs in which they graduated from but rather topics in their field of study.

What level of research distinguishes the PhD beyond the dissertation? Is it the coursework or number of research classes offered by a university? What are you basing this high level of research beyond classes offered and the dissertation? If the DM program and a PhD program have the same amount of research coursework and require a dissertation, then how does a person distinguish research level? The only difference is the subject matter. Research focused in practice versus generalized theory research.

The argument is not to imply the DM is a research doctorate. The DM is intended for professional practice and has no intention of being a research doctorate. People can get PhDs in management if they prefer academia. The argument is the DM is a professional doctorate which requires very similar or equivalent research rigor as a PhD when multiple research courses and a dissertation is required. What would disqualify a DM graduate from being able to perform any similar work as a PhD graduate in a similar field of study in management? A DM can produce scholarly works. A DM can teach at a university. The main difference is DM graduates prefer real-world practice as opposed to academia. That is why they choose the degree program because they want to solve real-world problems in their fields.

However, as much as it is our responsibility to prove and support statements (which I will continue to research this area with journal works), it is also our/your responsibility to provide multiple reliable sources refuting such arguments. Not simply based off of one source of information and because you feel strongly about something. You are too biased in your thoughts that you are spending more time trying to refute areas of the program in which you have no expertise or experience in as opposed to how you can help provide clarity to the subject. If your intentions are not to help, then please stop adding to this discussion and remove yourself from this associated page and allow others who are qualified on the subject and program to help to get this subject where it needs to be. If you are not a DM graduate, Doctor of Management, or someone who has direct experience working with DM programs then I question what your purpose or expertise is to this discussion and topic.

Wikipedia is not a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. Anyone can post here having no qualifications or experience on the subject. It is an information center only and it is up to the user to dig deeper into the information to confirm the details and data as much as possible.

Noambiguity —Preceding undated comment added 05:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We welcome experts and novices alike in Wikipedia. As frustrating as it is for experts to work with novices, you have no business telling other editors that they cannot edit this article because they lack what you believe to be a necessary amount of expertise or experience. This is not your article. ElKevbo (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I welcome all and any kind of individuals to contribute. My intention is to help add clarity to this subject so it can be helpful to individuals who have interest in the information. I never claimed this to be my article or told anyone they could not edit the article. Please do not misconstrue my words. I stated "If your intentions are not to help". The idea is to work together and help progress the topic forward in a positive direction. Editing and removing information based on personal opinion and elitist views without adding any additional helpful or supportive material (i.e. sources) is not helping progress the topic forward for the greater good of the community. It merely becomes personal instead of being objective. Even providing constructive feedback in areas that could use improvement could be helpful to users who have true interest in helping advance this subject. --Noambiguity (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion that we should read theses by DM graduates "show and prove they perform research at the same level as a PhD" is completely contrary to Wikipedia's policy on original research. You need to provide independent, reliable secondary sources to back up what you are claiming. That's how Wikipedia works. Robminchin (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rob - That was meant as a separate discussion away from the article (dialogue / conversation). That conversation was in reference to the assumption you made about the level of research rigor (structure and quality) performed in the DM program without any supporting evidence that says contrary. We have to be careful making strong assumptions as those statements with little-no evidence whether positive or negative (goes both ways). We can make general claims with little support of things generally known to the majority of the population that has already been researched extensively: For example, smoking cigarettes is bad for a person's health. My only point with the dissertation statement is there are real examples available to look at and assess the level of structure and quality based on the known requirements for a traditional five chapter dissertation. More evidence exists than not, and again, you have to ask yourself what performance standard are you referencing or measuring against outside of a dissertation (empty claim)? I was speaking from a personal standpoint only. From a writing perspective I understand statements have to be supported by reliable sources. A more fair question would have been "Can you provide sources or research that support that statement?" as opposed to an assumptive statement. The answer would be yes, I do have peer-reviewed journals that support that statement. --Noambiguity (talk) 06:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to the articles about Australian professional doctorates, then you need something actually relevant to the Doctor of Management. Australian professional doctorates are part of a qualifications framework that only allows PhD-equivalent research degrees to be called doctorates, this cannot be generalized to US professional doctorates. Robminchin (talk) 04:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rob - No, I am not referring to that one article, but yes you are correct that article is not relevant for this article. I believe most Australian professional doctorates require original research (dissertation) and is why they classify most of their professional doctorates as research degrees. So again, the standard being set on the dissertation and associated research needed to complete the dissertation.
However, the information I am referring to are the reports that confirm that most DM programs in the U.S. require a dissertation which is a competency requirement of how well the student can conduct and defend original research. The dissertation requirement does not change from program-to-program. Any student having to perform a dissertation in the U.S. has to follow the same outlined requirements of the dissertation. That is the standard in terms of research competency and rigor. It truly goes without having to say it.
If we remove the dissertation requirement from the PhD, then what do we have? Not very much. Those programs are centered around that requirement which shows how much emphasis is on that requirement. DM programs that require a dissertation show similar or same research competencies as PhDs. However, we have also learned that some DM programs may only require a research project. In those cases, we would not compare DM programs that do not produce original research/dissertation on the same research level as a PhD. We can't right? In those instances, they have not shown they are capable of performing original research. This also goes for professional doctorates that are coursework only with no research requirements. The common sense test says of course those would not be compared with the research requirements of a PhD. However, I am not sure people in those categories would make that claim or have any desire to be in the research arena.
Again, it goes without saying that if a program requires original research/dissertation then that in itself shows the research rigor and research competencies of a program/student/graduate. Nothing else needs to be said, it speaks for itself within the research community.
Lastly, I am not sure I would use Australia as the standard in terms of qualifications. According to a recent study and report of their PhD programs:
Far too many are being admitted, with the admission rate described as “quite high”, according to the Design Options for the Future Doctorate [2] report by the Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education at the University of Melbourne.[1] A third of experts surveyed indicated that more than 60 percent of their applicants were admitted, while around half of experts said they admitted more than 40 percent of applicants.[1] Such high admission rates raise questions about entry standards, and about program and student alignment and expectations,” the report said. Twenty-eight universities participated in the survey, while 673 graduates and 338 institution experts contributed data.[1]
References
[1] SI News (2019). Australia: Are PhD entry requirements too low? Retrieved from https://www.studyinternational.com/news/australia-are-phd-entry-requirements-too-low/
[2] Australian Government: Department of Education and Training (2018). Design options for the future doctorate. Retrieved from https://ltr.edu.au/resources/ID15-5058_Coates_FinalReport_2018.pdf
--Noambiguity (talk) 10:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doctor_of_Management&oldid=1212581195"