Talk:List of doctoral degrees in the US

WP:UNDUE Weight to the NSF Survey of Earned (Science and Engineering Research)Doctorates

This list article gives far too much weight to the National Science Foundations classification of quote 'research doctorates' as defined by their publication Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) from the Science and Engineering Doctorates office. Their focus is on science and engineering and does not include other fields, particularly interdisciplinary fields which are not subject to typical academic classification. In addition, their publication is one source not thee source. This article needs to be re-written to reflect the fact that other fields such as the National Association of Public Affairs (NASPAA) believes and publishes that the Doctorate of Public Administration is equivalent to the Doctorate of Philosophy in Public Administration because it typically requires research or a portfolio of equivalent research. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The NSF list is the only official list of what the U.S. government considers research doctorates, thus its usage by the Department of Education and by other countries (e.g. Germany), making the weight given to it entirely appropriate. You are incorrect that the NSF list focuses on science and engineering: p the 18 degrees recognized, most are in the arts and humanities, as can be seen by looking at the list. A section on degrees recognised as Ph.D.-equivalent degrees recognized by non-governmental organizations might be appropriate, but this would have to include not only degrees like the D.P.A. but also the J.D. and any other degree that a sectoral organisation has claimed is Ph.D.-equivalent. This should obviously not be given the same weight as the official NSF list. Robminchin (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

No, the NSF Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) assembled by the NORC at the University of Chicago is not an official endorsement or policy it is an advisory report. It is not the voice of the government at large but rather an opinion of a specific organization provided to the NSF on behalf of six other agencies. Please do not conflate that information as a position statement of all the U.S. Government. The report even states that it does not include all doctorate types in the foreword. There is no standard like the National qualifications frameworks in the United Kingdom or similar system. This is part of the reason that the Bologna Process was so difficult to identify similarities between former Soviet Bloc countries and the U.S. The United States Department of Education provided a Structure of US Education to provide generalized information to reference international standards such as the International Standard Classification of Education - it is not instructive of the exact nature of each type of degree that is not factual, no. It hasn't been updated since 2008. Additionally, the first medical degrees in the United States awarded were at the undergraduate level - which supports neither of our positions regarding research content. In addition, only presenting and framing this article from information from the NSF SED alone is WP:UNDUE because they do not have the official charge to speak to "official lists of research". That is not within their mission nor within their charge with the National Academies of Science (e.g. https://www.nsf.gov/about/). Just because a degree is not on the NSF's current list of doctorates does not mean that it is not a research based doctorate, or that a holder's degree was not research based. And yes the NSF focuses almost entirely on science and engineering related disciplines.

You incidentally bring up the Doctorate of Public Administration, which has repeatedly been shown to have research requirements in either the Ph.D. or D.P.A. format for some (not all) programs. The NASPAA organization specifically addressed this issue in a policy statement that both are to be considered research equivalent because the practice of public administration is interdisciplinary. See http://www.jstor.org/stable/975661 and https://www.jstor.org/stable/977428 and the D.P.A. wikipedia article. This is similar to statements made about the Doctorate of Education (E.D.). In addition to this another example that specifically does not fit the identified framework of the NSF SED is the Doctor of Arts which by it's very creation was a doctorate with no research component but a large teaching curriculum and practicum in teaching of a science or other field. See http://www.chronicle.com/article/Why-We-Need-to-Remember-the/232923. The SED represents one view. For wikipedia we can and should provide WP:Balance.Randomeditor1000 (talk) 02:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The NSF list is recognized internationally, e.g. by the European Research Council.[1] Of course it doesn't include all doctorate types - it only includes research doctorates. The article is not framed solely with information from the NSF SED, it also gives the IPEDS definitions. But the NSF provides the only recognized list of research doctorates in the U.S., it would only be WP:UNDUE if there were other lists with a similar level of independence and recognition. The focus of the NSF as a whole is irrelevant here, it's the focus of their list of research doctorates that is relevant, and that clearly includes non-science and non-engineering doctorates.

The first doctorate in the U.S. was the M.D., claiming that the Ph.D. was the first doctorate is simply factually wrong. The Ph.D. was the first research doctorate in the U.S., but not the first doctorate. Robminchin (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The Doctor of Arts is included in the NSF list of research doctorates, so I don't see how you can claim it doesn't fit their framework. You are demolishing your own argument that the NSF list isn't inclusive.

The D.P.A. is considered to be Ph.D. equivalent only by an organization with a vested interest - as I pointed out, this is the same status as the J.D. which is considered Ph.D.-equivalent by the A.B.A.[2] This has the same status as the NASPAA statement, so any list of Ph.D.-equivalent doctorates that included the D.P.A. on the basis of the NASPAA statement would have to include the J.D. as well. There may well be other degrees that have been argued by professional bodies in the sector to be Ph.D.-equivalent that would also have to be included. Such statements are clearly not independent, coming from bodies with a vested interest in the sector. These could be included, but the status of their recognition would need to be made clear. Robminchin (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

This list article was framed solely from the classification of the NSF SED. That is WP:UNDUE because it presents the information as fact. That a degree is or is not. Which is not correct. Each institution specifies the curriculum of the doctoral program including whether an original research dissertation or even academic coursework is a required component. This is even stated in the article currently "The categorization of degrees is left to the awarding institutes." For this reason I have revised the section to WP:SYNTHESIS by incorporating all of the programs that have included a research component throughout time in the United States, including all of the programs identified by the NSF at various points in time. It is an anachronism to suggest a degree suddenly unbecomes a research degree based on the classification within the SED based on the opinion of the researchers at NORC.

I don't think you mean anachronism, that's something like a wrist watch appearing in Elizabethan England. Degrees change over time, and the NSF list has been revised offer time to reflect this.Robminchin

Yes, I mean an anachronism. As stated previously a degree doesn't magically unbecome research based. The SED is not the authority. We can repeat this ad naseum but it isn't really necessary. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The European Research Council is a public body for funding of scientific and technological research conducted within the European Union (EU). This is not relevant to this context as it references the nearly decade old data (2008) put out officially by the US Department of Education in the Structure of US Education. So, according to your own reasoning we should include all of the degrees referenced in the 2008 Structure of US Education which was based on earlier data from the NSF SED? Clarify your position.

• Doctor of Arts (D.A.)
• Doctor of Business Administration (D.B.A.)
• Doctor of Church Music (D.C.M.)
• Doctor of Canon Law (J.C.D./D.C.L.)
• Doctor of Design (D.Des.)
• Doctor of Education (Ed.D.)
• Doctor of Engineering (D.Eng./D.E.Sc./D.E.S.)
• Doctor of Fine Arts (D.F.A.)
• Doctor of Hebrew Letters (D.H.L.)
• Doctor of Industrial Technology (D.I.T.)
• Doctor of Juridical Science (J.S.D./S.J.D.)
• Doctor of Music (D.M.)
• Doctor of Musical/Music Arts (D.M.A.)
• Doctor of Music Education (D.M.E.)
• Doctor of Modern Languages (D.M.L.)
• Doctor of Nursing Science (D.N.Sc.)
• Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.)
• Doctor of Public Administration (D.P.A.)
• Doctor of Physical Education (D.P.E.)
• Doctor of Public Health (D.P.H.)
• Doctor of Sacred Theology (S.T.D.)
• Doctor of Science (D.Sc./Sc.D.)
• Doctor of Social Work (D.S.W.)
• Doctor of Theology (Th.D.)

It is evidence of the internationally-recognized status of the NSF list. Robminchin

That's nice, so you admit that you can't reconcile your own position. It would only be evidence that the ERC recognizes the official statement of the Structure of US Education from 2008 which includes the range of degrees cited above. That doesn't negate the fact that specific citations within the existing paragraph state that each institution defines which type of degree they offer (there are three). That means very plainly that the classification, inclusion, recognition etc of the NSF is not the authority on the definition of what is or is not a research based doctoral degree in the United States. And again, that doesn't align with your previous position. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

No, the ERC text specifically states the NSF list.

The text about each institution defining which category their degrees fall into refers to IPEDS classification used for statistical purposes. Robminchin (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that the NSF SED criterion doesn't make any sense as it is factually inconsistent. My position is consistent. For the purposes of wikipedia, it is not factual to say that because NSF doesn't recognize xyz in x year then it must not be xyz research based. It is a fact for instance, that several institutions require a dissertation as part of the Doctorate of Public Administration curriculum (For example, see: https://www.uis.edu/dpa/curriculum/). It is even more inconsistent then, that the NSF SED study included the Doctorate of Business Administration in the table of 'research degrees' evaluated when only some of the current US D.B.A. programs require a dissertation. Likewise the creation of the Doctor of Arts was specifically to not require an original research component such as a dissertation which would be inconsistent with the methodology of the SER and your narrow view of what qualifies on this topic. It is my opinion that the NORC may have reduced the number of programs under evaluation to make it easier and less costly to produce the report.

What the Doctor of Arts was created as and what it is now are not necessarily the same thing and so have little bearing here. The NORC is a reliable, Independent source, and your opinion unsupported by any references does not change this.Robminchin

In the Chronicle of Higher Education article I previously cited, it specifically explains the history behind the Doctor of Arts in the United States. There are multiple programs that still exist that do not require a dissertation. So it does have bearing since the SED report is clearly not a reliable singular source for what is or is not a research doctoral degree in the United States. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 04:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The SED report is an academic work published by the NSF with the sponsorship of the NSF, NASA, NIH, National Endowment for the Humanities, Dept. of Ag., and Dept. of Ed. It might be your opinion that it is not reliable, but note that "we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves" (WP:RELIABLE). Robminchin (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

In our example, NASPAA is a separate academic organization from the practitioners' professional associations, the American Society for Public Administration, the International City Management Association and the American Political Science Association. Their interests are not analogous to the American Bar Association. The J.D. is a three year degree that does not require a dissertation, occurs after the bachelors degree and has a set prescribed curriculum. The J.D. is required for licensure and professional practice. The D.P.A. is not. The D.P.A. requires a minimum of four years of additional coursework beyond the masters degree (generally totaling 10 years of preparation), a research component, and may be used for qualification for academic appointment to a faculty. The Doctor of Juridical Science (J.S.D) was created to represent the equivalent of the Philosophy Doctorate that is more akin to the D.P.A. It is a fact that all professional disciplines utilize occupational closure. By that reasoning we shouldn't make any distinctions because they are all 'vested interests'. In general, the DPA is considered equivalent by employers and by academia in the United States. It is not similar to the J.D. or other first-professional programs in any way.

None of that invalidates the point that the A.B.A. considers the J.D. to be Ph.D. equivalent, and therefore must be included as a research degree if all sources are to be treated as equal. We cannot evaluate the degrees ourselves, that would be original research. NASPAA describes itself on its home page as "the membership association of graduate programs in public administration, public policy, and public affairs." That clearly makes it a non-independent source when it comes to defining graduate programs in public administration. This of we accept NASPAA's fruition of the D.P.A., we must a the A.B.A.'s definition of the J.D.Robminchin

Yes, let's move the goalposts further shall we. Suggesting that the SED is unbiased and that all professional organizations are biased is irrelevant on wikipedia each academic association is a reliable source that is the primary source. Do we not cite in other articles the policy or research statements of the A.B.A? Or the A.M.A, or other professional associations or organizations Yes. We do. The SED is a secondary source. WP:otherstuffexists. Just because we do not have specific citations for each program does not invalidate their expertise in their specific field. The A.B.A. example would also need to consider the development of the J.S.D as previously stated. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 04:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be primarily based on secondary sources rather than primary sources, as it says on the page you linked to: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." (WP:PRIMARY). I have not said anything about biased, I said independent. These are not the same thing - see WP:INDEPENDENT. This means the NSF list is a better source that NASPAA or any other non-independent source. Treating them as equal would be to give WP:UNDUE weight to the non-independent sources. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be included, but it should be clear that the quality of the source is not as high. Robminchin (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Your points are about the very differentiation of research doctorate vs non-research doctorate. I provided the first research doctorate program in the United States, yes. That is splitting hairs and as I previously mentioned is irrelevant to this discussion except as a revised separate line in this list article. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Then why did you revert it originally?

Your current edit has disassociated the references from the degrees to which they refer, and had lost the information about who recognized degrees as research degrees and when. I will try to include this information within the format you prefer. Robminchin (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The specific years that the degrees appeared in the SED are irrelevant. That was the point of WP:synthesis. Again, it is obvious that a research degree does not suddenly unbecome research based because a secondary source didn't include it in a report. To be blunt there should be some generalization within the table to provide for the fact that there truly are examples of exceptions to the NSF SED report classification whether you accept that or not. I thought it better to seek a compromise which incorporated the existing materials and at least some of your perspective. I believe we have arrived at some semblance of a compromise that reflects the actual environs in the United States landscape of higher education. It would be helpful if you could please separate and sign each of your posts in the future in the format of entry and response as it is very hard to track each of your responses when you include it within my own post. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 04:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The nature of degrees does evolve over time, e.g. the shift of many Ed.D. programs to a professional orientation which led to them being reviewd and many of them removed from the NSF survey. Wikipedia should reflect what is published in reliable, independent, secondary sources, and if the most current sources do not include a degree as a research degree but older version of that source do then that needs to be noted. This is simply giving readers information about the source of the information being presented.

WP:SYNTH is about combining sources to reach a conclusion not stated in the source. The factual statement that something was included in a list one year but not the following year is not synthesis in this sense: "SYNTH is original research by synthesis, not synthesis per se." (WP:NOTSYNTH#SYNTH is not just any synthesis).

I'm not saying that they can't be any exceptions to the NSF list, either degrees with titles on the list that are not research degrees or research degrees with other titles. I'm saying that in order to list those exceptions here (if they exist) we need good quality, independent references. Robminchin (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I have added a couple of edits to ensure that readers can trace the source of the information presented and to highlight that not all doctorates with research dissertations (or equivalent) are on the NSF list due to the exclusion of degrees with a primarily professional focus. I would like to say that this is inconsistent with the IPEDS definition, but I don't know of any source that actually states this so this will probably have to be left to readers to realise for themselves. Robminchin (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I admit that I have no desire to further debate the topic. The revised version is well organization and removes at least some of the perception of undue bias within the previous version of text. My Too Long Didn't Read (TLDR) position remains that readers should not be biased by the weight of the NSF SED report; it is an WP:unreliable and inconsistent source that does not reflect the factual landscape of higher education in the United States. I know that we have our differences on this topic - I appreciate your work on organizing it. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Doctor of Liberal Studies?

Should Doctor of Liberal Studies be added? Here's an example: https://scs.georgetown.edu/programs/43/doctor-of-liberal-studies/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.3.110 (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Doctor of Law and Policy

In the table for Professional Doctorates, Doctor of Law and Policy is listed twice. It doesn’t look intentional, but in the Professional Services column one is labeled as Law and Policy while the other is labeled Policy and Law. I assume the second one should be removed? Hope this helps :) 2600:1700:7490:F480:2C05:89E0:16DD:BFA4 (talk) 08:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks like it, yes. Robminchin (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)