Preparing Doctoral Students in Special Education: What Do We Really Know?

Abstract

This exploratory review was conducted to examine recent literature regarding the preparation of doctoral students in special education. Specifically, articles included in this search focused on doctoral preparation in special education between 2005 and 2020. A total of 15 articles were identified and coded for type of study design and themes were developed using qualitative research methods. Results of the qualitative analysis suggest three overarching themes related to special education doctoral preparation. Implications for developing and revising doctoral programs are discussed.

Keywords

general special education research methods teacher leadership teacher learning mentoring teacher preparation policy/service delivery professional development

Within the field of special education, graduates of doctoral programs may be expected to demonstrate expertise in their ability to provide instruction and supervision (Markel, 1982; Robb et al., 2012), conduct, interpret, and disseminate research (Lin et al., 2011; Prehm, 1980), provide leadership as a policymaker and advocate (Nagro et al., 2019, 2020), and provide service to their field (deBettencourt et al., 2016). Upon attainment of a doctoral degree in special education, both EdD and PhD graduates have a number of options to consider as they establish a path forward. EdD graduates tend to have careers as practitioners or administrators and PhD graduates often pursue careers in academia (Walker & Haley-Mize, 2012). Graduates of these programs may seek and find employment in (a) tenure and non-tenure lines within academia; (b) noninstructional roles in colleges and universities; (c) policymaking and/or advocacy organizations; (d) administrative positions; (e) working as developers or trainers in state, local, and private agencies; (f) public school systems; (g) local education agencies (LEAs); (h) positions as direct service providers; (i) research; (j) clinics; and (k) private practice (Bos et al., 1995; HECSE, 2020; Pierce & Smith, 1994; Smith et al., 2010; Smith & Salzberg, 1994; Tyler et al., 2003).

In the United States, 27 special education doctoral programs existed (Smith & Salzberg, 1994) prior to the passage of P.L. 85-926, “Graduate Fellowship Program for the Preparation of Leadership Personnel in the Education of Mentally Retarded Children,” which initiated the provision of federal funding for personnel preparation during the 1959 through 1960 academic year (Bos et al., 1995; Prehm, 1980). As a result of this legislation, 15 institutes of higher education (IHEs) received funding to prepare teachers, teacher educators, or supervisors (Smith & Salzberg, 1994; Smith et al., 2011). With the appropriation of personnel preparation funds, the number of doctoral programs in special education grew to 84 in 1992 (Pierce et al., 1992), 97 in 2012 (Smith & Montrosse, 2012), and decreased to 79 between 2009 and 2018 representing the lowest number of programs in decades (HECSE, 2020). According to Kleinhammer-Tramill and Fiore (2003), only four doctoral degrees in special education were awarded in 1953, compared with 262 doctorate recipients in special education in 2019 (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, National Science Foundation, 2019).

Funding for personnel preparation continued with the passage of P.L. 94-142 in 1975 (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA]) and Congress has continued to appropriate funding for Part D of IDEA since the inception of this legislation (West & Hardman, 2012). Three federal agencies have provided support for doctoral preparation, including (a) the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), (b) the Institute for Education Sciences (IES), and (c) Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Branch (MRDD), with OSEP being the primary source of funding (Smith et al., 2010, 2011). With external preparation funding, special education doctoral programs have developed stronger programs that offer a greater range of learning opportunities in coursework and seminars that often are not possible with diminished funding (Smith et al., 2011). Programs with external funding also have been able to develop concentration areas to support the specialization of knowledge in areas such as early intervention/early childhood special education (EI/ECSE) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD; Robb et al., 2012). Previous research has reported benefits of external funding for doctoral preparation to include (a) the ability of students to attend full- or part-time, (b) a shorter time needed to successfully complete their program, and (c) becoming college and university faculty members (Smith et al., 2001; Tyler et al., 2012). In addition, researchers have asserted OSEP’s competitive preferences for the recruitment and development of students from historically underrepresented groups may have contributed to a more diverse, younger, and better funded student population (Tyler et al., 2012; Wasburn-Moses & Therrien, 2008).

Despite the recent decline in the number of special education doctoral programs, these programs have become more competitive, and expectations have increased for both doctoral students and faculty members. For decades, researchers have observed that as the number of special education doctoral programs has grown, graduates are expected to be knowledgeable and skilled in (a) supporting teacher educators with content in general and special education, (b) developing more culturally competent and responsive educators to meet the needs of a more diverse population, (c) meeting federal, statewide, and district mandates, and (d) actively engaging in advocacy and policy making initiatives (Nagro et al., 2020; Robb et al., 2012). deBettencourt and colleagues (2016) noted expectations for special education faculty may have increased regarding (a) the number of publications they produce per year, (b) the use of technology in their work, (c) the ability to obtain grant funding, and (d) the skill in developing online learning platforms to meet a range of needs (e.g., teaching online courses, providing online professional development).

To support the needs of graduate students, previous research about doctoral preparation, both within and outside of special education, has focused on topics such as the use of cohorts and collaboration (Holmes et al., 2010), mentoring (Kumar & Johnson, 2017; Welton et al., 2014), stress and the emotional needs of graduate students (Sparkman & Doran, 2019), challenges in completing doctoral programs (Jameson & Torres, 2019), and the relationship between doctoral students and their advisor (Mannson & Myers, 2012). Within the field of special education, including concentration areas, a number of professional organizations (e.g., Teacher Education Division [TED]; Division for Early Childhood [DEC]), as well as technical assistance centers (e.g., Early Childhood Personnel Center [ECPC]), have supports designated for the preparation of doctoral students (see online supplemental files). Although these supports are in place, researchers have noted a lack of research on doctoral preparation and the needs of doctoral students (Bos et al., 1995; Smith & Salzberg, 1994). To the best of our knowledge, in recent years, there has not been a review of literature to synthesize what our field has learned about doctoral preparation, how programs are preparing our future leaders and scholars, and how students, as well as faculty, are describing strengths and challenges in preparing doctoral students. At a minimum, all literature reviews serve to methodologically analyze and synthesize quality literature on a topic; however, the purpose of an exploratory literature review is to supply a broad approach, aiming to capture the breadth of the topic and to discern the size of the topic (Frederiksen & Phelps, 2020). Therefore, the purpose of this exploratory review of the literature was to examine recent literature regarding the preparation of doctoral students in special education. Our guiding question was: what has been the focus of empirical and nonempirical articles on doctoral preparation in special education?

Method

Inclusion Criteria

In 2004, the Blue Ribbon Committee reported their recommendations for OSEP’s Personnel Preparation Leadership Program. Through these recommendations, the committee posited several components needed in leadership programs, including a curriculum designed to demonstrate mastery of research methodology, personnel preparation, policy/advocacy, or professional practice. During the time that has elapsed from those recommendations, a review of literature about doctoral preparation has not been published. Our goal was to examine ways the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Committee may have been implemented, as well as current content in articles published about doctoral preparation.

Studies included in this exploratory review of literature were written in English and met the following inclusion criteria. First, the article content was specific to doctoral preparation. Graduate preparation, as a content topic, was sufficient as long as the authors specified graduate preparation as doctoral versus master’s preparation. Second, the authors wrote specifically about doctoral preparation in the field of special education. Finally, the articles were published between 2005 and 2020 to examine the focus of special education doctoral preparation articles published after the Blue Ribbon Committee’s recommendations were reported.

Search Procedures

We searched four electronic databases (Education Research, ERIC, Sage Premier, and ProQuest Central) for key terms related to: (a) “mentoring” AND “doctoral students” AND “special education,” (b) “doctoral preparation” AND “special education” AND “doctoral students” OR graduate students,” (c) “doctoral preparation” AND “early childhood special education” AND “doctoral students” OR “graduate students,” and (d) “special education” AND “doctoral preparation” AND “doctoral students.” The Boolean term “OR” was intentionally used to accommodate literature that identified doctoral students as graduate students.

Screening Procedures

The search procedures yielded 8,360 records (see Figure 1). Results were narrowed to those published in peer-reviewed journals and by subject filters (i.e., higher education, mentoring, mentors, special education, college faculty, doctoral programs). Once duplicates were removed, 175 records remained. We conducted a title/abstract screening of the 175 records, followed by a full-text screening of the remaining 38 records. During our full-text screening for interrater reliability, 23 records were excluded: 15 were not specific to the field of interest, two were not within the specified dates, and six were not specific to doctoral preparation. This left 15 included studies from our original search.

Figure 1.

Screening Procedures to Determine Study Eligibility.

Interrater Reliability

Prior to the inclusion of any article in this review of literature, the researchers completed interrater reliability using the three-item checklist that outlined the agreed-upon inclusion criteria (e.g., specific to doctoral preparation, specific to the fields of special education, and published between 2005 and 2020). A review of all 38 articles was conducted by the first and second author using the three-item checklist. This review yielded 15 articles that met inclusion criteria. Interrater reliability between the first and second author was determined by the total number of agreements divided by the total number of possible agreements on this three-item checklist. Interrater reliability was 100%.

Interrater reliability was also conducted by the first and second authors to determine if each article was considered to be empirical (i.e., data-based) or non-empirical (i.e., non-data-based) and for the type of article (e.g., program description, survey research, single-case research) using the criteria outlined by Tulbert et al. (1996). Initial interrater reliability between the first and second author was determined by the total number of agreements divided by the total number of possible agreements resulting in an agreement of 73.3% (11/15). To reach consensus regarding the type of article, the four articles not agreed upon were reviewed by the third author and discussed by all authors to reach consensus. This discussion led to an agreement of 100%.

Coding Procedures

The final 15 articles (see Table 1) were initially coded for content according to guidelines established by Tulbert and colleagues (1996). Through this coding process, we examined if articles published during the past 15 years were empirical or non-empirical, as well as for category of article. The 15 categories of articles defined by Tulbert et al. (1996) included (a) program description, (b) program evaluation, (c) descriptive research, (d) qualitative research, (e) survey research, (f) group experimental research, (g) single-case research, (h) methodological/ measurement paper, (i) narrative literature review, (j) meta-analysis, (k) annotated bibliography, (l) policy analysis, (m) models/guidelines, (n) position paper, and (o) interview.

Table 1.

Author, Purpose of Study, and Relevant Findings of Included Studies.

Author (year)	Purpose of study	Relevant findings
Abernathy et al. (2008)	Shared findings of reflective self-evaluations completed by doctoral special education students to deepen their understanding of the relationship between teaching and learning.	Reflections provided allowed doctoral students to share their successes and challenges, which, in turn, helped faculty in determining opportunities and experiences provided in their program.
deBetttencourt et al. (2016)	Examined five contemporary issues (i.e., changing roles regarding teaching, research, and service; evolving diversity; increasing funding; situating PhDs; delivering training) related to the preparation of special education doctoral students.	Increased attention to the changing roles of special education faculty, including how to be situated in future preK-12 education preparation; ensuring IHE cultural diversity in faculty, coursework, and related supports; evolving changes in special education funding priorities and allocation; and emerging doctoral program online delivery systems to meet the changing needs of special education doctoral candidates.
Dieker et al. (2014)	Summarized the need to prepare doctoral students who have knowledge in special education, general education content, research and advanced technologies, as well as knowing how to support students with disabilities and their families.	We must think differently about the preparation of teachers and teacher educators at all levels. Specifically, they noted one method of ensuring their progress was to prepare well-rounded diverse scholars who were supported in their passion for excellence in education.
Martin et al. (2016)	Examined the effect of mentoring on the doctoral fellows and mentors in NUSELI.	Recommended all IHEs could benefit from the implementation of a mentoring program. They also put forth the importance of establishing communication and collaboration expectations between mentoring pairs.
Nagro et al. (2020)	Examined a model of PD to prepare doctoral students in immediate and long-term use of advocacy and policy and engagement.	Survey data they gathered over a 3-year period revealed that after this PD opportunity, participants reported a significantly higher understanding of and readiness to engage in education policy and advocacy.
Robb et al. (2012)	Examined current concentration or program offerings at special education teacher education programs, the concentration or programming offerings anticipated at special education teacher preparation programs in 5 years, the need for additional faculty, and ways special education teacher education programs are currently staffed.	Reported that not only is the number of current graduates insufficient, but data also speak to the need for future faculty to possess skills different from their predecessors to address the changing roles. The projected attrition rates make the possibilities of producing sufficient supply of special educators, let alone participating in the preparation of general educators, most difficult.
Rodriguez et al. (2019)	Examined how special education policy internships deepened the knowledge base of doctoral students and how knowledge gained was applied after completion of the internship.	Participants reported (a) the internship experience deepened their understanding of the grant-application process, (b) the importance of collaborating with colleagues apart from their own university, (c) the importance of having strategies to successfully collaborate with others, and (d) they acquired the ability to fluidly communicate the interaction between legislation, policy, and research.
Shealey (2009)	Examined the lived experiences of African American doctoral students attending primarily white institutes.	Provided several suggestions in preparing doctoral students (a) faculty engage in PD in the area of cultural competence; (b) programs complete a self-study on the status of diversity initiatives; (c) programs develop a formal mentoring structure for doctoral students of color; (d) programs represent a diverse faculty and staff.
Smith & Montrosse (2012)	Reported on the SEFNA project and examined if there were (a) changes in the number of doctoral programs, (b) changes in the capacity of these programs (e.g., size, concentration area, number of currently enrolled students, number of graduates produced over a 10-year period), and (c) if there were improvements in the supply of new graduates, particularly those assuming a career in higher education.	Even though the number of doctoral programs in special education increased, the number of doctoral students enrolled in these programs increased, and there was an increase in the number of graduates. Though, it was also noted that despite the increased number of students and graduates, there would not be enough to meet the demand for faculty positions.
Smith et al. (2010)	Discussed the shortage of special education teachers and how this connects to the shortage of special education faculty; reviewed federal policies and the role of the federal government in addressing these concerns.	Called for policymakers, stakeholders, and university faculty to take action in addressing the following concerns: (a) increase the number of special education faculty, (b) support special education faculty in their increased responsibilities of preparing general educators, (c) evaluate and revise current doctoral programs to better prepare them to support the needs of future educators, (d) consider gaps in our current understanding about doctoral preparation and develop a research agenda to address these needs, and (e) develop a national plan of action.
Smith et al. (2011)	Described findings from three studies designed to (a) determine the graduation rates of students supported by OSEP, (b) assess funding levels and types of awards offered to doctoral students within and across OSEP’s projects, and (c) compare OSEP’s initiatives with similar ones offered through other federal agencies.	Reported on (a) the significance of OSEP in providing funding to meet the demand of special education doctoral students, (b) the high graduation rates of OSEP-funded graduates, (c) the low level of assistance provided to doctoral students, and (d) the variability that exists in funding and stipends for doctoral students. In addition, the authors called for action regarding the amount of funding doctoral students could receive, how to collect data for doctoral graduation rates, and that changes to supporting doctoral preparation from OSEP should come from a variety of stakeholders (e.g., policymakers, federal officials, university representatives).
Tyler et al. (2012)	Examined the characteristics of both current and recent graduates of special education doctoral programs.	Doctoral students are younger, more diverse, and take faculty positions at a higher percentage when compared with the 2001 Faculty Shortage Study. Furthermore, the authors called for federal officials, university faculty members, and professional organizations to collectively address faculty shortages.
Wasburn-Moses (2008)	Built upon the Vanderbilt Study to gain the perspectives of doctoral students about strengths and weaknesses of doctoral preparation, as well as the satisfaction level for individual and program variables.	Two areas in which doctoral students appear to be most satisfied were mentoring and support; however, the authors also expressed concerns about limited opportunities for participation in research, the structure of the program, and the workload of doctoral students.
Wasburn-Moses & Therrien (2008)	Examined doctoral satisfaction and compared current findings about demographics and special education programs with findings from the 1999 Vanderbilt Study.	No change was noted in demographics or satisfaction level ratings from doctoral students when compared with the previous study and expressed concern about the willingness of students to relocate. Called for improved funding, reflection and action for program improvement, and recruitment strategies.
West & Hardman (2012)	Provided an overview of previous studies pertaining to special education leadership personnel and to make recommendations for federal policy for Part D.	Faculty shortage in special education will have serious consequences for individuals with disabilities and their families. Specifically, authors of these studies recommended (a) continued investment of Part D funding, (b) OSEP should consider increasing the number of programs funded and the individual stipends for students, and (c) doctoral programs should reflect on their programs and address how to effectively prepare doctoral students given current needs.

Note. IHE = institutes of higher education; NUSELI = National Urban Special Education Leadership Initiative; PD = professional development; OSEP = Office of Special Education Programs; SEFNA = Special Education Faculty Needs Assessment.

Using an inductive approach, an emergent coding process (Elliott, 2018) was used to examine content included in the articles. The final 15 articles were coded to identify the following characteristics: (a) purpose, (b) research questions, (c) participants, (d) setting, (e) study design, (f) results, (g) themes derived from discussion points, (h) future research ideas, (i) practitioner suggestions, (j) limitations, (k) issues, and (l) concerns. The first two authors divided the articles and independently inserted these characteristics (e.g., participants, future research ideas, concerns) on a Word document table. Then, the lead author completed a final read through of each article to add any pertinent details which may have been omitted.

A thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) was used to generate codes and identify themes. After an initial review of the Word document, the first and third authors identified potential codes that emerged in the literature. In our review of the 15 final articles, we noted several publications focused on topics such as mentoring, teaching, and funding; thus, these topics, as well as others, were identified as an initial set of codes that could be used to identify common themes in the literature. The lead author used this initial set of codes and highlighted the Word document to indicate which articles focused on aspects related to mentoring, teaching, funding, etc. Finally, after completing this process, the codes were transferred to a new table on a Word document to group information found about each code together and create themes. For example, the researchers of the articles reviewed focused on funding; therefore, a funding category on the table included the names of the researchers (deBettencourt et al., 2016; Smith et al., 2011; West & Hardman, 2012), along with the ways they referenced funding in their articles. This process was completed for all of the identified codes and presented in the “Results” section.

Results

Results about the focus of empirical and nonempirical articles included in this review of literature are presented in two sections. First, we will identify empirical and nonempirical articles and the study designs used for each of the articles. Then, we will review findings from the thematic analysis and discuss three themes which emerged through the coding process.

Study Designs

In reviewing study designs, articles were grouped into two categories: empirical and non-empirical (Tulbert et al., 1996). The authors coded 11 articles as empirical and four articles as non-empirical, and identified the number of participants in each study (see Table 2). After separating articles into these two categories, the articles were then defined according to the type of article published. Two types of empirical articles were identified in this review: qualitative (n = 3) and survey research (n = 8). In reviewing Nagro et al. (2020), the authors noted a mixed methods design was used. As the mixed methods design was not an option according to the list provided by Tulbert et al., authors reached agreement in coding this article as survey research due to the description of the study. The four remaining nonempirical articles included three position papers and one program description.

Table 2.

Type of Article.

Author (year)	Empirical/non-empirical	No. of participants	Type of article
Abernathy et al. (2008)	Empirical	7 doctoral students	Qualitative research
deBattencourt et al. (2016)	Non-empirical	—	Position paper
Dieker et al. (2014)	Non-empirical	—	Program description
Martin et al. (2016)	Empirical	41 participants (20 mentors; 21 mentees)	Survey research
Nagro et al. (2020)	Empirical	30 doctoral students	Survey research
Robb et al. (2012)	Empirical	59 program coordinators	Survey research
Rodriguez et al. (2019)	Empirical	4 doctoral students	Survey research
Shealey (2009)	Empirical	6 doctoral students	Qualitative research
Smith & Montrosse (2012)	Empirical	94 program coordinators	Qualitative research
Smith et al. (2010)	Non-empirical	—	Position paper
Smith et al. (2011)	Empirical	Study 1: 30 project coordinators; 507 doctoral students Study 2: 81 project directors	Survey research
Tyler et al. (2012)	Empirical	1,263 doctoral students	Survey research
Wasburn-Moses (2008) ^a	Empirical	619 doctoral students	Survey research
Wasburn-Moses & Therrien (2008) ^a	Empirical	619 doctoral students	Survey research
West & Hardman (2012)	Non-empirical	—	Position paper

Two studies were published using the same data set. Thus, the participants were only counted once in the overall inclusion of participants across studies.

Thematic Analysis

In reviewing the content of the final 15 articles, three primary themes were identified: (a) issues facing the preparation of doctoral students in the field of special education, (b) supports needed to facilitate a holistic approach to doctoral student growth and development, and (c) instructional tools and strategies we can use in creating doctoral programs for special education students. Codes were aligned with each of the three themes and will be reviewed. Issues facing the preparation of doctoral students in special education are (a) funding, (b) shortages of in-service teachers and higher education faculty, (c) considerations related to Part D of IDEA, and (d) an action plan needed for preparing special education doctoral students. Supports needed to facilitate a holistic approach for student growth and development include (a) mentoring, (b) supporting a work–life balance, (c) providing professional development for faculty related to diversity, (d) collaborating, and (e) intentionally creating opportunities for mentoring and learning. Finally, instructional tools and strategies needed in creating doctoral programs for special education students was a third theme identified and included (a) a focus on the recruitment of diverse scholars, (b) culture and cultural responsivity, (c) internships, (d) teaching/instruction, (e) research, (f) service, and (g) technology.

Issues Facing the Preparation of Doctoral Students in the Field of Special Education

Funding

One empirical and four nonempirical articles reported on the importance of federal funding to support the preparation of doctoral students in the field of special education and called for increases in funding. In 2011, Smith et al. delineated dollar amounts of funding for doctoral students, made comparisons among OSEP, IES, and National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) as funding sources for doctoral preparation, and recommended OSEP set minimum levels for student funding packages. Similarly, West and Hardman (2012) proposed OSEP should continue to increase the number of doctoral preparation projects funded through IDEA, increase students’ stipends, and suggested ways funded doctoral programs should support leadership development. Wasburn-Moses and Therrien (2008) reported recipients of OSEP grants were more likely to be full-time students, pursue faculty positions, and grant funding that could lead to a younger, more diverse student population; in addition, they suggested stipends for moving expenses, loan forgiveness, and child care assistance may be a means of support for doctoral students. Finally, deBettencourt et al. (2016) observed the relationship between funding for doctoral programs, teacher preparation, and research, and recommended attending to the changing roles of special education faculty, as well as changes in special education funding priorities and allocation.

Shortages/Attrition

Three empirical and three nonempirical articles acknowledged the projected shortages of special education faculty and attrition in special education that cannot be met by the current supply. Specifically, researchers observed connections between the number of higher education faculty and teachers in the field and how this affects the preparation of both general and special education teachers (i.e., when there is a shortage of faculty, there is a shortage of teachers in the field; Robb et al., 2012). In addition, Robb and colleagues questioned whether there will be additional demands placed on new faculty as a result of attrition. Wasburn-Moses and Therrien (2008) and deBettencourt et al. (2016) put forth that policy makers need to be mindful of the supply and demand for special education doctoral-level graduates to ensure we can meet ongoing teacher shortages.

Considerations Related to Part D

One nonempirical article (West & Hardman, 2012) observed that since the passage of P.L. 94-142, Congress has continually authorized payment for Part D of the funding for personnel preparation. West and Hardman provided specific recommendations to develop doctoral programs and urged ongoing investments in personnel preparation through Part D of IDEA. In addition, they noted the success rates in producing program graduates in comparison with the National Science Foundation and the NIMH.

Action Plan Needed for Preparing Special Education Doctoral Students

Three empirical and three nonempirical articles provided recommendations for plans of action in preparing special education doctoral students. In 2010, Smith and colleagues called on policymakers, stakeholders, university faculty, and others to (a) address the need to increase the number of special education faculty, (b) address ways for special education faculty to prepare general educators, (c) revise current doctoral program curricula to support doctoral students in the knowledge and skills of teacher preparation, (d) determine gaps in our current knowledge base and develop a research agenda to address those gaps, and (e) create a national plan of action. The following year, Smith et al. (2011) made four recommendations for the preparation of special education doctoral students, including (a) faculty should conduct a careful review of the OSEP leadership preparation initiative that assesses the impact of any modifications to the structure of the program; (b) OSEP should set minimum levels for student funding packages; (c) program faculty should use data sets other than the Final Student Reports to follow students, and (d) all constituents should provide input in the process of modifying doctoral programs. Wasburn-Moses and Therrien (2008) also put forth the need to focus on improving funding opportunities, strategically recruit for a wider population of doctoral students, and examine doctoral programs for improvement. Finally, Smith et al. (2010) reported “Any action taken by the OSEP . . . will have a direct and immediate effect on doctoral programs across the nation” (p. 34).

As our field has continued to grow and evolve, deBettencourt et al. (2016) identified five issues related to the preparation of special education doctoral students (i.e., changing roles regarding teaching, research, and service; evolving diversity; increasing funding; situating PhDs; and delivering training). Dieker et al. (2014) suggested our field needs to prepare doctoral students who have knowledge in special education and general education content, how to conduct research, how to advance technologies, and knowing how to support students with disabilities and their families. At a doctoral program level,Wasburn-Moses (2008) recommended the implementation of program manuals with specific information for part-time students, different research and teaching opportunities, alternatives for course delivery options for summer work, and options for those not seeking a faculty position.

Supports Needed to Facilitate a Holistic Approach for Student Growth and Development

Mentoring

Six empirical and one nonempirical articles addressed the mentoring of doctoral students. Martin et al. (2016) described a mentoring program designed to support doctoral students in knowing how to solve problems in real-life settings, collaborate with others, and guide groups in making/sustaining changes. Researchers in this study suggested IHEs would benefit from building a mentoring component into their programs to enhance mentoring efforts and prepare educational leaders. Similarly, findings from Rodriguez’s study (2019), which focused on learning differences between policies and politics, highlighted the importance of mentoring, personal relationships, networking, and human connection. In a study about doctoral students’ satisfaction with their programs, participants reported mostly positive findings with some concerns about mentoring (Wasburn-Moses, 2008).

Recommendations for ways to improve faculty mentoring of doctoral students were provided by some researchers (Shealey, 2009; Tyler et al., 2012) and included specific suggestions to develop stronger skills in the area of cultural competence, as well as the need for a formal mentoring structure for students of color. In addition, Wasburn-Moses and Therrien (2008) proposed examining ways to mentor students across long distances using technological resources due to concerns about relocation issues. Dieker et al. (2014) discussed the importance of mentoring in traditional areas (e.g., teaching, research, scholarship), as well as the use of electronic tools for mentoring, which may be provided by peers, and the submission of a student’s progressions with an online portfolio. They also reported on the use of peer mentoring meetings through the Association for Doctoral Students in Exceptional Education (ADSEE), which is a student-run organization affiliated with the Student Government Association.

Supporting a Work–Life Balance

Two empirical and one nonempirical articles noted the importance of a work–life balance for doctoral students. According to Wasburn-Moses (2008), in a survey conducted about overall satisfaction with their doctoral programs, students indicated that finding work–life balance was their greatest struggle. Through an examination of the experiences of African American special education doctoral students, a participant in Shealey’s (2009) study commented on the need for African American students to build their own network, and that they were supportive to one another in finding balance between work and home. In addition, Dieker et al. (2014) shared their doctoral program promoted pushing scholar boundaries as well as an emphasis on finding a balance.

Providing Professional Development Opportunities for Faculty Related to Diversity

Two empirical and one nonempirical articles described the need for greater diversity of faculty members, diversity within teacher education programs, and the need for professional development to strengthen faculty members’ cultural competence (deBettencourt et al., 2016; Robb et al., 2012; Shealey, 2009). deBettencourt and colleagues noted the cultural and linguistic diversity of the student population is considered to be one of the five contemporary issues related to the preparation of special education doctoral students. In addition, Shealey proposed a formal mentoring structure for doctoral students of color.

Intentionality in Creating Opportunities for Mentoring and Learning

Five empirical and one nonempirical articles indicated the need for intentionality in creating opportunities for the mentoring and learning needed for doctoral students. Three of the articles (Dieker et al., 2014; Martin et al., 2016; Wasburn-Moses, 2008) focused on ways that mentoring provides collaborative opportunities for doctoral students to engage in research and teaching (e.g., attending and presenting at national conferences, assisting with the development and implementation of action research projects, developing and completing dissertations, opportunities to co-teach, publishing journal articles). Similarly, Abernathy et al. (2008) and Nagro et al. (2020) described the opportunities that arose through learning experiences in a doctoral program (e.g., routine journaling, reflective self-evaluation, on-site doctoral student professional development opportunity focusing on policy and advocacy). Rodriguez et al. (2019) observed the interdisciplinary collaboration (e.g., doctoral students, professionals in the field) that both courses and networking opportunities provided through the internships experienced by participants in this study. In addition, Wasburn-Moses discussed the importance of engaging in independent work with supporting activities, as well as the need to provide a range of teaching and research opportunities.

Collaborating

Two empirical and two nonempirical articles noted the need for collaboration with doctoral students. Smith and colleagues (2010) recognized the importance of teacher candidates to observe effective collaboration between co-teachers during field placements. In addition, West and Hardman (2012) emphasized collaboration and co-teaching in integrated and/or blended programs, including the roles of co-teachers from general and special education backgrounds. Martin et al. (2016) observed mentoring programs provided collaborative opportunities among mentors, mentees, and project staff. Finally, Rodriguez’s study (2019) reported the purpose of the summer doctoral internship program was to provide collaborative opportunities through federal programs and projects within the field of special education.

Instructional Tools and Strategies We Can Use in Creating Doctoral Programs

Focus on the Recruitment of Diverse Scholars

Two empirical and one nonempirical articles reported an intentional focus on the recruitment of diverse scholars in the field of special education. In 2012, Tyler et al. noted OSEP gave preference to leadership projects focusing on the recruitment of underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, as well as those with disabilities. Dieker and colleagues (2014) observed their doctoral program exceeded national data for recruiting, supporting, retaining, and graduating some of the most diverse cadres of doctoral students in special education. Finally, deBettencourt et al. (2016) stated one of their eight recommendations for doctoral programs was recruitment strategies should focus on creating a pool of candidates that mirrors the preK-12 student population.

Culture and Cultural Responsivity

One empirical article and one nonempirical article observed the need for IHEs to provide a more inclusive and culturally responsive environment. Specifically, deBettencourt et al. (2016) identified the following suggestions for IHEs to use to create a more culturally responsive environment and program: (a) critique course materials and resources periodically, (b) incorporate inclusive practices into IHE coursework and experiences, (c) facilitate cultural reciprocity, (d) orient new faculty to local and regional multicultural issues, and (e) implement a mentoring program to pair diverse students with faculty members. In addition, they noted one of the eight recommendations for doctoral programs focused on the need for special education doctoral programs to have an institutional culture that reflects a culturally responsive atmosphere to support in retaining qualified candidates.

In examining the lived experiences of African American doctoral students in primarily white institutions, Shealey’s study (2009) reported African American doctoral students experienced (a) a need to make an impact in educating all children, especially those of color, (b) feelings of isolation, (c) a struggle in finding mentors of color within their universities, (d) a need for financial support that was often reliant on meeting a required Graduate Record Examination (GRE) score for admission to the program, and (e) a need for additional support in developing skills for dissertation writing, publishing, and developing a research agenda.

Internships

Two empirical and one nonempirical articles described the importance of internships in special education doctoral preparation. Dieker et al. (2014) endorsed the use of internships in doctoral preparations and reported their program provides an internship focusing on special education policy and advocacy, as well as the use of Livetext portfolio to document internship experiences. Rodriguez et al.’s (2019) study indicated participants learned (a) differences between policy and politics, (b) the importance of mentoring, personal relationships, and networking, and (c) the importance of human connection. In describing learning experiences of doctoral students, Abernathy and colleagues (2008) reported that each student must facilitate the creation of their programs and internships with faculty approval.

Teaching

Five empirical and four nonempirical articles described various aspects of teaching in relation to the preparation of special education doctoral students. For example, Abernathy et al. (2008) and Nagro et al. (2020) shared findings from their studies about the instruction of doctoral students (e.g., routine journaling, reflective self-evaluations, on-site professional development) and benefits these approaches provide. In addition, West and Hardman (2012) noted the need for doctoral programs to prepare doctoral students to become teacher educators for a variety of educational roles (e.g., general educators, special educators, related service personnel, educational leaders, researchers). In contrast, some researchers depicted challenges special education programs face in being able to meet the needs of preparing the next generation of students due to faculty shortages (Robb et al., 2012; Smith et al., 2010), as well as the importance of comprehensive teacher preparation programs and concentration areas of doctoral programs. Smith and Montrosse (2012) stated that doctoral programs are needed to prepare teachers to educate students with disabilities.

Other researchers emphasized the need for doctoral students to learn specific teaching methods and strategies, how to prepare teacher educators, including online platforms and supporting the needs of diverse scholars (Dieker et al., 2014; Shealey, 2009). deBettencourt et al. (2016) called for the implementation of a Quality Matters framework for teaching online or hybrid courses and, according to Higher Education Consortium of Special Education (HECSE) Leadership Quality Indicators, our field needs to develop a list of clearly defined competencies related to teaching and/or administration for doctoral students. In addition, both Dieker et al. (2014) and Nagro et al. (2020) encouraged ongoing professional development through participation in professional conferences.

Research

Two empirical and two nonempirical articles emphasized the role research plays in the preparation of doctoral students. In 2008, Wasburn-Moses expressed concerns that there may be a lack of research-related activities for doctoral students. According to deBettencourt et al. (2016), research is considered to be one of the five contemporary issues related to the preparation of special education doctoral students and suggested doctoral students need to learn a variety of research methodologies, including how to incorporate technology into their research, and future faculty will have an expectation to publish more frequently. Furthermore, they acknowledged research is an indicator mentioned on HECSE’s list of leadership quality indicators for doctoral students. Dieker et al. (2014) noted the importance of preparing doctoral students who are knowledgeable in research and described several ways their program supports this concept (e.g., ongoing mentoring to support research and scholarship, a support network to provide fundraising events for dissertation research, student portfolios documenting research efforts). According to Nagro et al. (2020), doctoral students enrolled in the Short Course (i.e., on-site professional development) and their faculty advisors reported enrollment in this course positively impacted their research and scholarship activities.

Service

One empirical and two nonempirical articles recognized the role that service plays in the preparation of doctoral students. deBettencourt et al. (2016) reported service is considered to be one of the five contemporary issues related to the preparation of special education doctoral students, and is an indicator mentioned on HECSE’s list of leadership quality indicators for doctoral students. In the description of their doctoral program, Dieker and colleagues (2014) observed a student-run organization (ADSEE) provides opportunities for service. In addition, Nagro et al. (2020) noted doctoral students and their faculty advisors believed enrollment in the Short Course made a positive impact on service activities by doctoral students.

Technology

Two empirical and two nonempirical articles acknowledged the use of and need for technological skills in supporting doctoral students. In two of the articles reviewed (deBettencourt et al., 2016; Dieker et al., 2014), researchers emphasized the need for future faculty members to have strong technological skills in both teaching and research. Specifically, deBettencourt and colleagues recommended that doctoral students be prepared to use technology in teaching online, supervise teacher candidates virtually, and use technology-based instructional tools. Wasburn-Moses and Therrien (2008) also noted that many special education faculty have the capacity to provide distance learning and this option should be more carefully examined. Finally, Rodriguez et al. (2019) described how doctoral students applied the technological skills learned in their graduate programs to participate in an internship and documented written narratives of their experiences.

Discussion

The purpose of this exploratory review was to examine recent literature, including both empirical and nonempirical articles, published about the preparation of doctoral students in special education. As a review of literature has not been published in 15 years, this article sought to synthesize the literature about doctoral preparation. In this review, we identified 15 peer-reviewed publications, including 11 empirical and four nonempirical articles, that describe the preparation of doctoral special education students. The three themes that emerged from this review of the articles include (a) issues facing the preparation of doctoral students, (b) supports needed to facilitate a holistic approach for student growth and development, and (c) instructional tools and strategies we can use in creating doctoral programs. In response to the guiding question, what has been the focus of empirical and nonempirical articles published about doctoral preparation, we learned the topics referenced most often in this review were the teaching and mentoring needs of doctoral students. Finally, we also noted none of the articles included in this review discussed the preparation needs of doctoral students from concentration areas such as ASD or EC.

This review of literature identified connections between the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Committee in developing leadership programs (i.e., mastery of research methodology, personnel preparation, policy/advocacy, or professional practice) and literature published about doctoral preparation in special education. Specifically, faculty in special education should consider possible revisions to their leadership programs by examining how these recommendations can be addressed. These revisions may include ways to promote research activities through mentoring (Dieker et al., 2014) and participation in a variety of professional development opportunities. Through attending the TED conference, the HECSE Short Course, and/or participating in off-site mentoring internships, doctoral students can develop the skills sets needed to be future leaders in our field (Dieker et al., 2014; Nagro et al., 2020; Rodriguez et al., 2019). Doctoral programs should also consider how their current programs and curriculum address cultural responsivity and the advising/mentoring needs for students of color, as well as those of international students.

In alignment with recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Committee, the preparation of doctoral students should also focus on roles outside of academia that will not involve working in higher education. Doctoral students have a range of opportunities available after graduation and need experiences prior to program completion to develop and apply their knowledge as leaders, advocates, policymakers, and practitioners working in the field with children and families (Martin et al., 2016). Faculty should consider how current partnerships with school systems, agencies, and policymaking organizations may allow opportunities for these experiences to take place or ways they can develop these partnerships. By considering these changes for current doctoral programs, faculty may help support the goals of students with a range of career interests.

Limitations

The use of an exploratory design in conducting a review of literature provides an overview about issues and research related to the preparation of special education doctoral students. A more systematic approach to reviewing the current literature in our field may provide greater details about ways to support the preparation of special education doctoral students and may identify studies that were potentially missed through this review process. Empirical studies identified in this review of literature included data collected from 2,457 doctoral students (see Table 2). Within the past 9 years of this review, only 55 doctoral students have participated in studies describing their doctoral experiences. These findings represent a small portion of recent special education doctoral students; as such, these perspectives may not align with experiences of current doctoral students, particularly in light of program changes due to the ongoing pandemic. In addition, our review of literature examined articles published between 2005 and 2020; therefore, other articles (e.g., Corr et al., 2022) published about the doctoral preparation of special education may not be included.

Implications for Doctoral Preparation

As recently noted by HECSE (2020), the number of special education doctoral programs is decreasing and many faculty within the field of special education have retired in recent years and/or are projected to retire in the near future (Smith & Montrosse, 2012; West & Hardman, 2012). When we have fewer doctoral students in our leadership programs, we have fewer teacher educators to prepare general and special teachers. Tyler et al.’s (2008) profile indicated doctoral students are older and more likely to support a family when compared with students who received funding in the earliest years of special education doctoral preparation. In this study, we also reported significant financial sacrifices made by students who attended doctoral programs full-time. Leadership funding provided by OSEP with a minimum amount set for funding packages and incentives to provide supports for moving and child-care expenses (Smith et al., 2011; Wasburn-Moses & Therrien, 2008) is critical to support the pipeline for teacher preparation. As we continue to address ongoing teaching shortages and inflation, increased funding and a higher number of OSEP-funded projects must be a priority to meet the needs of today’s doctoral students.

Graduates of special education doctoral programs are expected to prepare general and special educators and use technology in their teaching (deBettencourt et al., 2016; Dieker et al., 2014; Wasburn-Moses & Therrien, 2008). Given the instructional challenges presented by the pandemic, an increased focus on technology and instruction is recommended for both doctoral students and the faculty who prepare them. When colleges and universities ceased to provide in-person learning at the onset of the pandemic, the technological skills and knowledge of online resources were an advantage not all faculty and students possessed. Three years into the pandemic, it is clear that online and hybrid learning formats will continue (Adedoyin & Soykan, 2020). Effective strategies for engaging students as well as the knowledge, competence, and confidence in knowing of and using online resources will be required and expected.

Directions for Future Research

In examining the focus of empirical and nonempirical articles published about special education doctoral preparation, we observed data have been collected from a small number of doctoral students in recent years. Updating a current profile of student characteristics and learning their preparation needs will help inform the development and possible restructuring of doctoral programs. Learning more about the various needs of students (e.g., mentoring, personal, academic) may be useful to faculty in creating more inclusive and responsive environments, as well as leadership grants.

Several articles in this study discussed the need for mentoring (e.g., the importance of mentoring, peer mentoring, long-distance mentoring, mentoring needs for students of color; Shealey, 2009; Wasburn-Moses & Therrien, 2008). The mentoring of doctoral students may take place locally and/or between students/faculty with considerable geographic distances. A continued emphasis on this topic, particularly due to challenges of the pandemic, is helpful in providing doctoral students the support they need for program completion; in addition, ways that new faculty are mentored upon transitioning to academia are an area for future research. When we invest in preparing students on ways to be successful in completing their programs and for their careers after graduation, we are increasing the likelihood for them to stay.

Conclusion

According to the 2020 supply and demand survey, HECSE-affiliated IHEs tend to prepare doctoral students who seek employment in higher education and OSEP-funded programs have a significantly higher graduation rate than those without OSEP funding. As leadership programs develop or self-reflect on strengths/areas to grow for their current programs, we encourage faculty to consider how their programs may align with the HECSE Leadership Quality Indicators, Blue Ribbon Committee recommendations, and other examples of program descriptions provided in this review. We also encourage leadership programs to build upon research conducted about cultural responsivity, the recruitment of diverse scholars, and the mentoring needs for students of color and international students; our field will benefit from greater diversity in higher education and our school systems. In conclusion, as we continue to grow in learning about the preparation of doctoral candidates, we encourage the field to share successes and challenges, and strategies used to maximize resources and other ideas to make the most of learning opportunities for all students.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-tes-10.1177_08884064221134815 – Supplemental material for Preparing Doctoral Students: What Do We Really Know?

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-tes-10.1177_08884064221134815 for Preparing Doctoral Students: What Do We Really Know? by Laura S. McCorkle, Amanda Vestal and Lindsay L. Diamond in Teacher Education and Special Education

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Drs. Vivian Correa, Fred Spooner, and Charles Wood for their support and suggestions in developing this manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Laura S. McCorkle

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Laura S. McCorkle is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Special Education and Child Development at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

Amanda Vestal is a doctoral student in Special Education and Child Development at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and the Project Coordinator for the Early Educator Support Office.

Lindsay L. Diamond is an Associate Professor of Special Education and Disability Studies at the University of Nevada, Reno.

References

*Abernathy

T. V.

DeRaad

Beck

Checho

Furno

Helweg

Hinkson

Whittier

L. E.

(2008). Through the looking glass: Critical reflections of doctoral preparation experiences. Teaching and Learning, 22(3), 149–163.

Adedoyin

O. B.

Soykan

(2020). Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: The challenges and opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180

Blue Ribbon Task Force Committee. (2004). Draft: Guidelines for OSEP leadership program competition applications. Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) and the Higher Education Consortium for Special Education (HECSE).

Bos

Roberts

Rieth

Derer

(1995). Doctoral preparation in special education: Current status and trends. Teacher Education and Special Education, 18(3), 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840649501800303

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. http://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Corr

Love

Snodgrass

M. R.

Kern

J. L.

Chudzik

(2022). Methodological training in special education doctoral programs: A mixed-methods exploration. Teacher Education and Special Education, 88840642211039. https://doi.org/10.1177/08884064221103902

*deBettencourt

L. U.

Hoover

J. J.

Rude

J. A.

Taylor

S. A

. (2016). Preparing special education higher education faculty: The influences of contemporary education issues and policy recommendations. Teacher Education and Special Education, 39(2), 121–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406416641007

*Dieker

Wienke

Straub

Finnegan

(2014). Reflections on recruiting, retaining, graduating, and obtaining employment for doctoral students from diverse backgrounds. Teacher Education and Special Education, 37(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406413505874

Elliott

(2018). Thinking about the coding process in qualitative data analysis. The Qualitative Report, 23(11), 2850–2861. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2018.3560

10.

Frederiksen

Phelps

S. F.

(2020). Literature reviews for education and nursing graduate students. Creative Commons Attribution. https://press.rebus.community/literaturereviewsedunursing/

11.

Higher Education Consortium of Special Education (HECSE). (2020). HECSE supply and demand survey 2020 executive summary. https://hecse.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/HECSE-supply-demand-survey-2020-Executive-Summary.pdf

12.

Holmes

B. D.

Robinson

Seay

A. D.

(2010). Getting to finished: Strategies to ensure completion of the doctoral dissertation. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 3(7), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.19030/cier.v3i7.215

13.

Jameson

C. M.

Torres

(2019). Fostering motivation when virtually mentoring online doctoral students. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 9(1), 331–339. https://doi.org/10.5590/JERAP.2019.09.1.23

14.

Kleinhammer-Tramill

Fiore

T. A.

(2003). A history of federal support for preparing special educators and related services personnel to serve children and youth with disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 26(3), 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840640302600309

15.

Kumar

Johnson

(2017). Mentoring doctoral students online: Mentor strategies and challenges. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 25(2), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2017.1326693

16.

Lin

Wang

Spalding

Klecka

C. L.

Odell

S. J.

(2011). Towards strengthening the preparation of teacher educator-researchers in doctoral programs and beyond. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(3), 239–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487110397816

17.

Mannson

D. H.

Myers

S. A.

(2012). Using mentoring enactment theory to explore the doctoral student-advisor mentoring relationship. Communication Education, 61(4), 309–334. http://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2012.708424

18.

Markel

G. P.

(1982). The faculty role in doctoral level, competency-based training in supervision. Teacher Education and Special Education, 5(1), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840648200500102

19.

*Martin

Gourwitz

Hall

K. P.

(2016). Mentoring urban school leaders: A model. Journal of School Leadership, 26(2), 314–333. http://doi.org/10.1177/105268461602600205

20.

*Nagro

S. A.

Shepherd

K. G.

Knackstedt

West

J. E.

Nagy

S. J.

(2020). Bridging the gap between research and policy: Fostering advocacy and policy engagement in special education doctoral students. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 30(4), 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207319849930

21.

Nagro

S. A.

Shepherd

K. G.

West

J. E.

Nagy

S. J.

(2019). Activating policy and advocacy skills: A strategy for tomorrow’s special education leaders. The Journal of Special Education, 53(2), 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466918800705

22.

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, National Science Foundation. (2019). Doctorate recipients from U.S. universities: 2019 (NSF 21-308). https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21308/

23.

Pierce

T. B.

Smith

D. D.

(1994). Career choices of recent special education graduates holding doctoral degrees. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17(2), 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840649401700207

24.

Pierce

T. B.

Smith

D. D.

Clark

(1992). Special education leadership: Supply and demand revisited. Teacher Education and Special Education, 15(3), 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840649201500304

25.

Prehm

H. J.

(1980). Research training and experiences in special education doctoral programs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 3(4), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840648000300401

26.

*Robb

S. M.

Smith

D. D.

Montrosse

B. E.

(2012). The context of the demand for special education faculty: A study of special education teacher education programs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 35(2), 128–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406412444760

27.

*Rodriguez

Powell

Straub

Vince-Garland

Wienke

(2019). Developing effective advocates during doctoral preparation: An examination of federal-level special education policy internships. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 15(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.22230/ijepl.2019v15n4a468

28.

*Shealey

M. W.

(2009). Voices of African-American doctoral students in special education: Addressing the shortage in leadership preparation. Race Ethnicity and Education, 12(3), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613320903178295

29.

*Smith

D. D.

Montrosse

B. E.

(2012). Special education doctoral programs: A 10-year comparison of the suppliers of leadership personnel. Teacher Education and Special Education, 35(2), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406412444455

30.

Smith

D. D.

Pion

Tyler

N. C.

Sindelar

P. T.

Rosenberg

M. S.

(2001). The study of special education leadership personnel with particular attention to the professoriate: Leadership final report. Vanderbilt University.

31.

*Smith

D. D.

Robb

S. M.

West

Tyler

N. C.

(2010). The changing education landscape: How special education leadership preparation can make a difference for teachers and their students with disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406409358425

32.

Smith

D. D.

Salzberg

(1994). The shortage of special education faculty: Towards a better understanding. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17(1), 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840649401700106

33.

*Smith

D. D.

Truong

Watson

Hartley

M. D.

Robb

S. M.

Gilmore

(2011). The federal role in the preparation of special education doctorates: An analysis of the office of special education programs’ leadership preparation initiatives. Teacher Education and Special Education, 34(4), 267–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406411406554

34.

Sparkman

Doran

(2019). Affective challenges faced by doctoral students: Supporting them to completion. i-Manager’s Journal on Educational Psychology, 13(1), 14–23. https://doi:10.26634/jpsy.13.1.15484

35.

Tulbert

Sindelar

P. T.

Correa

V. I.

La Porte

M. M.

(1996). Looking in the rear view mirror: A content analysis of teacher education and special education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 19(3), 248–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840649601900322

36.

*Tyler

N. C.

Montrosse

B. E.

Smith

D. D.

(2012). The supply: Profile of current students and recent graduates in special education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 35(2), 114–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406412444762

37.

Tyler

N. C.

Smith

D. D.

Pion

G. G.

(2003). Doctoral students in special education: Characteristics and career aspirations. Teacher Education and Special Education, 26(3), 194–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840640302600306

38.

Walker

D. W.

Haley-Mize

(2012). Content analysis of PhD and EdD dissertations in special education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 35(2), 202–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406411431168

39.

*Wasburn-Moses

(2008). Satisfaction among current doctoral students in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 29(5), 259–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932507312014

40.

*Wasburn-Moses

Therrien

W. J.

(2008). The impact of leadership personnel preparation grants on the doctoral student population in special education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 31(2), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840640803100201

41.

Welton

A. D.

Mansfield

K. C.

Lee

(2014). Mentoring matters: An exploratory survey of educational leadership doctoral students perspectives. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 22(5), 481–5t09. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2014.9833

42.

*West

J. E.

Hardman

M. L.

(2012). Averting current and future special education faculty shortages: Policy implications and recommendations. Teacher Education and Special Education, 35(2), 154–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406412444456

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB