Quality of faculty, students, curriculum and resources for nursing doctoral education in Korea: A focus group study

• Published in: International journal of nursing studies 2010-03, Vol.47 (3), p.295-306
• Main Authors: Kim, Mi Ja, Lee, Hyeonkyeong, Kim, Hyun Kyung, Ahn, Yang-Heui, Kim, Euisook, Yun, Soon-Nyoung, Lee, Kwang-Ja
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Academic Dissertations as Topic; Adult; Age Factors; Attitude of Health Personnel; College faculty; Curricula; Curriculum; Curriculum - standards; Doctoral education quality; Doctoral postgraduate education; Education, Nursing, Graduate - organization & administration; Faculty; Faculty, Nursing - standards; Focus Groups; Graduate students; Graduate studies; Health Services Needs and Demand; Humans; Korea; Middle Aged; Nurse Administrators - psychology; Nursing; Nursing education; Nursing Education Research; Nursing Methodology Research; Professional Competence; Professors; Qualitative Research; Quality; Quality of education; Resources; South Korea; Students; Students, Nursing - psychology; Training Support; Workload
• ISSN: 0020-7489; 1873-491X
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.07.005

The rapidly increasing number of nursing doctoral programs has caused concern about the quality of nursing doctoral education, including in Korea. To describe the perceived quality of Korean nursing doctoral education in faculty, student, curriculum and resources. Focus group. Fourteen Korean nursing doctoral programs that are research focused and include coursework. Four groups of deans, faculty, students and graduates; students completed three semesters of doctoral program; and graduates completed doctoral programs within the most recent 3 years. Focus groups examined the strengths and weaknesses of faculty, students, curriculum, and resources. Faculty strengths were universities’ recognition of faculty research/scholarship and the ability of faculty to attract extramural funding. Faculty weaknesses were aging faculty; high faculty workload; insufficient number of faculty; and teaching without expertise in nursing theories. Student strengths were diverse student backgrounds; multidisciplinary dissertation committee members, and opportunities to socialize with peers and graduates/faculty. Students’ weaknesses were overproduction of PhDs with low academic quality; a lower number and quality of doctoral applicants; and lack of full-time students. Curriculum strengths were focusing on specific research areas; emphasis on research ethics; and multidisciplinary courses. Curriculum weaknesses were insufficient time for curriculum development; inadequate courses for core research competencies; and a lack of linkage between theory and practice. Resources strengths were inter-institutional courses with credit transfer. Weaknesses were diminished university financial support for graduate students and limited access to school facilities. Variations in participant groups (providers [deans and faculty] vs. receivers [students and graduates]) and geographical location (capital city vs. regional) were noted on all the four components. The quality characteristics of faculty, students, curriculum, and resources identified in this first systematic evaluation of the quality of nursing doctoral education can inform nursing schools, universities, and policy-makers about areas for improvement in Korea and possibly in the world. Geographical variations found in these four components of doctoral education warrant attention by policy-makers in Korea.