Cardiff School of Social Sciences - CiteSeerX

5 downloads 41398 Views 185KB Size Report
email lists and followed up with telephone interviews. Findings are ... development in recent years in business administration and nursing (Bourner et al., 2001;.
Cardiff School of Social Sciences W W O O R R K K II N N G G

Working Paper 103: Mapping the provision of professional doctorate programmes in social work: a survey of UK universities

P P A A P P E E R R S S E E R R II E E S S W W O O R R K K II N N G G P P A A P P E E R R S S E E R R II E E S S

Jonathan Scourfield April 2008

www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi

On-Line Papers – Copyright This online paper may be cited or briefly quoted in line with the usual academic conventions. You may also download it for your own personal use. The paper must not be published elsewhere (e.g. to mailing lists, bulletin boards etc) without the author’s permission. Please note that if you copy this paper you must: • Include this copyright note. • Not use the paper for commercial purposes or gain in any way • You should observe the conventions of academic citation in a version of the following form:

Housley, William (2003) ‘Art, Wales, Discourse and Devolution’, working paper 38, published by Cardiff School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF10 3WT, UK at http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/research/publications/workingpapers/index.html

2

Abstract The paper presents the findings of a survey of UK professional doctorate programmes which have a social work element. The survey was conducted via academic community email lists and followed up with telephone interviews. Findings are presented about the universities offering programmes, longevity of programmes, numbers of students, students’ employment and employer support, degree nomenclature, programme structure, successful aspects of programmes and their approach to handing the relationship between research and practice. Some tentative conclusions are presented about the possible ways forward for social work professional doctorates and avenues for further research about these degrees. Introduction Professional doctorates typically involve the completion of some modular units of study as well as a research-based thesis which is smaller in scope (and shorter) than a PhD, though equally doctoral. Unlike PhDs, which might involve applied research but could also be conducted entirely for the sake of advancing academic knowledge, a professional doctorate is aimed at producing knowledge for professional practice. These degrees are fairly well established in the UK in certain practice disciplines. This is especially the case in education, engineering, medicine and clinical psychology and there have also been significant development in recent years in business administration and nursing (Bourner et al., 2001; Scott et al., 2004; Ellis, 2005; Powell and Long, 2005). In several other countries, social work professional doctorates have been running for many years, but in the UK they are still a fairly new phenomenon and relatively little is known about current provision and how professional doctorates might differ from PhDs. Powell and Long (2005) in their survey of professional doctorate awards in the UK found only three programmes that included social care plus two generic D Profs that in theory could encompass social work. As will be shown later in the paper, there are in fact several more active programmes than this. This paper presents the results of an email and telephone survey of academics to map the provision of social work professional doctorates in the UK. The aim of survey was to shed some light on the following questions: How many social work professional doctorate programmes are running in the UK in 2006-7 and which institutions are they in? How many active students are there? How do the different programmes handle the relationship between research and social work practice? What are the different models of social work professional doctorate available and how are they structured? It is hoped that the survey results can feed into discussions about capacity-building in social work research (see JUC-SWEC, 2006), as well as helping those universities who are thinking about setting up a social work professional doctorate programme by laying out some of the current options. This was unfunded research, so was limited in scope, but nonetheless the coverage of the survey was thorough and some interesting findings have emerged. The development of professional doctorates Probably the first degree scheme in the UK which can unambiguously be termed a professional doctorate was the Doctorate in Clinical Psychology (D Clin Psy), which began in 1989 (Scott et al, 2004). This is unusual among professional doctorates in being a pre-service degree. It is now required of all who wish to qualify as clinical psychologists. Much older is

3

the Doctor of Medicine degree (MD). This is internationally confusing as in North America an MD would be an initial qualifying degree for doctors whereas in the UK it is a postqualifying and postgraduate degree rather like a PhD but rather smaller in scope and hence carrying lower academic status. It does not have the integration with practice that other degrees have and should perhaps not be labelled a professional doctorate at all. Of the other in-service professional doctorates, the doctorate in education (EdD), which is the UK’s commonest professional doctorate degree (Powell and Long, 2005) arrived in 1992, according to Bourner et al., (2001). Doctorates in Business Administration and Engineering are well developed, to the extent that Scott et al. (2004) chose these disciplines, along with education, as the case studies for their ESRC-funded research. In the field of nursing, with which social work is often compared because of the commonality of a caring role and a shared history of being seen as a ‘semi-profession’, Ellis’s (2005) mapping research in January 2004 found 23 universities running professional doctorates and 10 more planned within 2 years of that date. The motivating factors for establishing these programmes have varied. Scott et al (2004) note that these factors include wanting a different kind of relationship with the workplace, wanting to expand the market for higher degrees and attempting to repackage higher degrees to attract people to what is still essentially a PhD. These authors comment that ‘possible models for distinguishing between PhDs and professional doctorates are inevitably post-hoc rationalizations for more pragmatic decisions made by universities’ (p149). Bourner et al (2001) identify 20 (!) areas in which professional doctorates can be distinguished from PhDs. These are listed in table 1. Table 1 The features of professional doctorates which distinguish them from PhDs (from Bourner et al., 2001) Career focus Domain of research topic Research type Research focus Starting point for research Intended learning outcomes Entry qualification Experience as an admission requirement Taught component Modularity

Position of Master’s level work In-service continuing professional development Mode of study Integration of work and study Integration of theory and practice Cohorts Variability of duration Form of the research outcomes Assessment Breadth of studies

Scott et al (2004), however, summarise the distinctive contribution of the professional doctorate under just three main themes: the production of a portfolio rather than one thesis; different knowledge criteria, namely knowledge that is relevant for the workplace; and (in theory) a combination of inscription and practice performance as the end-point of doctoral study. Several commentators have argued the potential of professional doctorates for the social work field. This is part of a general recognition of the importance for social work of strengthening and expanding all kinds of doctoral study, with a view to building research capacity (Lyons, 2002; Orme, 2003; Orme and Powell, 2007). But there are also some particular arguments

4

made about professional doctorates for social work (as opposed to traditional PhDs). Shaw (2007), in a recent discussion of what might make social work research distinctive (or, rather, distinctively good), sees the necessary bridging of theory and practice in professional doctorates as especially relevant to social work. Lyons (2002) sees the rather different structure of professional doctorates as making them potentially a more attractive option than PhDs for practitioners to study part-time. Orme (2003) sees professional doctorates as perhaps more suited than traditional PhDs to the in-service development of the kind of applied research that many practitioners are interested in. Despite the link being made by some with social work research capacity-building, others would emphasis the potential for a social work professional doctorate to be principally an advanced professional qualification (rather than a research qualification). It is this position in particular that would argue for the Care / Social Services Councils across the UK to recognise doctoral level professional qualifications. To date this recognition has only been achieved in Northern Ireland. Methods of inquiry A short questionnaire was sent out in December 2006 via the email lists of the Joint University Council Social Work Education Committee (JUC-SWEC) and the social work and social policy subject centre of the Higher Education Academy (SWAP), with responses requested by a date in January 2007. This initial message explained that only universities running professional doctorates need reply. Responses were received from 15 universities to this first request. This included a small number who replied to confirm that they did not offer professional doctorates and a few expressing interest in developing them in future. Some of these initial respondents who were running programmes had offered to take part in telephone interviews. The next stage was to conduct these and chase up further questionnaire responses. The chasing up relied on snowballing, that is, contacting other programmes who had not initially replied, but whose existence I became aware of during the first round of responses. There was also a further email sent to the SWAP list. This time the universities who had replied to tell me they were running professional doctorates were deliberately named. This was calculated to set up a level of competition between universities and indeed it did bear fruit with several more previously unheard-of universities getting in touch. The final total was 22 responses from universities that are running professional doctorates or are interested in running them in future. It should be noted that there are limits to both email lists. The SWAP list goes to more individual academics and most likely covers more universities (whether or not they are members of JUC-SWEC). It is not updated regularly enough, however, to be able to claim total coverage of academics. The JUC-SWEC list relies on key contacts – usually heads of social work programmes – forwarding messages to colleagues. The questionnaire was deliberately very brief so as to be easy to complete, as an important aim was maximum response from those universities to whom the survey applied. There were some issues that on reflection it might have been useful to cover but the questionnaire did not address, such as employer support and a description of the student body. However, the decision was taken to keep it very short in order to maximise response rate. Six telephone interviews were conducted by the author with programme staff who responded to the initial round of questionnaires and data have also been added from the professional doctorate programme which the author co-ordinates in [university name]. A few more programmes offered interviews in the later stages of the research but these offers could not be taken up. This was in part because of to the limited time the researcher could give to an unfunded

5

research project and was also because the aim was to capture a picture of professional doctorate provision within one academic session (2006-7) and it did not seem appropriate to go beyond this time frame. Telephone interviews were not fully transcribed, but handwritten notes were taken during each interview and these were expanded into more detailed summaries once the interview was completed. The issue of identifying universities is obviously sensitive. It has been assumed here that whether a university has a professional doctorate programme or not is public knowledge, so those universities which either have an active professional doctorate or are interested in setting one up have been named. The names of universities have generally not been linked to details of structure, numbers of students and so on, however. Programme structure is, in fact, public knowledge and can be gleaned from a simple web search, but any comparison of universities is inevitably more sensitive. Research findings How much provision is there and how many students? Which universities? The question of ‘which universities?’ is not quite just a simple question of whether universities have professional doctorates which include a social work focus. The level of specialism varies considerably, and included in the sample that is the focus of the paper are two universities who run generic professional doctorates for all professional groups and one which runs a doctorate in applied social research. According to the survey responses, the following universities either have active professional doctorates which incorporate social work element or offer generic schemes that are suitable for social workersi. Table 2 Universities with social work or generic professional doctorates Anglia Ruskin Birmingham Brighton Bournemouth Cardiff East Anglia Glasgow Caledonian Middlesex Portsmouth Salford Sheffield Hallam Sussex Tavistock Clinic / University of East London University of the West of England N = 14 The list in table 2 includes 5 pre-1992 universities and 9 that are post-1992. It is worth noting the research profiles of the social work groups in the table above, as represented by 2001 RAE outcome (looking at social work, social policy and sociology panels). There are two

6

universities with a Grade 5, two with a Grade 4, two with a Grade 3a and two with a Grade 3b. It seems as though six out of the fourteen did not return social work staff groups to the 2001 RAE. At least two of these (to my knowledge) have, however, developed strong new social work research groups over the intervening period. It is certainly the case that some of the strongest universities for social work research in RAE terms are not represented in the list. It should be noted that the ‘active’ category does not include any university which has a validated professional doctorate but has decided not to recruit. Also not included are professional doctorates in policy studies. The oldest social work professional doctorate programme, at the University of East Anglia (est.1998), has been included as ‘active’, even though it has decided to stop recruiting. This programme still has active students, and the possibility of a combined structure with other disciplines is being explored. Also included in the ‘active’ sample are two universities which at the time of the survey had not yet enrolled their first students but had applications accepted and a programme ready to run in the next academic session. The following universities either have concrete plans for establishing a professional doctorate or have expressed interest in doing so in future: Bedfordshire, Chichester, Hertfordshire, Hull, Lancaster, South Bank, Swansea, York. How long have the programmes been running? Most have developed quite recently, as can be seen from table 3. It seems as though the earliest social work specific professional doctorates were in UEA and the Tavistock (UEL), although the Middlesex generic doctorate was in fact up and running in 1997, so just beat them to it. Table 3 Longevity of professional doctorate programme Year the professional doctorate programme started No data provided 1997 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 2007

Number of universities

2 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1

Numbers of students We can see from table 4 that the numbers of currently registered students range from 1 to 22. Only two universities have numbers of students in double figures. Interestingly, one of these is a long-standing programme and one only recently started. The more typical picture is of only a handful of social work students per programme. Most programmes survive what might be a precarious situation by offering joint programmes with other professional 7

disciplines/areas. Mixed health and social care courses have much larger numbers registered overall, of whom very few are from social work backgrounds or are focusing on social work topics. The total number of social work professional doctorate students, according to the survey data, is 72. It seems there have to date been only four graduates from two universities, a sum which is low enough to suggest that there are problems with completion (as is often the case with part-time doctorates). To compare with the picture for the much better established doctorates in education (EdDs), Powell and Long (2005) found 1864 people studying for EdDs in their survey of programmes across the UK. If anything, given that these authors found only 3 professional doctorate programmes serving social work and the present survey shows many more, that number of EdD students is an under-estimate. Table 4 Numbers of active students Number of currently active social work professional doctorate students professional doctorate not yet started 1 3 4 5 7 17 22 Total = 72 Mean = 6 Mode = 3 Median = 3

Number of universities

2 2 5 1 1 1 1 1 14

Who are the students? Data on this issue are limited to the telephone interviews. From this limited source, the impression gained is of a body of mostly senior staff in management, inspection or policy roles. There also seem to be a small number of experienced practitioners and some social work academics or those in the process of transition into academic jobs. There was a general concern expressed by interviewees about students deferring or dropping out of courses because of the difficulties of sustaining part-time doctoral study alongside busy full-time jobs. Drop-out is confirmed by the total numbers of registrations since the programmes began (these are not presented in this paper), when compared with current numbers and numbers of graduates. One generic professional doctorate co-ordinator reported that the only drop outs they had experienced had been from social work backgrounds. One professional doctorate programme co-ordinator expressed the view that professional doctorate students tend to require more support than PhD students because they are less geared up to working with theory and less skilled at working independently. Another programme representative reported from the experience of professional doctorates in other disciplines (e.g. education) that in comparison with PhD students, professional doctorate graduates are more likely to have had theses initially referred for major amendments at viva voce examination. These are of course 8

only the views of two individuals, but they do point to some interesting issues of the respective characteristics of professional doctorate and PhD students that would be worth exploring in future research. The issue of employer support also only arose in telephone interviews. A mixed picture emerged here. The responses ranged from ‘most get their professional doctorate paid for by employers’ to ‘most of them have to fund themselves’. (It is worth remembering that most of these impressionistic responses are based on very small numbers anyway). Some interviewees expressed a general concern about the lack of study time given to candidates. Several said that numbers of social work professional doctorate students will always be small unless professional doctorates are linked to professional awards and recognised by Care / Social Services Councils. Again, the issue of employer support is worth exploring in more depth in future research. What are these degrees called? Powell and Long (2005) note three kinds of professional doctorate title: firstly those naming a specific professional field (e.g. DSW); secondly D Profs in a specific area (e.g D Prof in Health and Social Care) and, thirdly, generic D Profs. All three are represented in the table below Table 5 Name of social work professional doctorate Name of degree Doctor of Social Work Professional Doctorate in Social Work Professional Doctorate in Health and Social Care (or similar title) Doctorate in Professional Studies (Health and Social Care) Doctorate in Professional Studies Doctor of Professional Practice SocScD in Applied Social Research

Number of universities 4 2 4 1 1 1 1

Although there are some patterns here, there is no standardisation. It seems that for professional doctorates in general in the UK diversity of nomenclature is, as Powell and Long (2005: 9) note, ‘the rule rather than the exception’ (see also Ellis, 2005). These same authors note that there are risks of so much diversity in award title: ‘New named awards combined with small numbers of students studying them imply that some students at least will be moving through their profession with an award that very few other professional colleagues will have’. (Powell and Long, 2005: 9-10) There is an alternative view, namely that diversity of title reflects only a healthy diversity of emphasis in different institutions and that the question of whether or not these degrees become more widely recognised is probably unconnected to what they are called.

9

How are the degrees structured? Again there is little standardisation in structure (see also Ellis, 2005 on professional doctorates in nursing). That could be seen as a positive finding of course, to those who value flexibility and regard a certain level of diversity as creative, but there are also some potentially problematic aspects of the variation in structure. The table below summarises the structures of the 14 programmes that responded to the survey.

Table 6 Professional doctorate structure (a full list of responses, in random order) A systematic review; an empirical/field research study and a practice based project - all about 30,000 words in length. 120 Masters credits 10,000 word dissertation pilot study 45,000 word thesis 5,000 word assessment of thesis outcomes 160 credits at M level plus 40,000 word project 3x7000 word papers plus a 60,000 word thesis 2 practice analyses (about 10-15,000 words each) and a research proposal (5,000) plus research thesis (60,000 words) 2 years of M-level research methods + 50,000 thesis 3 taught years - with 3 modules (and 60 credits) each year plus a dissertation of 40-60,000 words 4 modules plus 40,000 thesis 8 modules, 4 of which have to be passed at D level, plus 50,000 word thesis Part 1: Module 1 Review of Previous Learning and APEL claim plus Module 2 Planning a Practitioner Research Programme. Part 2 Work-Based Project/s - usually 1 large one, sometimes 2 smaller ones 4 modules plus 50,000 word thesis 6 modules plus 30,000 word thesis Phase 1: 3 essays/ project (17-18,000 words) Phase 2: project (18-20000 words) Phase 3: thesis (35-45000 words) Stage one consists of 2 M-level ‘macro-modules’: research methods (70 credits) and professional development (50 Credits) plus one 60 credit D-level module on project development, design and management. Stage two is a supervised work-based research project: 50,000 words

A standardised feature is that the amount of words expected seems to add up to around 80,000. A controversial area is the amount of M-level work that is incorporated into several professional doctorate programmes. This varies from none (some responses specified that all work has to be at doctoral level and that a Masters degree is the standard entry point) to a maximum of 50% of all credits. The logic of including M-level work is the need to acknowledge progression. Scott et al (2004) argue that acknowledging professional doctorate students’ progression helpfully weakens the boundaries between academic and professional knowledge. They see an insistence on students reaching doctoral level from the beginning of a professional doctorate course in the following terms: 10

‘practice knowledge is here being understood as inferior to academic knowledge and the practitioner should therefore divest themselves of that knowledge and replace it with academic knowledge.’ (Scott et al 2004: 151) Proponents of accepting M-level credits as part of professional doctorate qualifications would probably argue that it is fairly routine for universities to accept some credits at an academic level below the one for which a student is registered. This would usually be a small proportion such as, for example, 20 out of 180 credits for a Masters degree. They might also argue that not every piece of work a PhD student submits to supervisors during their candidature will be at doctoral level. These may well be reasonable arguments, but it is difficult to see how professional doctorates will be generally accepted as completely equivalent in status to a PhD when the research council model of a PhD is that a Masters degree has to be completed beforehand and some professional doctorate programmes have all their taught modules (which are integral to the doctorate award itself) at M level. Effectively here you can get a professional doctorate with only around two-thirds of the work being doctoral, whereas to get a PhD the whole thesis has ultimately to be considered doctoral. There are real issues of equity here. In terms of the timing of classes there is also considerably variety. Most programmes have some kind of block teaching to suit part-time students, but some have weekly attendance. Yet others have very little contact with other students (see also Powell and Long, 2005). What seems to be working well? All the active professional doctorates that are still recruiting are part of an inter-professional combined structure to some extent, either offering a generic professional doctorate that is common with nurses and allied health professionals or at least offering some modules in common with other professional doctorate students (usually from health or education). There is no doubt a lesson here about viability. A slightly sceptical note could be struck about some of the joint ‘health and social care’ doctorates, which seem to be effectively run by staff from health care backgrounds and seem to have very little social work involvement, perhaps reflecting the balance of research activity in these inter-disciplinary schools. The positive stories from telephone interviews include the importance of a strong cohort identity. A set of modules taken in same order seems to work well, with students forming strong bonds with each other. This scenario does of course imply fairly intensive teaching for small numbers of students, because if a programme has an annual intake, modules have to be run for more than one cohort of students at once. For one of the programmes that has been successful in attracting numbers of students in double figures, it is word of mouth recruitment above all that has ensured this success. Figures of 17 and 22 students on programmes are impressive, but given the concerns expressed in the telephone interviews about student dropout rates, it remains to be seen how many of these students will in fact graduate with doctorates. What is the relationship of professional doctorates to practice? The question of how these doctorates relate to practice is of course very difficult to establish without some in-depth case study research and my small-scale study does not come into this category. Some observations can be made, however, from the telephone interviews.

11

On the basis of my limited data there seems to be only one professional doctorate programme (at the Tavistock) in which actual practice is assessed and awarded doctoral credits. This is perhaps surprising, given that social work is a practice discipline and the Doctorate in Clinical Psychology (D Clin Psy), one of the best established professional doctorates in other disciplines, requires considerable evidence of actual practice. There are other social work professional doctorate programmes which require some written reflection on practice, although this can potentially be practice which is historical rather than ongoing. Yet others – the majority as far as I can see – are based entirely around applied research and are therefore more or less like a PhD, albeit one that is structured into discrete parts. Maxwell (2003) has described first and second generation professional doctorates in Australia. The first generation degrees looked rather more like structured PhDs, whereas the second generation degrees are more flexible, integrated with the workplace and involve a portfolio model of assessment instead of the more traditional professional doctorate structure of coursework plus thesis. (Thorpe et al. [2007] have further argued that a ‘third generation’ of professional doctorates can genuinely integrate academic knowledge, professional practice and research skills). It is probably the case that all the professional doctorates I encountered except perhaps for the one at the Tavistock were first generation professional doctorates in Maxwell’s and Thorpe’s terms. It is not the case that the majority of professional doctorates, which are entirely research-based, even necessarily require a strong connection to practice. One professional doctorate co-ordinator told me that they have two students doing theoretical literature-based theses on aspects of social work ethics. Other interviewees, however, said that they did require theses to relate directly to practice and that examiners would have to be satisfied of this. This variation in terms of the relationship between research and practice raises the question of what professional doctorates are for. There is a range of definitions in the professional doctorate literature, with some authors emphasising applied research and others emphasising the advancement of professional practice. A range of views was expressed in the telephone interviews: professional doctorates as practice-oriented research and professional doctorates as ‘advanced professional training’. I do not suggest that professional doctorates should be either one or the other necessarily. There is probably room for both kinds, although this might arguably be rather confusing to employers (as well as academics). The other issue for debate in relation to the research-practice relationship is the suitability of professional doctorates for academic staff. There are essentially two viewpoints here. The first is that a PhD is the appropriate apprenticeship for career research, whereas the professional doctorate is a route to advanced (and research-aware) practice. The second view is that the professional doctorate in theory deals with both academic and professional competence, so is in fact more appropriate for social work. This latter view echoes the idea of ‘social work research’ as distinctive because of the relationship between systematic inquiry and practice. There were also pragmatic notes struck by staff who said they had recruited their professional doctorate students onto their own staff teams, in the context of a dearth of research active social work academics with doctorates. One interviewee said ‘we’re grateful for anyone with a social work doctorate’. It is possible that whatever the rhetorical claims about practice-based knowledge, the main reason for professional doctorates being seen as good qualifications for social work academics is in fact the rather small market in researchactive social work academics. Certainly in other practice-based disciplines with stronger research bases, such as clinical psychology and engineering, professional doctorates are

12

clearly seen as advanced practitioner qualifications rather than preparation for research careers.

Conclusion This is only a preliminary study conducted on no budget, but it did in all probability reach the large majority of active professional doctorate programmes in the UK, so is of some use, perhaps especially to those universities which are thinking about setting up professional doctorate programmes. The key issues raised which the social work academic community needs to consider are as follows, in my view: - The numbers of students are very small except on two courses. Lessons could be learned from the experiences of those two staff groups, including perhaps the importance of cohort identity and support. - Social work professional doctorates are much more viable when part of inter-disciplinary professional doctorate programmes, although there is a need to ensure a genuine social work presence within teaching and supervision team. - The issue of incorporating a significant proportion of M level credits is controversial and in the context of the 1+3 model, makes genuine doctoral equivalence with PhDs problematic. - There are more conversations to be had about what professional doctorates are for. Most programmes seem to be ‘first generation’ professional doctorates that look rather like a PhD divided into separate sections. That is probably very useful for research capacitybuilding but is less likely to help take forward the idea of a professional doctorate as a professional award. - There needs to be more discussion of what is the appropriate kind of doctoral training for social work academics, as there is no clear consensus at present. Perhaps we can conclude that a view of social work research as distinctive because of its practice base would tend to favour professional doctorates for social work academics. However, there is also an alternative view that social work research has more in common with other areas of social scientific research than separates it, and social work researchers should simply aim to be the best possible researchers. This view would probably support the prioritisation of new methodological skills over any involvement in practice, and would tend to imply support for the UK research council 1+3 model of PhD study rather than the professional doctorate as the best preparation for academia. A final note is the need for more research on all this. Most interesting would be to find out in detail what kinds of research and advanced reflection on practice is going on in these programmes. Are professional doctorates in fact generating different kinds of knowledge from PhDs? Some detailed qualitative research on this would be very useful. Acknowledgements This paper originates in a report for the research sub-committee of the Joint University Council Social Work Education Committee (JUC-SWEC). I should like to acknowledge the helpful comments of the committee’s members, especially when I reported on interim findings in February 2007. I should also like to thank colleagues who were respondents to the survey and especially those who made time to take part in telephone interviews.

13

References Bourner, T., Bowden, R. Laing, S. (2001) ‘Professional doctorates in England’, Studies in Higher Education 26(1), pp.65-83. Ellis, L.B. (2005) ‘Professional doctorates for nurses: mapping provision and perceptions’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 50(4), pp.440-448. Joint University Council Social Work Education Committee (JUC SWEC) (2006) Social Work Research Strategy in Higher Education 2006–2010, London: Social Care Workforce Research Unit. Lyons, K. (2002) ‘Researching social work: doctoral work in the UK’, Social Work Education 21(3), pp. 337-348. Maxwell, T.W. (2003) ‘From first to second generation professional doctorate’, Studies in Higher Education 28(3), pp.279-291. Orme J. (2003) ‘Why does social work need doctors?’ Social Work Education 22(6), pp.541– 54 Orme, J. and Powell, J. (2007) ‘Building research capacity in social work: process and issues’, British Journal of Social Work Advance Access DOI:10.1093/bjsw/bcm122. Powell, S. and Long, E. (2005) Professional Doctorate Awards in the UK. Lichfield, UK Council for Graduate Education. Scott, D., Brown, A., Lunt, I. and Thorne, L. (2004) Professional doctorates: Integrating Professional and Academic Knowledge. Maidenhead, Open University Press. Shaw, Ian F. (2007) ‘Is Social Work Research Distinctive?’ Social Work Education, 26(7), pp.659 – 669. Thorpe, R., Lunt, I. and Orme, J. (2007) Professional doctorates and the nature of professionally-focused research. Unpublished paper, Leeds Business School.

i

Since the survey was completed (for the 2006-7 session) I have been made aware that Plymouth, University of Central England and Queen’s University Belfast may be offering professional doctorates relevant to social work. As they did not respond to the survey they are not included in the data.

14