at Educational Policy Workshops, Dissertation Defense Presentations,
and Professional Meetings:
addition to required program components, students are encouraged
and expected to engage in a variety of events and activities.
These informal program components constitute an important part
of a rich doctoral education: ongoing interaction with a group
of fellow students around professional readings and experiences;
attending brown bag sessions, seminars, colloquy, dissertation
defenses, and other opportunities to learn from others outside
the context of courses; and shadow- or apprentice-reviewing journal
articles, conference presentations, proposals, and/or other professional
Educational Policy program and Center, and the College of Education,
offer many colloquia, workshops, and enrichment opportunities.
First-year doctoral students are required to attend the formal
series of Educational Policy Workshops, which typically take place
every other Friday during the academic year. Advanced students
are expected to attend if possible. These workshops provide faculty
and students and guests to present and discuss current issues,
and to rehearse possible conference presentations and drafts of
emerging scholarship in a very hospitable environment.
students will also participate in professional association meetings,
especially at the national level but occasionally at the state
or international level, where they will ultimately present research
that they designed, carried out, analyzed, and wrote up. Academic
and professional careers include such participation, so graduate
students are expected to enter the program with a goal of making
such presentations during their graduate careers. Students will
early on begin attending national conferences as audience members,
and eventually presenting at, for example, the annual meetings
of the American Educational Research Association [AERA], the Comparative
and International Education Society [CIES], American Political
Science Association, Politics of Education Association, University
Council of Educational Administration. American Educational Finance
Association, American Economics Association, Frederick D. Patterson
Research Conference, Education Law Conference, or the American
Association of Colleges of Teacher Education. This sort of participation
prepares students to understand the quality standards for submitting
work for professional presentation as well as the expectations
for presenting such work when their own proposals are accepted.
As students proceed through the doctoral program, they are increasingly
expected to be aware of cutting edge thinking and scholarship
in educational policy. Policy graduates from MSU lead many of
the conversations in educational policy, and faculty members expect
that by the end of the program, students are ready to engage in
such conversations at a high professional level.
and Guidance Committees
the letter of admission, each new student is given the name, university
address, and telephone number of his/her temporary advisor and
is asked to contact the advisor as soon as possible. Shortly after
admission, advisors receive their new advisees' application files.
temporary advisor discusses with the student the nature of the
program and attempts to answer questions about:
- opportunities for assistantships,
- relocation to the East Lansing area (if necessary),
- institutional expectations regarding time limits to complete
the comprehensive examinations (five years from the semester
the students took the first advanced graduate course to appear
on the formal "Program Plan") and the dissertation
(three years from the date of passing the comprehensive examinations
and no longer than eight years from entry into the program),
- the procedures and timing for selecting a permanent chairperson
and other guidance committee members,
- and other details about the doctoral experience.
students receive some information about faculty associated with
the program and their interests, but many advisees could benefit
from further information about faculty in the department and in
other programs whose interests and commitments might connect with
Temporary advisors may become the permanent chairpersons
of their advisees' guidance committees. Whether they assume that
eventual role or not, the temporary advisor assumes the chairperson's
responsibilities until a guidance committee is formally selected,
in most cases for a year or more. Temporary advising assignments
should be treated by both students and faculty as just what the
name suggests -- temporary arrangements. When a student is admitted
to the program, the admissions group and coordinator assign a
temporary advisor to that student based on general area of interest
and current advising loads. This relationship helps get a student
started in his or her studies, but there is no reason for either
party to assume that this temporary advising connection should
students start taking courses, meeting faculty, and exploring
their interests, it is normal that they begin developing relationships
with a variety of faculty members. As soon as students find someone
with whom they would like to work in developing their program
plan, they should initiate a formal change of advisor. This change
merely formalizes a shift in advising roles that has already taken
place. For a student to make such a choice is neither surprising
nor insulting to the temporary advisor, because the assumption
from the start is that students are likely to move on once they
get their feet on the ground. To make the change official, the
student needs to have both old and new advisors sign a Change-of-Advisor
form. The end of the first year or the beginning of the second
year is a natural time for students to think about making such
a change. Students should feel free to initiate this kind of discussion
with current and future advisors. Temporary advisors can help
facilitate this process by suggesting to their advisees that they
should think about advisor possibilities at this point. It would
be a good idea not to delay this decision until the student is
at the point of putting together a guidance committee and a program
plan (which should be completed before the end of the second year
in the program), because the new advisor will be an important
help in working with the student to identify appropriate committee
members and to map out a tentative plan. Of course, students can
select their temporary advisor as their "permanent"
advisor if they wish. But the key point is this is their choice,
and faculty members should encourage them to exercise it in whatever
ways best fit their professional and programmatic needs.
Also, it is worth keeping in mind that, despite the name we often
use to identify this person, there is nothing permanent about
the advisor that a student chooses to help him or her through
the process of program planning and comprehensive exams. Here
as before, it is quite normal for a student to choose a new advisor
at the point when the student launches into a dissertation (and/or
to select another person to serve as dissertation director). Temporary
advisor, advisor, and dissertation director are three different
roles and are potentially occupied by different faculty members
during the course of a student's career in the doctoral program.
It is useful for both faculty and students to consider this the
norm and to encourage students to be deliberate in their choice
at each of these stages. Students must officially register any
changes in advisors and committee members by completing a Change
in Guidance Committee Membership form.
Advisor, Chair of Program Guidance Committee
Toward the end of the first year of study, or early in the second
year, temporary advisors and their advisees work together to identify
a permanent advisor/chairperson and additional guidance committee
members. Although the temporary advisor will have been assigned
to the student, the permanent chairperson of the committee is
selected by the student and agreed to by both parties, based upon
mutual interests and commitments.
Advisor and chair are two names for the same person. After the
formation of a guidance committee, the advisor serves as chairperson
of that committee. The committee and chair are responsible for
working with the student on his or her program of study, up through
the completion of coursework and the passing of the comprehensive
examinations, events that typically occur in the third year in
the program. If appropriate, a student may wish to change chairpersons
after completing the comprehensive examinations in order to reshape
the committee responsible for guiding the dissertation. A student
might also desire to separate the responsibilities of the chair
of the committee, and the director of the dissertation.
order to help maximize the student's academic and professional
growth, the advisor/chairperson is at minimum responsible for
the student in selecting appropriate faculty members for the guidance
committee. Aiding the student in scheduling and preparing for
the three required official meetings of the student's committee:
1) approval of the Program
Plan; 2) approval of the Dissertation
Proposal; and 3) the final oral Defense of, or examination
on, the Dissertation. Three committee members must be present
to constitute an official meeting. (The advisor and some or all
committee members may change from one of these occasions to the
the activities of the student and guidance committee as they:
plan the program, prepare for the comprehensive examination,
develop questions for the examination, consider and revise the
dissertation proposal, complete and write the dissertation,
and prepare for the final oral examination.
conflicting issues or problems that may arise between committee
members and the student.
to identify and recruit new or additional guidance committee
members, if necessary or appropriate.
the student to understand and fulfill all of the requirements
and policies of the department, the college, and the university.
the student to prepare and file all of the forms and reports
required to attain the degree.
and filing the annual evaluation reports required by the Graduate
School and the program for all graduate students.
the student to identify, pursue, and secure all of the academic,
professional, research, and teaching opportunities that would
appropriately contribute to his or her career aspirations.
Responsibilities of the unit administrator when a student
and/or faculty advisor can no longer work together
If a student and/or an advisor discover that they can no longer
work together productively, or either desires to end the advisee/advisor
relationship, the Coordinator of the doctoral program should be
informed by a letter, which also requests an appointment to discuss
the situation so that the Coordinator is fully informed about
the circumstances surrounding the decision to change the relationship.
After this meeting, the Coordinator will inform the other party
(i.e., the advisor if the student is seeking to end the relationship,
the student if the advisor is seeking to cease advising) by letter
of the wishes of the student or advisor to end the relationship.
In all cases, the student will be asked in writing to meet with
the Coordinator to consider advisory alternatives. Then, the program
faculty expects the student to seek out a potential alternative
advisor, continuing to do so until a replacement advisor is in
place. This process would not be used in the course of regular
changes in advisor or in moving from program advisor to dissertation
The guidance committee serves the student, the program, the
college, and the university in setting standards and promoting
the highest level of excellence in scholarship and professional
accomplishments for each student. Each member of the committee
will participate actively and fully throughout a student's program,
from course planning through the defense of the dissertation.
This committee should be formed during the student's second year
The MSU Faculty Handbook defines a guidance committee as follows:
"The guidance committee will consist of at least four Michigan
State University regular faculty, at least three of whom, including
the committee chairperson, possess an earned doctoral degree...."
Regular faculty are those in the tenure stream.
It is understood that students' pursuit of their research interests
may generate topics for dissertation research for which adequate
expertise is not available in the Educational Policy program or
College of Education. In those cases, the student and the permanent
advisor could seek expertise from other MSU colleges and even
other research universities and invite appropriate faculty at
those institutions to participate. Their "presence"
at dissertation oral defenses can be supported by telephone or
videoconferencing; physical presence is desirable but not required.
However, a student who invites a non-MSU faculty member onto his/her
guidance committee must still satisfy the normal composition requirements
for his/her guidance committee with four MSU faculty members.
This means that if a student wants to include on the committee
an MSU faculty member who is not in the tenure stream or a faculty
member from another university, the committee must be expanded
to five or more people. The four regular faculty members need
not all be from the program or College of Education; indeed, faculty
from other departments and colleges can provide enormous benefits
to our students, and the chairperson should not hesitate to recommend
adding staff from other units to the guidance committee. The four
members may be augmented by additional faculty from other groups,
including adjuncts, emeriti, and faculty from other universities.
Representatives from such groups, however, may not substitute
for the four regular faculty members.
The guidance committee members should possess interests compatible
with those of the student, and should have strengths to contribute
to the student's academic, professional, and scholarly growth.
Changes in membership of the committee may be initiated by the
student, with the concurrence of the program coordinator and acknowledgment
of the committee members. Similarly, faculty members may be added
to, or may resign from, guidance committees with the concurrence
of the program coordinator and acknowledgment of other committee
Often the makeup of the student's committee will change at the
point of transition into dissertation work. Dissertations ordinarily
benefit from specific faculty strengths (in certain methodological
or substantive areas, for example), and changes in the committee
are logical after the program of study and comprehensive examinations
are completed. If a different dissertation committee is established,
changes should be made before the proposal is approved. The Guidance
Committee Membership form is used to constitute a guidance
committee, and changes in membership are recorded using the Changes
in Guidance Committee Membership form. The first form is customarily
signed and filed in the Student Affairs Office in the second year
of study. Any subsequent change in committee membership, including
the chairperson, needs to be acknowledged by the signature of
the student, each member of the existing and new guidance committees,
and the program coordinator.
Standards and the Annual Evaluation of Doctoral Students
Advisors are responsible
for evaluating the progress of their advisees each spring, according
to Graduate School policy. The program coordinator will send the
appropriate evaluation materials to each student in the program.
This evaluation provides an opportunity for students to communicate
their accomplishments, to express concerns about their growth
and development, and to discuss potential opportunities for teaching,
research, and other professional activities that the advisor and
student believe are important to pursue.
on Academic Standards
Michigan State University policy on academic standards and evaluation
A 3.00 cumulative grade-point average in the degree
program is the minimum University standard, but colleges, departments,
or schools may establish a higher minimum standard. However, attainment
of the minimum grade-point average is in itself an insufficient
indicator of potential for success in other aspects of the program
and in the field. The guidance committee and academic unit are
jointly responsible for evaluating the student's competency (as
indicated by, e.g., grades in core and other courses, research
performance, and development of professional skills) and rate
of progress (as indicated by, e.g., the number of courses for
which grades have been assigned or deferred). Written evaluations
shall be communicated to the graduate student at least once a
year, and a copy of such evaluations shall be placed in the graduate
student's file. A student whose performance does not meet the
standards of quality will not be permitted to continue to enroll
in the degree program, and appropriate action will be taken by
the college, department, or school.
In accordance with this policy, the annual evaluation should
be viewed as a positive occasion to foster student/advisor dialogue
and to help students think through where they've been during the
year, where they're going next, and what they need to get there.
The process of student evaluation should permit considerable advisor
latitude and professional judgment rather than require extensive
rules and regulations. The minimum academic standards and resulting
consequences are provided for the rare cases in which standards
may not be met. In such cases, the policy is designed to assure
equitable consequences for all students.
Students in the program are expected to be aware of and to conform
to the professional standards adopted by the American Educational
Research Association, as well as the organizations that serve
specialty areas of educational policy in which the student might
participate. Violation of any of the AERA ethics is a serious
matter that would be dealt with by referral to the Coordinator
of the doctoral program, who would investigate the situation to
present the case to the Associate Dean for Student Affairs for
Academic Progress in Coursework
The following standard defines what constitutes acceptable academic
progress in coursework for Ph.D. students in the Educational Policy
program and identifies consequences for students who fail to meet
the standard. Students are held accountable for meeting the standard
each semester and may be subject to action at the end of any semester
in which the standard is not met.
All students are expected to maintain a cumulative
grade point average of 3.0 and to complete all deferred and
incomplete grades in a timely manner. Only students failing
to meet this standard will be designated as the focus of one
of three levels of concern and may be subject to remedial actions
noted in the following sections.
Level 1 Concern: Any student receiving less than a 3.0
in any course or accumulating a total of two or more incomplete/deferred
grades at any point will be required to discuss his/her situation
with his/her advisor. It is expected that the faculty member
in whose class the student received the unacceptable grade will
have some involvement in this part of the evaluation process.
In order to remove the designation of Level 1 Concern, the student
must satisfactorily address the conditions which occasioned
the designation. In some cases, the student may be required
to develop a formal plan to address the problems.
Level 2 Concern: Any student accumulating a total of
two or more grades below 3.0 or three or more incomplete/deferred
grades will be required to discuss his/her situation with his/her
advisor and to have his/her case reviewed by the coordinator
of the Ph.D. Program. In all cases, the student will be required
to develop a formal plan to address his/her problems. In addition,
in the semester following the next semester of study, the student
will not be permitted to have a combined assistantship and course
load exceeding 100 percent (e.g., 6 credits and 1/2 time assistantship,
9 credits and 1/4 time assistantship) until all incomplete grades
have been cleared. For example, if a student receives the designation
of Level 2 Concern at the end of the fall semester, this restriction
will apply beginning in the subsequent summer semester.
Level 3 Concern -- Academic Probation: If a student
accumulates a total of three or more grades below 3.0, or if
the student fails to clear incomplete grades in a timely manner,
the student may be subject to dismissal. Such circumstances
will require a formal review by a committee appointed by the
program coordinator in consultation with the student and advisor,
to determine the likelihood of a reversal of circumstance. During
this review, the student will have the opportunity to meet with
the coordinator, both with and without his/her advisor present.
According to university regulations, if a student's cumulative
grade point average falls below 3.0, the student will be designated
as being on academic probation. Any student so designated will
be required to discuss his/her circumstances with his/her advisor
and to develop a plan to address his/her academic problems.
The university will remove the student from probation when his/her
cumulative average rises to 3.0 or above. If the student's cumulative
average does not rise to 3.0 or above within one year, he/she
may be subject to dismissal. In such a case, a formal review
will be required.
Progress in Research
Since progress in research may be demonstrated through several
different types of activity (e.g., assistantships, dissertation,
individual efforts) in which not all students have similar experiences,
for the purposes of annual evaluation, attention to this area
is restricted to progress in dissertation research. For students
in the post-comprehensive phase of their programs, students and
advisors should discuss progress during the annual evaluation
conference and, if necessary, generate appropriate means to further
the student's progress. In rare cases when the student has not
had a dissertation proposal approved within three years of passing
the comprehensive examination, a formal warning will be issued
by the program coordinator. Further action may be warranted if
the student does not subsequently complete an acceptable dissertation
proposal within an appropriate period of time.
The annual evaluation process must be completed prior to April
30, each academic year. All Ph.D. students should complete an
evaluation form, submit the form to their advisors, and make
an appointment to discuss their evaluation. Advisors should complete
the advisor section of the form prior to meeting with the student,
and both student and advisor should sign the form at the end of
the evaluation conference.
Annual progress reviews are the responsibility of the permanent
faculty advisor, working with the guidance committee. The graduate
student will provide his or her advisor with an annual progress
report. The student should provide evidence of his or her accomplishments
in the following areas: publication of papers, professional presentations,
participation in funded grants, and assistantship and/or teaching
assignments. The student should also discuss his or her progress
in achieving academic goals and identify areas of difficulty.
The faculty advisor and graduate student will meet to discuss
the student's report, after which the advisor and the graduate
student will sign the completed annual progress report, which
will be placed into the graduate student's file. The annual evaluation
by the advisor will usually be coordinated with the review of
the student's progress by the guidance committee when it meets
to approve the program plan and dissertation proposal. Recommendations
based on this review will be communicated in writing to the student
by their advisor within two weeks of the meeting and that report
will be placed in the graduate student's file. Graduate students
who wish to appeal any part of the faculty advisor's evaluation
may do so in writing to the program coordinator. The permanent
advisor or the graduate student may request a meeting of the guidance
committee to address and attempt to resolve concerns raised by
the evaluation of the annual review. A written report on such
appeals will be filed together with the annual progress report
in the student's file.
One copy of the form should be given to the student, and one
copy should be placed in the advisor's file. The student will
deliver a copy of the signed evaluation to the program coordinator.
In the event that the student does not make an appointment with
the advisor in a timely fashion, it is the advisor's responsibility
to remind the student prior to the deadline.
In the rare cases when students do not meet the standard, the
advisor will notify the coordinator of the program according to
the following guidelines:
Level 1 Concern: The advisor will notify the coordinator
of the Ph.D. program in writing when the student's status has
changed (i.e., when the Level 1 designation should be removed).
A copy of the notification will be provided to the student.
Level 2 Concern: The advisor will provide a written report
to the coordinator describing the student's situation and his/her
plan to address the problems. A copy of the report will be given
to the student, which he/she may amend if desired.
Level 3 Concern: The advisor will provide a written report
to the coordinator of the Ph.D. program, with a copy to the student.
When the form is received, the program coordinator will constitute
a review committee in consultation with the student and advisor.
The dismissal of a student from the Educational Policy Program
is a significant event for both the student and the program faculty
and represents the faculty's decision that the student has not
demonstrated an adequate level of competency in either academic
or in other critical areas of professional conduct. A dismissal
action is generally the final outcome of several informal and
formal communications with the student regarding his or her unsatisfactory
progress through the program and, when appropriate, special efforts
at helping the student meet program requirements and objectives.
The final decision regarding whether or not a student should be
dismissed from the program or under what conditions a student
making unsatisfactory progress will be allowed to continue is
a decision that rests with the Educational Policy faculty.
Reasons for dismissal from program
At any point during the student's matriculation through the Educational
Policy Program, the faculty retains the right to review student
circumstances or personal performances that may negatively affect
the student's competencies for independent professional and scholarly
work. Reasons for termination may be divided into two general
categories: academic dismissals and disciplinary dismissals. These
will be discussed separately.
Academic Dismissals: Failure to maintain academic standards
may occur as the result of unsatisfactory grades in academic coursework,
failure to make satisfactory progress in completing program requirements,
and/or unsatisfactory performance on Comprehensive Examinations.
At a graduate level, a grade of 3.0 represents work that adequately
meets course objectives. A grade of 2.5 or 2.0 represents work
that is below expectations to an increasing degree but that still
is sufficient to qualify for graduate credit. Such a grade is
cause for concern, however, both because it represents weak mastery
of the material and because students must achieve an overall GPA
of 3.0 or higher in order to qualify for graduation.
It is also important to remember that the University establishes
timelines for completion of courses and of degree programs. Eight
years are allowed from the time that a student begins the first
course on his or her doctoral degree program until completion
of all requirements for graduation. Students are provided with
grade reports at the end of each semester by the University, so
they are always apprised of their academic standing. The accumulation
of multiple Incomplete or Deferred grades is another significant
basis of concern about progress.
Disciplinary Dismissals: The following are offered as
examples of circumstances or performances that may be the basis
for dismissal action: academic dishonesty; criminal misconduct;
unethical practices and/or unprofessional conduct.
Due process rights of the student and faculty will be upheld
by following the procedure outlined in the document, Graduate
Student Rights and Responsibilities.
To protect student due process rights as well as the rights of
faculty to uphold the academic and professional standards, the
following steps will be taken as part of the proceedings that
may eventuate in the student's dismissal from the Educational
Policy Program for disciplinary reasons:
1. Student will be informed in writing by the program Coordinator
(registered mail) of any charge, event, performance, or circumstance
that may threaten the student's immediate status within the program.
Such charges or complaints may emanate from members of the program
faculty, from other University faculty or personnel, from other
students, or from professionals and agents outside of the University
2. As part of the above communication, the Coordinator may initially
advise the student to seek an informal resolution of the charge
or complaint with the accusing party and to inform the Coordinator
of the outcome of this action within 30 days.
3. If, however, informal methods of problem resolution are inappropriate
or not satisfactory, the Program Coordinator will inform the student
(in writing), the student's advisor and other interested parties
that the student's status in the program may be in immediate jeopardy
and that a formal meeting of the program faculty will be necessary
to review the nature of the threat to the student's status and
to arrive at a decision regarding dismissal. The program Coordinator
may invite any persons judged to have relevant information to
submit their information either in person at this meeting or in
writing prior to the meeting. In advance of the meeting the student
will be given copies of all written materials under consideration.
The student and his/her counsel (as defined in Graduate Student
Rights and Responsibilities (GSRR 5.4.10) would be invited to
attend this meeting and to present testimony. In addition, the
student may invite other individuals who have relevant testimony
to attend the meeting or to present written information. The student
will provide the program Coordinator with a list of these individuals
at least five days in advance of the scheduled meeting.
4. Following the presentation of testimony and evidence, representatives
of the program faculty will convene separately to deliberate and
to arrive at a decision regarding the student's standing in the
program. The decision may result in either (1) a dismissal of
the charges or threats against the student and a restoration of
the student's good standing in the program, (2) a judgment to
allow the student to continue in the program pending satisfactory
completion of or compliance with specified conditions, or (3)
immediate dismissal of the student from the Educational Policy
Following completion of the program faculty's decision-making,
the program Coordinator will inform the student and the student's
faculty Advisor (in writing) of the faculty's decision and, if
appropriate, clearly specify what if any conditions must be satisfied
by the student to maintain his or her standing within the program.
The student will also be advised that if he or she wishes to grieve
the outcome of the faculty's decision, the grievance procedures
specified in the GSRR should be followed.
student, advisor/chair, and guidance committee share responsibility
for planning a program of coursework that both provides the student
appropriate academic knowledge and scholarly perspectives and
skills, and satisfies the curricular requirements of the program.
This plan should be agreed upon, signed, approved, and filed by
the time the student has completed approximately one-half of the
courses in his or her program.
The tentative plan, which the student and advisor/chair prepare,
should be reviewed by the full committee, revised if appropriate,
signed by all committee members, and then forwarded to the program
coordinator for approval. After signing off on the program
plan, the coordinator forwards it to the Student Affairs Office
for college approval.
The plan should be organized and presented to conform to the
requirements of the program:
Education Policy Core.
Proseminar in Curriculum, Teaching, and Educational Policy
Economic Analysis in Educational Policy Making
Politics of Education
Policy and Practice in Education
Educational Inquiry and Research
Methods in Educational Research I
Methods in Educational Research II
|3. Concentration in educational
|4. Internship or field placement.
|| 1 to 6
|| 1 to 6
students submit a committee-approved program plan to the doctoral
coordinator for signoff, they must attach a page to this university
form containing the following additional information:
list of course numbers and titles (with specific topics included
for generic course titles, such as 982, 990, and 991), organized
under headings by program requirement, listed above.
courses already completed or in process, the name of the instructor
and the grade received.
The program plan is always subject to future additions, deletions,
or substitutions, as long as the revisions satisfy program requirements.
The earliest course on the plan can be no more than eight years
older than the oldest course on the plan; all courses, therefore,
must be taken within an eight-year period of time. Students circulate
proposed changes among all committee members for their consideration,
using the Changes
in Program Plan. Any change may be approved by a simple majority
of the guidance committee, but all members must sign the change(s)
form before forwarding it to the program coordinator.
part of the college requirement in inquiry and research, every
doctoral student must complete a research practicum (i.e., CEP/EAD/TE
are various ways of fulfilling the practicum requirement. In general,
the practicum is to be a small research project, designed and
completed by the student with the support of his/her practicum
advisor and a "committee of scholars." The following
section addresses many of the key questions that students may
have regarding the research practicum requirement: (1) Why do
you have a research practicum requirement, (2) What are essential
features of a research practicum? (3) What constitutes a community
of scholars? (4) What are some possibilities for your community
of scholars? (5) Who must indicate final approval of my research
practicum plans? Complete and submit the Research Practicum form.
Why do we have a research practicum requirement?
of the major aspects of doctoral education is developing capabilities
for maintaining a line of research of interest to you. Toward
this end, there are three requirements that comprise the research
requirements. First, there is the inquiry course (CEP930), an
introduction into the purpose and nature of different types of
inquiry. Second, there are research methods courses where students
study a particular methodological approach (e.g., quantitative
methods [CEP932 and CEP933], or qualitative methods [TE931, EAD955B]
). Third, there is the research practicum (i.e., CEP/EAD/TE 995),
designed to provide students with an initial experience in conceptualizing,
conducting, and evaluating a research study; or the opportunity
to build upon previously initiated research.
What are essential features of a research practicum?
December, 1990, the Graduate Educational Policy Committee of the
college approved a document outlining general guidelines for the
College of Education research practicum requirement for all Ph.D.
programs. Listed below are several features based on these guidelines
that help to characterize and define the research practicum experience:
The practicum is designed as an early research experience that
would involve you in identifying a question or issue of interest,
designing and conducting the study, and analyzing and reporting
the findings. The practicum should occur after completing the
first two requirements in the research experience (i.e., the
inquiry course, the methodology course), and preferably prior
to comprehensive examinations.
It is assumed that participation in a practicum will provide
you with a range of opportunities relevant to conducting educational
research: The research practicum will support you in learning
research practicum should be developed and conducted within a
community of scholars, a group of people (i.e., students and faculty)
with whom you can share ideas, elicit feedback, provide support,
and so forth. It is not designed to be an independent study in
which you would work with a single faculty member without the
support of additional members of a research community. If you
are considering a seminar group that exists primarily for another
purpose, ask yourself the following question, "Will this
community of scholars be able to focus on my learning as a researcher?"
The answer to this question will help guide your final decisions
in identifying your community of scholars.
pose significant questions grounded in existing theory and
and use methods appropriate to the question and research context,
gather appropriate evidence,
subject the evidence to careful analysis,
reassess prior assumptions and conceptualizations in relation
to evidence gathered and ongoing analysis,
respond to input and critiques from other scholars and provide
advice and comments for others' research,
organize oral and written presentations, and
revise presentations in response to fair and open critiques.
The research practicum requirement is reflected on your program
through 1-4 enrolled credits under a course number "995."
It is likely that you will enroll in a 995 option during a single
semester. Since this is part of your program, you may find it
useful to discuss your plans for the research practicum with
the individual members of your guidance committee.
What constitutes a community of scholars?
of scholars consists of a group of people (i.e., students and
at least one faculty member) interested in discussing and helping
each other to learn the practical application of research theory
and methods, and with specific regard to the research practicum
requirements where, ideally, at least two members of the community
are fulfilling the research practicum requirement. There are several
bases on which a group might form. Similar interests (e.g., questions,
methodology, approach to analysis) is one reason a group might
decide to work together. Alternatively, a group with diverse questions
and research approaches could benefit from discussing the contrasts
in their work. Groups who are interested in exploring cross-cutting
themes (e.g., related to questions or methodology) could also
be an appropriate context for supporting each others' learning.
Because of the nature of a research practicum -- a context in
which you are learning about the practical application of research
theory and methods to further your own learning -- it is important
for you to participate in a group that can provide that kind of
support and focus.
What are some possibilities for your community of scholars?
the College of Education, options for fulfilling the research
practicum involve different ways of meeting the goals above, to
recognize that students may enroll in the practicum seminar at
different stages in the development of a research study. For example,
some students may enter the practicum seminar with collected data
to analyze; some may enter needing to establish their research
question; some may need a supportive community to consider ways
to publicize their study, both orally and in writing. In other
words, the practicum should provide a variety of supportive experiences
because students will be at different phases of their research
study. You should begin to explore available 995 opportunities
before the semester when you plan to enroll, since the options
will vary for a given semester.
following are representative of appropriate 995 options:
Enrolling in a variable credit CEP/EAd/TE 995, with an identified
faculty member, convened during a particular semester around
a particular theme (e.g., common research methodology, common
research site). If the student enrolls in a distinct CEP/EAD/TE
995 class it should be for three credits, to recognize the scale
and value of the faculty supervisor’s contribution.
Enrolling in a variable (1-4) credit CEP/EAD/TE 995, with an
identified faculty member, that is convened to run in parallel
with an existing discourse community within the college (e.g.,
Educational Policy Center Workshops, Math Study Group, Literacy
Colloquy). You may approach a faculty member within the community
to serve as your practicum supervisor, and the faculty member
would then submit a brief plan to doctoral program coordinator,
establishing that you will have a community of scholars to support
you through your research practicum and that you will be able
to meet the expectations for completing all phases of the project
as listed above. The number of credits should reflect the amount
of new work that a student would anticipate doing in order to
fulfill the practicum requirement. For example, if a student
had already developed questions and gathered data, and therefore
would only be subjecting the analysis, interpretation, and presentation
to the practicum group, the student might enroll for just one
credit. Alternatively, if a student was starting essentially
from scratch, with no data collected or analyzed, it would be
appropriate to enroll for three credits.
Enrolling in an existing course, selected from those identified
as having potential to fulfill the research practicum requirement.
Relevant courses would be those that focus on issues related
to the design and completion of a research study and which would
provide students with a community of scholars with whom they
could meet the goals outlined above.
Departments will staff specific 995 sections that will enroll
a variety of students. Students may simply enroll in this section
as a way of structuring their practicum experience.
Credits: You should sign up for a number of credits in 995 that
properly reflects the amount of faculty effort involved in your
practicum. If you sign up for the 995 course, you should treat
it as a regular course and sign up for three credits.
Who must indicate final approval of my research practicum plans?
guidance committee must approve the research practicum plan, including:
(1) the topic and (b) the overall plan for participating in a
community of scholars. The supervising faculty member is responsible
for assuring the student has the opportunity to fulfill the research
practicum plan and for evaluating the students' performance in
fulfilling all the requirements of the practicum experience. The
program coordinator must approve all practicum proposals except
for those completed as part of the regular 995 course.
The comprehensive examination is intended to encourage an integrative understanding of the knowledge base in the student's disciplinary area and to serve as documentation of student progress. The comprehensive examination provides an occasion that allows students to review and integrate a large fund of knowledge into a meaningful perspective. Within the Educational Policy Program the comprehensive examination is specifically designed to examine the student's ability to integrate the body of knowledge and competencies critical to their future roles as educational policy scholars and analysts.
The examination consists of two parts.
Part I is the program-level examination, which consists of two common extemporaneous questions designed to address issues relevant to the doctoral program as a whole and on which all students, regardless of their emphases or concentrations, should be conversant. It is based upon first-year common coursework. All students will be expected to take Part I of the examination in late August, following their first year in the program -- during which they should have completed the following courses: TE901, EAD942, EAD943, CEP932, CEP933, and ED928. Any student seeking an exception or deferral of this part of the exam must submit a formal request in writing to the program coordinator no later than the start of the summer semester following the first year of coursework. The faculty intends to offer this common part of the examination only once per year, in late August.
Part II consists of one individualized scholarly assignment designed to tap the students' knowledge in their specific field of expertise.
Part I of the examination takes place in late August, just prior to the beginning of the student’s second year. Students need to be enrolled for the upcoming fall semester in order to take the August Comprehensive Exam. It takes place on a single day: the student responds to one question during a three-hour session in the morning and another question during a three-hour session in the afternoon. Each Student responds on a computer and the answers are submitted electronically to the program coordinator at noon and again at 4:00 p.m. for distribution to the examination readers. Typically the readers will notify the coordinator of the results of the evaluation no later than 24 days after the examination day. The coordinator will communicate the results to the advisor and the student shortly thereafter. A student who is asked to revise his or her responses to Part I of the examination will be given specific feedback by the examination readers and a timeline for submitting the revision.
Part II of the examination takes place typically at the end of the second year or start of the third year. Students need to be enrolled for the semester of the exam. In order to take Part II, the student must have passed Part I, have a formal Guidance Committee in place, have filed the Program Plan, and have completed at least 75 percent of the coursework listed on the Plan. Students will ordinarily be expected to complete Part II within 14 days. Although Part II is a take-home exercise, and it might be useful to have conversations with colleagues about questions, students will submit work that is exclusively their own: students are not permitted to have others read, edit, or revise their responses. Typically, the response is a paper of about 20 pages double-spaced. Members of a student's guidance committee evaluate responses to Part II. Typically, students will receive their final evaluations within three weeks of submitting their responses. Students who need to retake or revise Part II will be informed of this by their advisor and negotiate what they need to do with members of their guidance committee.
In order to pass the comprehensive examination, students must pass both parts of the examination. If a student passes one part of the examination but fails the other part, the examination has not been passed. Students will be eligible to retake the part of the examination that they failed during the next semester, if their advisor agrees. If the student fails the examination two times, a plan of study and preparation must be developed in collaboration with the advisor and approved by the program coordinator before sitting for the examination a third and final time. A student who fails the examination on the third attempt will not be allowed to continue enrolling in the program. A copy of the comprehensive examination evaluation rubric is available online.
Withdrawal from, and Readmission to, the Program, and Time Extensions
For various reasons, students may need
to interrupt enrollment in the program. They may need to attend
to other professional responsibilities temporarily, or they may
have amassed the necessary course and dissertation credits and
need to work on their theses away from campus. Interruptions of
this sort are understandable, and as long as they do not seriously
inhibit the completion of all degree requirements it is not necessary
to delay readmission to the program. The college’s general
position is that if a student has interrupted enrollment for one
year or less, readmission to the program is automatic. If enrollment is interrupted for an entire academic year (3 consecutive semesters) an electronic Application
for Readmission must be completed at the Registrar's website.
In any case, students are still responsible for meeting the university's
timelines for completing degree requirements. All of the comprehensive
examinations must be passed within five years and all remaining
requirements for the degree must be completed within eight years
from the time of a student's first enrollment in the program.
Should the degree requirements not be completed within this eight-year
period, all of the doctoral comprehensive examinations must be
passed again. In extraordinary cases it is possible to petition
to have the university's timelines extended in order to complete
some phase of program work. Students needing extensions should
work closely with their advisors in completing the Request
for Extension of Time to Complete Degree Requirements form
available from the Student Affairs Office. In order to gain an
extension, the student and advisor must make a strong case that
the student is making progress toward completion of the degree
and enclose a detailed schedule that demonstrates the steps to
be taken to reach completion.
purpose of the dissertation is to learn how to carry out an ambitious
scholarly project from beginning to end, with the support of an
advisor and guidance committee, al. This is an opportunity for
students to deepen their specialty areas, identifying important
problems in the specialty area, learning about research related
to that problem, and using understandings about methods to craft
an inquiry that is original and meets high professional standards.
The dissertation also demands excellent integrative writing skills,
writing that portrays completely and honestly how the investigation
was conceived, carried out, and strengthens understanding of significant
issues in educational policy. The program faculty expect most
dissertations to result in published articles, monographs, or
even a book, with the project providing an excellent launching
point for additional research should the student decide to pursue
a research career.
After the student has passed the comprehensive
examination, he or she draws upon prior and ongoing work to formulate
a dissertation proposal. Students customarily work with their
advisors and appropriate other faculty in drafting and revising
their proposals before submitting a formal version to their dissertation
committee for review and recommendations.
The guidance committee chairperson
may also serve as the director of the dissertation. But this is
not mandatory. Students should secure dissertation directors who
will make the most beneficial contribution to the conceptualization
and writing of the dissertation. Depending on the strengths and
interests of their existing program guidance committee members,
consequently, students may wish to ask additional faculty to serve
on their dissertation committees, or to delete some members, or
to change chairs, or retain the committee chair but have another
regular faculty member direct the dissertation.
Depending on the substance and methodology,
some dissertation projects will require human subjects clearance
from the university. A student's advisor and the college representative
to the University Committee
on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) ordinarily help
the student prepare and file the clearance application.
The committee will meet formally to
discuss the proposal, ask questions of the student, and evaluate
the proposed project in terms of its quality, originality, scope,
and appropriateness. The committee will accept the proposal, ask
for revisions, or, in rare cases, turn the proposal back to the
student for considerable rethinking and rewriting (and another
proposal meeting). Three committee members must be present for
the proposal meeting to be valid. When they approve of the proposal,
the committee members sign the appropriate form and forward it
to the program coordinator who delivers it to the Student Affairs
Before completing the dissertation,
students must have registered for at least 24 semester credits
of 999 (Dissertation Research). Once the dissertation is complete,
the student and committee schedule a final oral examination at
a mutually acceptable time.
ensure fairness in the examination procedure and maintenance of
academic standards, the Dean of the College or the Coordinator
may appoint an outside member to the examining committee. The
outside member of the committee will read and critique the dissertation,
will participate in the oral part of the exam, and will submit
a report to the Dean and the Coordinator.
Calendar specifies a series of dates each semester that should
be consulted when scheduling the examination, completing revisions,
and submitting the final copies of the dissertation. Students
should submit final versions of their dissertations to their committee
members at least two weeks prior to the final oral examination
After the dissertation has been successfully
defended, the student must secure the signatures of all committee
members on the Record of Completion of Requirements for Advanced
Graduate Studies. Not every member of the committee has to attend
a defense. Sometimes a member on sabbatical, for example, will
participate by speakerphone. Even if one member is unable to participate
in person or by phone, the defense can still take place, as long
as that committee member has given comments and a vote to the
chair in advance. In this case, the chair can sign for that committee
member in absentia. A committee member who wishes to dissent from
the majority decision on the dissertation's oral defense must
submit a statement explaining his or her reasons to the dean of
After the final revisions are
complete, the student should follow university guidelines regarding
the production of the dissertation. The
Graduate School provides forms and guidelines pertinent to
producing the dissertation, copywriting the thesis, submitting
the product to University Microfilm, and other technical matters.
Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects
full information on University Committee on Research Involving
Human Subjects (UCRIHS), please go to the website for UCRIHS.
The address for UCRIHS:
Michigan State University
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS)
202 Olds Hall
East Lansing, MI 48824
Phone: (517) 355-2180
Fax: (517) 432-4503
is an Institutional Review Board (IRB). Federal and University
regulations require that all research projects involving human
subjects be reviewed and approved by an IRB before initiation.
Under the regulations, research is defined as a formal investigation
designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.
A human subject of research is an individual (1) from whom an
investigator obtains data by interaction or intervention, or (2)
about whom the researcher obtains confidential information.
research involving human subjects or human materials must have
prior approval by UCRIHS. This includes investigations conducted
by faculty, students, staff or others on the premises of Michigan
State University as well as investigations conducted elsewhere
by any representative of Michigan State University in connection
with that individual's institutional responsibilities, unless
the investigation is conducted under a cooperative research agreement
as per 45 CFR 46.114. The type of UCRIHS review required (exempt,
expedited, or full board) depends upon the classification of the
research proposal as to the levels of risk to subjects.
the UCRIHS Review Process Works:
review process begins when an investigator submits a complete
on-line application to the UCRIHS office. UCRIHS assigns the application
an IRB log number. Depending upon the level of risk to subjects
in the protocol, UCRIHS assigns the protocol to one of three review
categories (exempt from full review, expedited review, full review)
and sends it to one, two or five reviewers, respectively. If the
reviewer (or reviewers) is satisfied that the rights and welfare
of the human subjects are adequately protected, he or she approves
it. However, if the reviewer has concerns, the reviewer returns
written comments to the UCRIHS office for transmission to the
investigator. The investigator must then send a response to each
comment, on line to UCRIHS, which will forward it to the reviewer(s).
If the proposal is either an exempt or expedited proposal, an
approval letter can be issued as soon as the reviewer (or reviewers)
approves. When a proposal receives a full (five-member subcommittee)
review, an approval letter is issued after the proposal is discussed
and approved by vote of the full committee at its monthly meeting.
is a tutorial
available online. Students must complete the tutorial in order
to submit UCRIHS material for institutional approval.
faculty members advising students in research are expected to
communicate with their students the importance of being in complete
compliance with UCHRIS (University Committee on Research Involving
Human Subjects (UCRIHS) and to read in detail the most recent
instructions from UCRIHS. All faculty teaching graduate students
in courses also are to emphasize complete compliance with UCRHIS
principles and policies. Faculty teaching courses are also urged
to determine when and how UCRHIS principles can be covered in
research that is conducted by a graduate student in Educational
Policy that is not in compliance with UCRIHS regulations cannot
be used to fulfill course or degree requirements. Should a student
conduct research that is not in compliance with UCRIHS, at a minimum,
the work will have to be repeated with no adjustment for time
lost in carrying out the research that was not in compliance.
Faculty members consider UCRIHS compliance to be very important.
A very serious violation of UCRIHS standards by a student, or
repeated violations, would result in a referral to the Associate
Dean of Student Affairs, who will refer the case to a college-level
hearing board, as specified in University policy. Serious and/or
repeated violations of UCRIHS policies could result in sanctions
up to and including dismissal from the graduate program.
entering the program, students should go to the UCHRIS web site
and read about the important committee. They should take the UCRIHS
training, which requires about a half hour, before involvement
in any research that might conceivably involve human subjects.
is critical to remember that absolutely no research data can be
collected until a project is in complete compliance with UCRIHS
and collecting data before receiving such approval is a serious
ethical breach. Once a student files with UCRIHS, if the student
receives any feedback that they do not understand, they should
immediately consult with a member of the Educational Policy faculty
or the UCRIHS staff for guidance as to how to proceed. Again,
for emphasis, absolutely no data can be collected with our UCHRIHS
approval. If any such data is collected it cannot be used for
any degree purpose.
After the oral examination on the dissertation
has been passed, the committee chairperson completes final certification
forms, which are sent by the Graduate Records office, 205 Erickson. These forms
certify that the student has completed all courses listed on the
program plan; has enrolled for at least 24 dissertation credits;
has fulfilled the residency requirement; has completed a dissertation,
and has passed an oral examination based primarily on the dissertation;
has completed all requirements within eight (8) years of admission
to the doctoral program (or has appropriate extensions on file);
and has a grade point average of no less than 3.0 in graduate
courses taken at MSU.
Resolution, Grievances, and Appeals
Procedures for Graduate Students
some point during one's graduate program at MSU, a student may
wish to register concerns, complaints, or grievances with the
administration of the Program, Departments offering courses, the
College, or the University. Whenever possible, we would hope to
handle these concerns in an informal and timely manner. As soon
as a question or concern is raised, the student should contact
the program Coordinator and/or the Chair of the department offering
the problematic course. Depending on the nature of the concern,
the matter may be resolved through informal negotiation and contact
with the involved parties. However, if the concern or complaint
is of a more serious nature and the student is not satisfied with
the resolution determined via these informal discussions and actions,
the student may need to file a formal complaint with the program
Educational Policy program adheres to the university guidelines
presented in The Graduate Student Rights and Responsibilities
at Michigan State University (GSRR) the central document that
establishes the rights and responsibilities of MSU graduate students
and prescribes procedures for resolving allegations of violations
of those rights through formal grievance hearings. In accordance
with the GSRR, the Educational Policy program and the College
of Education, have established the following procedures for adjudicating
student academic grievances.
grievance procedures also can be applied to hearings regarding
allegations of academic dishonesty and violations of professional
standards in which no disciplinary action is recommended in addition
to a penalty grade of 0.0 in the course. (See GSRR 5.5.1 and 5.5.2.)
Students may not seek redress through a grievance hearing regarding
alleged incompetence of instruction. (See GSRR 2.2.1, 2.2.2.)
The Complaint Process:
A student who believes an instructor, including a graduate teaching
assistant, has violated her or his academic rights shall first
attempt to resolve the dispute in an informal discussion with
the instructor. (See GSRR 5.3.1and 5.3.2.)
If the dispute remains unresolved after discussion with the instructor,
the student should consult the Chairperson of the lead department
offering the course, the program Coordinator, and/or the University
Ombudsman for assistance. (See GSRR 5.3.2.)
If the dispute remains unresolved after discussion with the Chair,
program Coordinator, or Ombudsman, the student may submit to the
Chair a written, signed statement requesting a grievance hearing.
The statement must (1) specify the alleged violations of academic
rights to justify the hearing, (2) identify the individual(s)
against whom the complaint is filed and (3) state the redress
the student seeks that could be implemented by the Chair. (See
GSRR 5.3.2 and 5.3.6.)
A request for a grievance hearing must normally be initiated no
later than mid-semester following the semester in which the alleged
violation of academic rights occurred (exclusive of summer semester).
If the student (the "complainant") or the instructor
(the "respondent") is absent from the University during
that semester, or if other appropriate reasons exist, the Hearing
Board may grant an extension to this deadline. If the University
no longer employs the respondent before the formal grievance procedures
are completed, the grievance may still proceed. (See GSRR 126.96.36.199.)
Constitution of the Hearing Board:
The Associate Dean of Student Affairs of the College of Education
shall constitute a Hearing Board when necessary. (See GSRR 5.1.6.)
No one involved in the case may serve on the Hearing Board. (See
GSRR 5.1.2 and 5.1.7.)
further reference to the complainant's and respondent's rights
concerning Hearing Board membership below, in III.C. See reference
to alternates and replacements in the note under II.B above.]
III. Referral to a Hearing Board:
Upon receipt of a written request for a grievance hearing, the
Coordinator or Chair shall forward the complaint to the Hearing
Board and to both the respondent and the complainant within 10
class days. (See GSRR 5.4.3.) Until such time as any of the alternates
are called to become full members of the Hearing Board, they shall
not receive any communications about the grievance in order to
protect the confidentiality of the complainant and the respondent.
The Chair of the Hearing Board shall promptly convene a meeting
of the Hearing Board to review the request for a grievance hearing,
for both jurisdiction and judicial merit.
Board may also request a written response from the respondent.
considering all submitted information, the Hearing Board may:
Decide that sufficient reasons for a hearing do not exist and
dismiss the grievance, with an explanation provided to the parties
to the grievance, to the Department Chair, to the program Coordinator,
to the Ombudsman, and to the Dean of The Graduate School.
Decide that sufficient reasons for a hearing exist and accept
the request, in full or in part, and proceed to schedule a formal
Invite the parties to meet with the Board for an informal discussion
of the issues. Such a discussion shall not preclude a later hearing.
(See GSRR 5.4.6.)
If the Hearing Board decides to schedule a grievance hearing,
the Chair of the Hearing Board shall promptly negotiate a hearing
date with the Board members and with the parties to the grievance.
An additional meeting only for the Hearing Board should also be
scheduled, in the event that additional deliberations on the findings
least six class days before a scheduled hearing, the Chair of
the Hearing Board shall notify the respondent and the complainant
in writing of the time, date and place of the hearing; the names
of the parties to the grievance; the names of the Hearing Board
members, including alternates; and the names of the witnesses
and advisors, if any. (See GSRR 5.4.7.) This notification should
also remind the parties to the grievance of the rights of each
to challenge the membership of the Hearing Board, both for and
without cause, under the rules prescribed in GSRR 5.1.7.
its discretion, the Hearing Board may set reasonable time limits
for each party to present its case and must so inform the parties
in the written notification of the hearing.
Should the respondent fail to acknowledge the notice of a hearing,
the Hearing Board may either postpone or proceed with the hearing.
(See AFR 4.4.5.)
the complainant fails to appear at the hearing, the Department/School
Hearing Board may either postpone the hearing or dismiss the case.
(See GSRR 5.4.9a.)
the respondent fails to appear at the hearing, the Hearing Board
may either postpone the hearing or hear the case in the respondent's
absence. (See GSRR 5.4.9b.)
unusual circumstances, the Hearing Board may accept written statements
from either party to a hearing in lieu of a personal appearance.
These written statements must be submitted to the Hearing Board
at least one day before the scheduled hearing. (See GSRR 5.4.9c.)
Either party to the grievance hearing may request a postponement
of the hearing. The Hearing Board may either grant or deny the
request. (See AFR 4.4.6; GSRR 5.4.8.)
The Chair of the Hearing Board shall convene the hearing at the
agreed-upon time, date and place. The Chair will ensure that a
collegial atmosphere prevails. (See GSRR 5.4.10.)
protect the confidentiality of the information, the Chair of the
Hearing Board may limit attendance at the hearing to the Hearing
Board members, the complainant, the respondent, the witnesses
for either party, if any, and the counsel/advisor for each party,
if any. (See GSRR 5.4.10, 8.1.4.)
the hearing, parties to a grievance shall have an opportunity
to state their cases, present evidence, designate witnesses, ask
questions and present a rebuttal. (See GSRR 188.8.131.52.) The Hearing
Board may limit the number of witnesses. The procedures may be
witnesses shall be excluded from the proceedings except when testifying.
Witnesses must confine their testimony to their own independent
recollection and may not speak for others.
otherwise approved by the Hearing Board, counsel/advisor and witnesses
shall be limited to members of the MSU community (faculty, staff,
or students). Involvement of a counsel/advisor normally should
not be required.
party's counsel/advisor may assist in the presentation of all
phases of the case during the hearing. (See GSRR 5.4.10.)
To assure orderly questioning, the Chair of the Hearing Board
shall recognize individuals before they speak. All parties have
the right to speak without interruption. Each party has the right
to question the other party and to rebut any oral or written statements
submitted to the Hearing Board. The Chair of the Hearing Board
will enforce any announced time limits on each party to present
its case and, if necessary, extend equal time to each party.
The hearing will proceed as follows:
Introductory remarks by the Chair of the Hearing Board: The Chair
introduces hearing panel members, the complainant, the respondent
and the counsel/advisor(s), if any. The Chair reviews the hearing
procedures, including time restraints, if any, for presentations
by each party and witnesses. The Chair explains that the burden
of proof rests with the complainant, with the exception of appeals
of allegations of academic dishonesty, in which case the instructor
bears the burden of proof, which must be met by a preponderance
of the evidence. If the proceedings are being taped, the Chair
must inform the parties. (See GSRR 5.5.1, 8.1.16.)
Presentation by the Complainant: The Chair recognizes the complainant
to present without interruption any statements relevant to the
complainant's case, including the redress sought. The Chair then
recognizes questions directed at the complainant from the Hearing
Board, the respondent and the respondent's counsel/advisor, if
Presentation by the Complainant's Witnesses: The chair recognizes
the complainant's witness(es), if any, to present, without interruption,
any statement relevant to the complainant's case. The Chair then
recognizes questions directed at the witnesses by the Hearing
Board, the respondent and the respondent's counsel/advisor, if
Presentation by the Respondent: The Chair recognizes the respondent
to present without interruption any statements relevant to the
respondent's case. The Chair then recognizes questions directed
at the respondent from the Hearing Board, the complainant and
the complainant's counsel/advisor, if any.
Presentation by the Respondent's Witnesses: The chair recognizes
the respondent's witnesses, if any, to present, without interruption,
any statement relevant to the respondent's case. The Chair then
recognizes questions directed at the witnesses by the Hearing
Board, the complainant and the complainant's counsel/advisor,
Rebuttal and Closing Statement by Complainant: The complainant
may refute statements by the respondent and the respondent's witnesses
and counsel/advisor, if any, and present a summary statement.
Rebuttal and Closing Statement by Respondent: The respondent may
refute statements by the complainant and the complainant's witnesses
and counsel/advisor, if any, and present a summary statement.
Final questions by the Hearing Board: The Hearing Board may ask
questions of all parties to the grievance.
Deliberations by the Hearing Board: After all evidence has been
presented, with full opportunity for explanations, questions and
rebuttal, the Chair will excuse all parties to the grievance and
meet in executive session to determine its findings. When possible,
deliberations should take place immediately following the hearing.
If the Hearing Board is unable to complete its deliberations and
reach a decision at the meeting, the Hearing Board should reconvene
at the previously scheduled follow-up meeting.
Outcome: If a majority of the Hearing Board finds, based on a
"preponderance of the evidence," that a violation of
the complainant's academic rights has occurred and that redress
is possible, it shall direct the Chair/Director of the appropriate
Department/School to implement an appropriate remedy, in consultation
with the Hearing Board. (See GSRR 5.4.11.) If the Hearing Board
finds that no violation of academic rights has occurred, the case
is dismissed. In cases in which the Hearing Board is asked to
resolve an allegation of academic dishonesty and finds no misconduct,
the Hearing Board shall recommend to the Chair that the penalty
grade be removed, the written record, if any, of the allegation
be removed from the student's records and a good faith evaluation
of the student's academic performance take place.
Written Report: The Chair of the Hearing Board shall promptly
prepare a written report of the Hearing Board's findings, including
redress for the complainant, if applicable. The report shall indicate
the rationale for the decision and the major elements of evidence,
or lack thereof, that support the Hearing Board's decision. All
recipients must respect the confidentiality of the report. (See
report also should inform the parties of the right to appeal within
10 class days following notice of a decision. (See GSRR 5.4.12
through 184.108.40.206.) The Chair shall forward copies to the parties
involved, the Chair of the Department, the program Coordinator,
the Dean of the College, the Ombudsman, and the Dean of The Graduate
School. (See GSRR 5.4.11.)
A complainant or respondent may appeal an appellate decision of
the College Hearing Board only to the Provost. (See GSRR 5.4.12.)
for Integrity in Research and Creative Activities
conduct of research and creative activities by faculty, staff,
and students is central to the mission of Michigan State University
and is an institutional priority. Faculty, staff, and students
work in a rich and competitive environment for the common purpose
of learning, creating new knowledge, and disseminating information
and ideas for the benefit of their peers and the general public.
The stature and reputation of MSU as a research university are
based on the commitment of its faculty, staff, and students to
excellence in scholarly and creative activities and to the highest
standards of professional integrity. As a partner in scholarly
endeavors, MSU is committed to creating an environment that promotes
ethical conduct and integrity in research and creative activities.
ideas and advances in research and creative activities have the
potential to generate professional and public recognition and,
in some instances, commercial interest and financial gain. In
rare cases, such benefits may become motivating factors to violate
professional ethics. Pressures to publish, to obtain research
grants, or to complete academic requirements may also lead to
an erosion of professional integrity.
in professional ethics range from questionable research practices
to misconduct. The primary responsibility for adhering to professional
standards lies with the individual scholar. It is, however, also
the responsibility of advisors and of the disciplinary community
at large. Passive acceptance of improper practices lowers inhibitions
to violate professional ethics.
in research and creative activities is based not only on sound
disciplinary practice but also on a commitment to basic personal
values such as fairness, equity, honesty, and respect. These guidelines
are intended to promote high professional standards by everyone:
faculty, staff, and students alike.
in research and creative activities embodies a range of practices
in proposing, performing, and reporting research;
of prior work;
in peer review;
of potential conflicts of interest;
with institutional and sponsor requirements;
of human subjects and humane care of animals in the conduct
in scholarly interactions and sharing of resources;
to fair and open relationships between senior scholars and their
in proposing, performing, and reporting research
foundation underlying all research is uncompromising honesty in
presenting one's own ideas in research proposals, in performing
one's research, and in reporting one's data. Detailed and accurate
records of primary data must be kept as unalterable documentation
of one's research and must be available for scrutiny and critique.
It is expected that researchers will always be truthful and explicit
in disclosing what was done, how it was done, and what results
were obtained. To this end, research aims, methods, and outcomes
must be described in sufficient detail such that others can judge
the quality of what is reported and can reproduce the data. Results
from valid observations and tests that run counter to expectations
must be reported along with supportive data.
of prior work. Research proposals, original research, and
creative endeavors often build on one's own work and also on the
work of others. Both published and unpublished work must always
be properly credited. Reporting the work of others as if it were
one's own is plagiarism. Graduate advisors and members of guidance
committees have a unique role in guiding the independent research
and creative activities of students. Information learned through
private discussions or committee meetings should be respected
as proprietary and accorded the same protection granted to information
obtained in any peer-review process.
in peer review. Critical and impartial review by respected
disciplinary peers is the foundation for important decisions in
the evaluation of internal and external funding requests, allocation
of resources, publication of research results, granting of awards,
and in other scholarly decisions. The peer-review process involves
the sharing of information for scholarly assessment on behalf
of the larger disciplinary community. The integrity of this process
depends on confidentiality until the information is released to
the public. Therefore, the contents of research proposals, of
manuscripts submitted for publication, and of other scholarly
documents under review should be considered privileged information
not to be shared with others, including students and staff, without
explicit permission by the authority requesting the review. Ideas
and results learned through the peer-review process should not
be made use of prior to their presentation in a public forum or
their release through publication.
of potential conflicts of interest. There is real or perceived
conflict of interest when a researcher has material or personal
interest that could compromise the integrity of the scholarship.
It is, therefore, imperative that potential conflicts of interest
be considered and acted upon appropriately by the researcher.
Some federal sponsors require the University to implement formal
conflict of interest policies. It is the responsibility of all
researchers to be aware of and comply with such requirements.
with institutional and sponsor requirements. Investigators
are granted broad freedoms in making decisions concerning their
research. These decisions are, however, still guided, and in some
cases limited, by the laws, regulations, and procedures that have
been established by the University and sponsors of research to
protect the integrity of the research process and the uses of
the information developed for the common good. Although the legal
agreement underlying the funding of a sponsored project is a matter
between the sponsor and the University, the primary responsibility
for management of a sponsored project rests with the principal
investigator and his or her academic unit.
of human subjects and humane care of animals in the conduct of
research. Research techniques should not violate established
professional ethics or federal and state requirements pertaining
to the health, safety, privacy, and protection of human beings,
or to the welfare of animal subjects. Whereas it is the responsibility
of faculty to assist students and staff in complying with such
requirements, it is the responsibility of all researchers to be
aware of and to comply with such requirements.
in scholarly interactions and sharing of resources. Collegiality
in scholarly interactions, including open communications and sharing
of resources, facilitates progress in research and creative activities
for the good of the community. At the same time, it has to be
understood that scholars who first report important findings are
both recognized for their discovery and afforded intellectual
property rights that permit discretion in the use and sharing
of their discoveries and inventions. Balancing openness and protecting
the intellectual property rights of individuals and the institution
will always be a challenge for the community. Once the results
of research or creative activities have been published or otherwise
communicated to the public, scholars are expected to share materials
and information on methodologies with their colleagues according
to the tradition of their discipline.
advisors have a particular responsibility to respect and protect
the intellectual property rights of their advisees. A clear
understanding must be reached during the course of the project
on who will be entitled to continue what part of the overall research
program after the advisee leaves for an independent position.
Faculty advisors should also strive to protect junior scholars
from abuses by others who have gained knowledge of the junior
scholar's results during the mentoring process, for example, as
members of guidance committees.
to fair and open relationships between senior scholars and their
coworkers. The relationship between senior scholars and their
coworkers should be based on mutual respect, trust, honesty, fairness
in the assignment of effort and credit, open communications, and
accountability. The principles that will be used to establish
authorship and ordering of authors on presentations of results
must be communicated early and clearly to all coworkers. These
principles should be determined objectively according to the standards
of the discipline, with the understanding that such standards
may not be the same as those used to assign credit for contributions
to intellectual property. It is the responsibility of the faculty
to protect the freedom to publish results of research and creative
activities. The University has affirmed the right of its scholars
for first publication except for "exigencies of national
defense." It is also the responsibility of the faculty to
recognize and balance their dual roles as investigators and advisors
in interacting with graduate students of their group, especially
when a student's efforts do not contribute directly to the completion
of his or her degree requirements.
in Research and Creative Activities
and University policies define misconduct to include fabrication
(making up data and recording or reporting them), falsification
(manipulating research materials, equipment or processes, or changing
or omitting data such that the research is not accurately represented
in the record), and plagiarism (appropriation of another person's
ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate
credit). Serious or continuing non-compliance with government
regulations pertaining to research may constitute misconduct as
well. University policy also defines retaliation against whistle
blowers as misconduct. Misconduct does not include honest errors
or honest differences of opinion in the interpretation or judgment
University views misconduct to be the most egregious violation
of standards of integrity and as grounds for disciplinary action,
including the termination of employment of faculty and staff,
dismissal of students, and revocation of degrees. It is the responsibility
of faculty, staff, and students alike to understand the University's
policy on misconduct in research and creative activities, to report
perceived acts of misconduct of which they have direct knowledge
to the University Intellectual Integrity Officer, and to protect
the rights and privacy of individuals making such reports in good
students are expected to behave in a professional manner. Discussions
of professional expectations including academic honesty, plagiarism,
MSU policies can be found at the Office
of the Ombudsman.
Policy student are expected to consult the following resources
and abide by all guidelines in the documents.
for Integrity in Research and Creative Activities
policy related to the use of humans for research via the University
Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects
American Psychological Association's Ethical Guidelines
American Psychological Association's Publication Manual,
which includes guidelines on plagiarism
of the Ombudsman's guidelines on plagiarism
University Policy on Scholarship and Grades, including guidelines
on Authorship," Endorsed by the University Research
Council, January 15, 1998
Data: Management, Control, and Access Guidelines,"
Endorsed by the University Research Council, February 7, 2001.
Faculty Handbook, Chapter VI, "Research and Creative
Endeavor-Procedures Concerning Allegations of Misconduct in
Research and Creative Activities."
assistants are briefed during their orientation to graduate
study about their rights and responsibilities under the MSU-GEU
Standards of the American Educational Research Association
researchers come from many disciplines, embrace several competing
theoretical frameworks, and use a variety of research methodologies.
AERA recognizes that its members are already guided by codes in
the various disciplines and, also, by organizations such as Institutional
Review Boards (IRBs). AERA's code of ethics incorporates a set
of standards designed specifically to guide the work of researchers
in education. Education, by its very nature, is aimed at the improvement
of individual lives and societies. Further, research in education
is often directed at children and other vulnerable populations.
A main objective of this code is to remind us, as educational
researchers, that we should strive to protect these populations,
and to maintain the integrity of our research, of our research
community, and of all those with whom we have professional relations.
We should pledge ourselves to do this by maintaining our own competence
and that of people we induct into the field, by continually evaluating
our research for its ethical and scientific adequacy, and by conducting
our internal and external relations according to the highest ethical
standards that follow remind us that we are involved not only
in research but in education. It is, therefore, essential that
we continually reflect on our research to be sure that it is not
only sound scientifically but that it makes a positive contribution
to the educational enterprise.
Standards: Responsibilities to the Field
maintain the integrity of research, educational researchers should
warrant their research conclusions adequately in a way consistent
with the standards of their own theoretical and methodological
perspectives. They should keep themselves well informed in both
their own and competing paradigms where those are relevant to
their research, and they should continually evaluate the criteria
of adequacy by which research is judged.
researchers should conduct their professional lives in such a
way that they do not jeopardize future research, the public standing
of the field, or the discipline's research results.
researchers must not fabricate, falsify, or misrepresent authorship,
evidence, data, findings, or conclusions.
researchers must not knowingly or negligently use their professional
roles for fraudulent purposes.
researchers should honestly and fully disclose their qualifications
and limitations when providing professional opinions to the public,
to government agencies, and others who may avail themselves of
the expertise possessed by members of AERA.
researchers should attempt to report their findings to all relevant
stakeholders, and should refrain from keeping secret or selectively
communicating their findings.
researchers should report research conceptions, procedures, results,
and analyses accurately and sufficiently in detail to allow knowledgeable,
trained researchers to understand and interpret them.
researchers' reports to the public should be written straightforwardly
to communicate the practical significance for policy, including
limits in effectiveness and in generalizability to situations,
problems, and contexts. In writing for or communicating with non-researchers,
educational researchers must take care not to misrepresent the
practical or policy implications of their research or the research
educational researchers participate in actions related to hiring,
retention, and advancement, they should not discriminate on the
basis of gender, sexual orientation, physical disabilities, marital
status, color, social class, religion, ethnic background, national
origin, or other attributes not relevant to the evaluation of
academic or research competence.
researchers have a responsibility to make candid, forthright personnel
recommendations and not to recommend those who are manifestly
researchers should decline requests to review the work of others
where strong conflicts of interest are involved, or when such
requests cannot be conscientiously fulfilled on time. Materials
sent for review should be read in their entirety and considered
carefully, with evaluative comments justified with explicit reasons.
researchers should avoid all forms of harassment, not merely those
overt actions or threats that are due cause for legal action.
They must not use their professional positions or rank to coerce
personal or sexual favors or economic or professional advantages
from students, research assistants, clerical staff, colleagues,
or any others.
researchers should not be penalized for reporting in good faith
violations of these or other professional standards.
Standards: Research Populations, Educational Institutions, and
Educational researchers conduct research within a broad array
of settings and institutions, including schools, colleges, universities,
hospitals, and prisons. It is of paramount importance that educational
researchers respect the rights, privacy, dignity, and sensitivities
of their research populations and also the integrity of the institutions
within which the research occurs. Educational researchers should
be especially careful in working with children and other vulnerable
populations. These standards are intended to reinforce and strengthen
already existing standards enforced by Institutional Review Boards
and other professional associations. Standards intended to protect
the rights of human subjects should not be interpreted to prohibit
teacher research, action research, and/or other forms of practitioner
inquiry so long as: the data are those that could be derived from
normal teaching/learning processes; confidentiality is maintained;
the safety and welfare of participants are protected; informed
consent is obtained when appropriate; and the use of the information
obtained is primarily intended for the benefit of those receiving
instruction in that setting.
or their guardians, in a research study have the right to be informed
about the likely risks involved in the research and of potential
consequences for participants, and to give their informed consent
before participating in research. Educational researchers should
communicate the aims of the investigation as well as possible
to informants and participants (and their guardians), and appropriate
representatives of institutions, and keep them updated about any
significant changes in the research program.
and participants normally have a right to confidentiality, which
ensures that the source of information will not be disclosed without
the express permission of the informant. This right should be
respected when no clear understanding to the contrary has been
reached. Researchers are responsible for taking appropriate cautions
to protect the confidentiality of both participants and data to
the full extent provided by law. Participants in research should
be made aware of the limits on the protections that can be provided,
and of the efforts toward protection that will be made even in
situations where absolute confidentiality cannot be assured. It
should be made clear to informants and participants that despite
every effort made to preserve it, confidentiality may be compromised.
Secondary researchers should respect and maintain the confidentiality
established by primary researchers. In some cases, e.g., survey
research, it may be appropriate for researchers to ensure participants
of anonymity, i.e., that their identify is not known even to the
researcher. Anonymity should not be promised to participants when
only confidentiality is intended.
should characterize the relationship between researchers and participants
and appropriate institutional representatives. Deception is discouraged;
it should be used only when clearly necessary for scientific studies,
and should then be minimized. After the study, the researcher
should explain to the participants and institutional representatives
the reasons for the deception.
researchers should be sensitive to any locally established institutional
policies or guidelines for conducting research.
have the right to withdraw from the study at any time, unless
otherwise constrained by their official capacities or roles.
researchers should exercise caution to ensure that there is no
exploitation for personal gain of research populations or of institutional
settings of research. Educational researchers should not use their
influence over subordinates, students, or others to compel them
to participate in research.
have a responsibility to be mindful of cultural, religious, gender,
and other significant differences within the research population
in the planning, conduct, and reporting of their research.
should carefully consider and minimize the use of research techniques
that might have negative social consequences, for example, experimental
interventions that might deprive students of important parts of
the standard curriculum.
researchers should be sensitive to the integrity of ongoing institutional
activities and alert appropriate institutional representatives
of possible disturbances in such activities, which may result
from the conduct of the research.
researchers should communicate their findings and the practical
significance of their research in clear, straightforward, and
appropriate language to relevant research populations, institutional
representatives, and other stakeholders.
and participants have a right to remain anonymous. This right
should be respected when no clear understanding to the contrary
has been reached. Researchers are responsible for taking appropriate
precautions to protect the confidentiality of both participants
and data. Those being studied should be made aware of the capacities
of the various data-gathering technologies to be used in the investigation
so that they can make an informed decision about their participation.
It should also be made clear to informants and participants that
despite every effort made to preserve it, anonymity may be compromised.
Secondary researchers should respect and maintain the anonymity
established by primary researchers.
Standards: Intellectual Ownership
Intellectual ownership is predominantly a function of creative
contribution. Intellectual ownership is not predominantly a function
of effort expended.
should be determined based on the following guidelines, which
are not intended to stifle collaboration, but rather to clarify
the credit appropriately due for various contributions to research.
All those, regardless of status, who have made substantive creative
contribution to the generation of an intellectual product are
entitled to be listed as authors of that product.
First authorship and order of authorship should be the consequence
of relative creative leadership and creative contribution. Examples
of creative contributions are: writing first drafts or substantial
portions; significant rewriting or substantive editing; and contributing
generative ideas or basic conceptual schemes or analytic categories,
collecting data which require significant interpretation or judgment,
and interpreting data.
Clerical or mechanical contributions to an intellectual product
are not grounds for ascribing authorship. Examples of such technical
contributions are: typing, routine data collection or analysis,
routine editing, and participation in staff meetings.
Authorship and first authorship are not warranted by legal or
contractual responsibility for or authority over the project or
process that generates an intellectual product. It is improper
to enter into contractual arrangements that preclude the proper
assignment of authorship.
Anyone listed as author must have given his/her consent to be
The work of those who have contributed to the production of an
intellectual product in ways short of these requirements for authorship
should be appropriately acknowledged within the product.
Acknowledgement of other work significantly relied on in the development
of an intellectual product is required. However, so long as such
work is not plagiarized or otherwise inappropriately used, such
reliance is not ground for authorship or ownership.
It is improper to use positions of authority to appropriate the
work of others or claim credit for it. In hierarchical relationships,
educational researchers should take care to ensure that those
in subordinate positions receive fair and appropriate authorship
Theses and dissertations are special cases in which authorship
is not determined strictly by the criteria elaborated in these
standards. Authorship in the publication of work arising from
theses and dissertations is determined by creative intellectual
contributions as in other cases.
Authors should disclose the publication history of articles they
submit for publication; that is, if the present article is substantially
similar in content and form to one previously published, that
fact should be noted and the place of publication cited.
under suitable circumstances, ideas and other intellectual products
may be viewed as commodities, arrangements concerning the production
or distribution of ideas or other intellectual products must be
consistent with academic freedom and the appropriate availability
of intellectual products to scholars, students, and the public.
Moreover, when a conflict between the academic and scholarly purposes
of intellectual production and profit from such production arise,
preference should be given to the academic and scholarly purposes.
of intellectual products should be based upon the following guidelines:
Individuals are entitled to profit from the sale or disposition
of those intellectual products they create. They may therefore
enter into contracts or other arrangements for the publication
or disposition of intellectual products, and profit financially
from these arrangements.
Arrangements for the publication or disposition of intellectual
products should be consistent with their appropriate public availability
and with academic freedom. Such arrangements should emphasize
the academic functions of publication over the maximization of
Individuals or groups who fund or otherwise provide resources
for the development of intellectual products are entitled to assert
claims to a fair share of the royalties or other profits from
the sale or disposition of those products. As such claims are
likely to be contentious, funding institutions and authors should
agree on policies for the disposition of profits at the outset
of the research or development project.
Authors should not use positions of authority over other individuals
to compel them to purchase an intellectual product from which
the authors benefit. This standard is not meant to prohibit use
of an author's own textbook in a class, but copies should be made
available on library reserve so that students are not forced to
Standards: Editing, Reviewing, and Appraising Research
Editors and reviewers have a responsibility to recognize a wide
variety of theoretical and methodological perspectives and, at
the same time, to ensure that manuscripts meet the highest standards
as defined in the various perspectives.
AERA journals should handle refereed articles in a manner consistent
with the following principles:
Fairness requires a review process that evaluates submitted
works solely on the basis of merit. Merit shall be understood
to include both the competence with which the argument is conducted
and the significance of the results achieved.
Although each AERA journal may concentrate on a particular field
or type of research, the set of journals as a whole should be
open to all disciplines and perspectives currently represented
in the membership and which support a tradition of responsible
educational scholarship. This Standard is not incompatible with
giving serious consideration to innovative work and should not
be used to discourage perspectives not yet fully established
in traditional scholarship.
Blind review, with multiple readers, should be used for each
submission, except where explicitly waived. (See #3.)
Judgments of the adequacy of an inquiry should be made by reviewers
who are competent to read the work submitted to them. Editors
should strive to select reviewers who are familiar with the
research paradigm and who are not so unsympathetic as to preclude
a disinterested judgment of the merit of the inquiry.
Editors should insist that even unfavorable reviews be dispassionate
and constructive. Authors have the right to know the grounds
for rejection of their work.
AERA journals should have written, published policies for refereeing
AERA journals should have a written, published policy stating
when solicited and non-refereed publications are permissible.
AERA journals should publish statements indicating any special
emphases expected to characterize articles submitted for review.
In addition to enforcing standing strictures against sexist and
racist language, editors should reject articles that contain ad
hominen attacks on individuals or groups or insist that such language
or attacks be removed prior to publication.
AERA journals and AERA members who serve as editors of journals
should require authors to disclose the full publication history
of material substantially similar in content and form to that
submitted to their journals.
Standards: Sponsors, Policymakers, and Other Users of Research
Researchers, research institutions, and sponsors of research jointly
share responsibility for the ethical integrity of research, and
should ensure that this integrity is not violated. While it is
recognized that these parties may sometimes have conflicting legitimate
aims, all those with responsibility for research should protect
against compromising the standards of research, the community
of researchers, the subjects of research, and the users of research.
They should support the widest possible dissemination and publication
of research results. AERA should promote, as nearly as it can,
conditions conducive to the preservation of research integrity.
The data and results of a research study belong to the researchers
who designed and conducted the study, unless specific contractual
arrangements have been made with respect to either or both the
data and results, except as noted in II B.4. (participants may
withdraw at any stage.)
Educational researchers are free to interpret and publish their
findings without censorship or approval from individuals or organizations,
including sponsors, funding agencies, participants, colleagues,
supervisors, or administrators. This understanding should be conveyed
to participants as part of the responsibility to secure informed
Researchers conducting sponsored research retain the right to
publish the findings under their own names.
Educational researchers should not agree to conduct research that
conflicts with academic freedom, nor should they agree to undue
or questionable influence by government or other funding agencies.
Examples of such improper influence include endeavors to interfere
with the conduct of research, the analysis of findings, or the
reporting of interpretations. Researchers should report to AERA
attempts by sponsors or funding agencies to use any questionable
Educational researchers should fully disclose the aims and sponsorship
of their research, except where such disclosure would violate
the usual tenets of confidentiality and anonymity. Sponsors or
funders have the right to have disclaimers included in research
reports to differentiate their sponsorship from the conclusions
of the research.
Educational researchers should not accept funds from sponsoring
agencies that request multiple renderings of reports that would
distort the results or mislead readers.
Educational researchers should fulfill their responsibilities
to agencies funding research, which are entitled to an accounting
of the use of their funds, and to a report of the procedures,
findings, and implications of the funded research.
Educational researchers should make clear the bases and rationales,
and the limits thereof, of their professionally rendered judgments
in consultation with the public, government, or other institutions.
When there are contrasting professional opinions to the one being
offered, this should be made clear.
Educational researchers should disclose to appropriate parties
all cases where they would stand to benefit financially from their
research or cases where their affiliations might tend to bias
their interpretation of their research or their professional judgments.
Standards: Students and Student Researchers
Educational researchers have a responsibility to ensure the competence
of those inducted into the field and to provide appropriate help
and professional advice to novice researchers.
In relations with students and student researchers, educational
researchers should be candid, fair, non-exploitative, and committed
to their welfare and progress. They should conscientiously supervise,
encourage, and support students and student researchers in their
academic endeavors, and should appropriately assist them in securing
research support or professional employment.
Students and student researchers should be selected based upon
their competence and potential contributions to the field. Educational
researchers should not discriminate among students and student
researchers on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, marital
status, color, social class, religion, ethnic background, national
origin, or other irrelevant factors.
Educational researchers should inform students and student researchers
concerning the ethical dimensions of research, encourage their
practice of research consistent with ethical standards, and support
their avoidance of questionable projects.
Educational researchers should realistically apprise students
and student researchers with regard to career opportunities and
implications associated with their participation in particular
research projects or degree programs. Educational researchers
should ensure that research assistantships be educative.
Educational researchers should be fair in the evaluation of research
performance, and should communicate that evaluation fully and
honestly to the student or student researcher. Researchers have
an obligation to report honestly on the competence of assistants
to other professionals who require such evaluations.
Educational researchers should not permit personal animosities
or intellectual differences vis-à-vis colleagues to foreclose
student and student researcher access to those colleagues, or
to place the student or student researcher in an untenable position
with those colleagues. The Ethical Standards of the American Educational
Research Association were developed and, in June 1992, adopted
by AERA to be an educational document, to stimulate collegial
debate, and to evoke voluntary compliance by moral persuasion.
The Ethical Standards were revised in 1996 and in 2000. Accordingly,
it is not the intention of the Association to monitor adherence
to the Standards or to investigate allegations of violations to
Educational Research Association
1230 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 223-9485 Fax: (202) 775-1824
program maintains records documenting each student's progress
through the doctoral program. These records, which are stored
centrally in the Coordinator's area, include the program plan,
guidance committee form, comprehensive examination completion
form, dissertation paperwork, annual review documents, portions
of the original application to the program, and other materials
that are deemed necessary. Additionally, to facilitate student
advising, advisors may keep in their offices separate files containing
such items as their advisees' grade transcripts, comps responses,
and dissertation drafts. All student records are kept in secure
filing cabinets or private offices to protect students' privacy
and confidentiality; only program faculty and staff will have
access to this material.
may request to examine their own files; this request should be
directed to the student's advisor or the Program Coordinator.
The only material that will be withheld is that which the student
has clearly waived his or her right to examine, e.g., confidential
reference letters. (Other than the latter, files generally include
records of which students already possess copies). Once students
graduate, the program maintains a permanent file.
to Degree Completion: Program Timeline
faculty advisor assigned
at admissions; incoming student's research interests matched
to faculty member's interests
letter from Educational Policy office
|Complete or secure waiver for first-year required coursework
||TE901, EAD942, EAD943, CEP932, CEP933, ED928.
|Complete Annual Review
||Before April 30th of each year.
||Annual Progress Report
|Complete Part I of the Comprehensive Examination
||Late August, just prior to beginning of second year.
||Comprehensive Examination Evaluation Rubric
|Complete Reserach Practicum
||The completion of CEP/EAD/TE 995 is the final course in the research course series. To be taken/completed after CEP930, CEP932 and your 3rd research course.
a permanent advisor
of 1st year / Beginning of 2nd year of study: Student requests
a regular faculty member (in the tenure stream) to become his
or her permanent advisor and the chair of his or her guidance (program)
committee; this request is based upon mutual interests and commitments. May retain temporary advisor as permanent advisor.
of advisor form
a guidance committee
2nd year of study: Student selects appropriate faculty members
to comprise his or her guidance (program) committee, with the assistance
of his or her advisor.
Committee Membership form
in guidance committee members
||When necessary, complete
form when changing members of the guidance committee.
in Guidance Committee Membership form
a proposed program plan of study
||By the end of second year. Student and advisor
prepare a tentative plan, which must be reviewed/revised by
the guidance committee and approved by the program coordinator
and the Associate Dean for Student Affairs and External Relations.
of the Guidance Committee: Program Plan form
Educational Policy capstone course in evaluation and analysis
||ED976: End of second year, when all required courses completed.
Comprehensive Examination Part II
||End of second year; no later then early third year. At the beginning of the semester in which the student plans to take the Comprehensive Examination, Part II, s/he must communicate their intent to their guidance committee chair and the program director. If the student does not pass this final part of the two-part examination, he or she may retake the failed section in the next semester, with the agreement of his or her advisor.
|Select dissertation director and dissertation committee members
||After passing the comprehensive examination: Student requests appropriate faculty members to comprise his or her dissertation committee. The dissertation director and committee members may or may not be the same as the guidance committee chairperson and members.
||Dissertation Director Approval form
|Dissertation Proposal Approval
passing the comprehensive examination: Student drafts and revises the proposal with his or her advisor and other faculty before submitting a formal proposal to the disseration committee for approval.
||Dissertation Proposal Approval form
UCRIHS approval for dissertation if using human subjects
advisor and a representative to the UCRIHS help the student
to prepare and file the UCRIHS clearance application.
original research for dissertation.
in at least 24 credits of TE999 or EAD999 before completing
|Apply for Graduation.
||At the beginning of the semester that you plan to defend your dissertation, please apply for graduation.
consults the University Calendar for examination dates and agrees
with the dissertation committee members on an acceptable time.
Student submits a final version of the dissertation to the committee
members at least two weeks prior to the oral defense date.
||Notice of Doctoral Dissertation Oral Examination
successful dissertation defense: Student should consult the
Graduate School website for instructions on producing the dissertation.
passing the oral examination on the dissertation: Committee
chairperson completes form certifying that the student has
met all program requirements and sends the form to the Student
forms can be found on the Educational
Policy Program Forms page.
download a version of this timeline, click here.