NATIONAL ACADEMY OF KINESIOLOGY
2015 Annual Report
REPORT OF:
Doctoral Program Committee
DATE OF REPORT:
August 6, 2015
PREPARED BY:
Beverly Ulrich, Ph.D., DPC Chair
Committee Members: David Bassett, John Challis, Diane Gill, Steve Silverman
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES:
1. Worked with HK Business Office (Kim Scott) and President Ennis on updating the list of
institutions invited to participate in the Doctoral Program Review (DPR) – searching websites
for programs to add and contact information, communicating with colleagues to assure
appropriate contact person
2. Participated in Conference Call with the Executive Committee
3. Personally contacted program chairs to encourage participation in the DPR, especially firsttime participants.
4. Worked with the DPR analysts and Kim Scott on editing and expanding the FAQs posted on
the NAK website with regard to the DPR
5. Worked with the DPR analysts to finalize format, text, and instructions for the materials sent
to each program chair
6. Worked with analysts as issues arose that required discussions to resolve during the analysis
process
7. Fielded many phone calls and emails from program chairs in advance of the official invitation
to participate sent from President Ennis
8. Dealt with over 70 questions and follow ups from program chairs between the time the
guidelines for participating were distributed and when the data were due (including a number
submitted after the deadline)
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Present the results of the DPR at the September 2015 NAK Business Meeting
2. Develop a set of DPR results materials to be posted on the NAK website
3. Develop a set of DPR results to be sent to each of the participating program chairs
4. Write a manuscript based on the process and results to be published in Kinesiology Reviews
5. Chair- organize all materials to be shared with incoming DPC Chair
2
RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO OPERATING CODE:
Re: Purposes of the Committee
There are two purposes of the DPC stated in the Operating Code (OC). The first is to
coordinate the doctoral review process. This one has been the focus of the DPC historically
and most recently. The second is written very broadly and focuses on “promoting and
enhancing graduate education programs in the study and educational applications of the
art and science of human movement and physical activity, consistent with the broader
purpose of the Academy.” We ask the Executive Committee to review, collaboratively with the
2015-2016 DPC, this second purpose. As written, this purpose seems too broad and lacks the
specificity that might lead to meaningful activities. We further ask that, if this purpose is retained
as a goal of the Academy, the Executive Committee consider creating a new committee or
subcommittee to focus on these tasks. Purpose one seems a sufficient set of responsibilities for
members who serve four-year terms.
Re: Specific Tasks Identified as part of the Doctoral Review Process
Task#4. Periodically compare the Academy ‘doctoral program review’ outcomes with those
of other national graduate program evaluations.
We recommend that the OC include review of programs beyond the U.S.; including ones in
which some criteria may be different or weighted differently. (One example would be
the UK's Research Excellence Framework (REF) in which publication quality is also
considered)."
Task#5. DPC meets in person in January or February in the fourth year of the evaluation
cycle…and may request funding for an additional meeting, on occasion.
We recommend that this item be reworded so that it does not require a specific meeting at a
specific time but rather provides the DPC with the option to meet in person outside of the NAK
conference during one or two of the years prior to the evaluation cycle, as needed. [Note, the
current DPC held no in-person meetings outside of the NAK meetings during this cycle.]