Seeking a Theoretical Framework for Master's Programs in the 1990s
Journalism Educator Special Issue: Graduate Education in Mass Communication, vol. 49, no. 2 (Summer 1994): 18-28
(co-author Dr. Elinor Grusin)
Students seeking a master's degree in other disciplines usually have a general idea of what the programs will involve, regardless of the school attended. Those seeking a master's in journalism and mass communication, however, "typically have a much less certain grasp of what graduate study involves."
This research is an attempt to update the description of master's programs in journalism and mass communication. It also attempts to compare and contrast the curricula and structure of these programs and to determine how they seem to fit into three curriculum paradigms borrowed from educational theorists. This information is intended to provide a snapshot of these master's programs so that educators can compare programs with an eye toward improving their own. The researchers also hope to stimulate debate on the intellectual direction of the programs as a whole and whether there should be a consensus on what they teach.
This study reveals a wide diversity in the curricula of the 135 master's progams. The programs can be divided into three broad categories: those preparing students for doctoral study, those emphasizing professional training, and those offering both tracks. Dual focus programs are the most common. The teaching/research and professional programs are fewer and occupy opposite ends of the spectrum.
Professional programs are practical inquiry in nature, emphasizing departmentalized, subject-based knowledge and skills. The teaching/research programs reflect a perennial analytic paradigm, seeking to integrate journalism and mass communication with other disciplines. The dual focus programs are relective of both.
This study does not purport to say that any program is an exact fit with one of the curriculum paradigms or which focus, paradigm, curriculum or structure is best suited for a master's in journalism and mass communication. Nor does this study pretend to offer easy methods to improve curricula. It does, however, suggest educators critically examine their own programs, and it raises fundamental questions about the nature of these master's programs as a group.
The study indicates there is little consensus about what journalism graduate education as a whole is or should be. At first glance, this chaos in curricula and structure seems a matter of concern. This diversity, however, reflects the evolution of journalism and mass communication in society. Programs must serve a varied clientele. Most graduate schools, though, do not have sufficient resources to train practitioners, prepare students for further academic study, and train tomorrow's teachers. It would seem advantageous, then, for faculty and administrators to work within a theoretical framework that would guide their planning. Such a framework would force planners to define more clearly what it is they want their programs to accomplish, both in terms of benefits to students as well as to the broader society.
Joey's Home Page