PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 12964144

Why Rush will keep the DNSc.

Joyce K Keithley·Deborah Gross·Mary E Johnson·Judith McCann·Sandra Faux·Maureen Shekleton·Betty Horton·John E Trufant
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Surveys of research-intensive doctoral programs in nursing reveal few differences between the doctor of nursing science (DNSc) and the doctor of philosophy (PhD) degrees in nursing. Yet the proportion of DNSc programs relative to PhD programs in nursing has declined progressively over the past 10 years. Recently, Rush University College of Nursing formed a task force to examine whether Rush should continue to offer the DNSc degree or change to a PhD in nursing program. Task force members interviewed 21 nurse leaders representing 18 universities granting doctoral degrees in nursing about their perceptions of the DNSc and PhD in nursing degrees, the focus of their doctoral programs, why their nursing school chose the degree it currently offers, and whether Rush should retain the DNSc degree. This article describes the results of those interviews, how their comments helped the task force re-evaluate its goals for doctoral education, and the rationale for ultimately choosing to retain the DNSc degree.

Explore related subjects

Advisory CommitteesCurriculumEducation, Nursing, GraduateIllinoisInterviews as TopicNursing Education ResearchSchools, NursingUnited StatesJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Joyce K Keithley, Deborah Gross, Mary E Johnson, Judith McCann, Sandra Faux, Maureen Shekleton, Betty Horton, John E Trufant. Why Rush will keep the DNSc.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s8755-7223(03)00068-1

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2022

The International Consensus Classification of Mature Lymphoid Neoplasms: a report from the Clinical Advisory Committee.

Since the publication of the Revised European-American Classification of Lymphoid Neoplasms in 1994, subsequent updates of the classification of lymphoid neoplasms have been generated through iterative international efforts to achieve broad consensus among hematopathologists, geneticists, molecular scientists, and clinicians. Significant progress has recently been made in the characterization of malignancies of the immune system, with many new insights provided by genomic studies. They have led to this proposal. We have followed the same process that was successfully used for the third and fourth editions of the World Health Organization Classification of Hematologic Neoplasms. The definition, recommended studies, and criteria for the diagnosis of many entities have been extensively refined. Some categories considered provisional have now been upgraded to definite entities. Terminology for some diseases has been revised to adapt nomenclature to the current knowledge of their biology, but these modifications have been restricted to well-justified situations. Major findings from recent genomic studies have impacted the conceptual framework and diagnostic criteria for many disease entities. These changes will have an impact on optimal clinical management. The conclusions of this work are summarized in this report as the proposed International Consensus Classification of mature lymphoid, histiocytic, and dendritic cell tumors.

Advisory Committees↗