INTRODUCTION
Research in communicative sciences and disorders faces unprecedented challenges. During the 1960's and 1970's, an infusion of money from Federal agencies and programs stimulated a significant increase both in research and clinical training. The decades of the 80's and 90's found research and training funds substantially reduced. The effects are widespread and worrisome. In the annual survey conducted by the Council of Academic Programs in Communicative Sciences and Disorders (CAPACSD)(Petrosino, Lieberman, and McNeil, 1998), a number of trends are reported that underscore the effects of dwindling funding. Over the 15 year history of the CAPACSD survey, while bachelor's degrees granted have decreased by only 6.9%, and master's degrees granted have reached an all time high, the number of doctoral degrees granted in communicative sciences and disorders has decreased by 47.5%. Despite the increase in master's degrees granted over the 15 year survey period, since 1994-95 alone, the number of master's theses completed in communicative sciences and disorders has decreased by 52%! The survey also found that although the number of doctoral enrollments in audiology and speech-language pathology have remained relatively constant over the 15 year history of the survey, the current level of doctoral training will not nearly provide for the faculty needs that are predicted for the next 5 years.
One does not need to look far for reasons for these trends. Increasing demands for increased productivity of faculty in training programs, and of the programs themselves, have resulted in undesired changes. Many undergraduate programs are no longer able to provide even minimal clinical practicum experiences for their students. For some programs, the problem of overseeing dozens of theses, and the consequent delay in delivering trained clinicians, has been solved by removing the thesis as a requirement for the master's degree.
Apel(1999) has reflected on the unhealthy and unnecessary discrepancy between the roles of clinician and scientist, preferring to distinguish the "clinical scientist" from the "research scientist". He concludes, "...because clinical and research scientists often take on the roles of professionals who educate new clinical and research scientists, they will need to encourage science in all of the roles that professionals-in-preparation are learning." How, then, can clinical training programs meet their obligation to provide students with a research experience that may foster interest in pursuing research as a career, or as an adjunct to clinical practice? We have found a way to create a complete research experience for students, from proposal to execution and write-up that is contained entirely within the boundaries of the traditional graduate course. The remainder of this paper describes the features of this program and some preliminary evidence of its success.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAM
California State University, East Bay is a regional, comprehensive, state supported institution. We are part of a 23-campus system that includes 11 campuses that have Master's degree programs in communicative sciences and disorders. Charter prohibits the State University system from directly conferring the doctoral degree. Our particular campus has approximately 14,000 students and 600 faculty. Our communicative sciences and disorders program is housed in a freestanding department within the College of Letters, Arts, and Social Sciences. We have five full time faculty positions and three permanent half-time clinical supervisors. Additional supervision is contracted part-time as needed. We admit about 25 students each year to the graduate program. Our overall enrollment is about 150 students in both undergraduate and graduate programs.
All graduate students in our program are required to complete a course in Research Methods (SPPA 6000). In most respects this course is similar to those offered in other communicative sciences and disorders programs. We use a text, Schiavetti and Metz (1997), and require that an examination on the contents be passed by the middle of the term. Students make class presentations of the chapters from the text prior to the examination.
However, from the beginning of the course and concurrent with the text review, planning begins for the student research projects. The balance of the course is designed to support that enterprise. Preliminary topics are submitted by the students and approved by the instructor. There is enormous latitude in the subject matter allowed. Any topic that has to do with any aspect of human communication and its disorders is acceptable (see Table 1). Then, formal written proposals are submitted and these are carefully critiqued and edited. Each proposal is presented orally to the entire class, where further questions are raised and the student's peers make recommendations. Experimental designs and measurement of all types are permitted (see Table 2), although survey research is discouraged because of the time constraint. The entire research enterprise is bounded by the 11 week quarter, from initial proposal to final paper in publishable format.
Students execute their research protocols and collect data. Support for statistical analysis is provided by the instructor and by user friendly computer programs available to students in the department. The final reports are written up and the results are presented orally to the entire class. The time line for these events is shown in Table 3.
Table 1. Distribution of Student Research Papers by Topic Category
| Research Topic Category | Number of Papers | % |
| ADHD | 1 | 2.1 |
| Adult Aphasia/Dementia | 13 | 27.1 |
| Child Language | 12 | 25.0 |
| Cleft Palate | 1 | 2.1 |
| Deaf/HOH | 1 | 2.1 |
| Fluency | 5 | 10.4 |
| Phonology/Articulation | 3 | 6.2 |
| Resonance/Voice | 2 | 4.2 |
| Sign Language/ACC | 2 | 4.2 |
| Testing (Audiology) | 2 | 4.2 |
| Testing (Language) | 3 | 6.2 |
| Testing (Speech/Voice) | 2 | 4.2 |
| Multiple Disorders | 1 | 2.1 |
| TOTAL | 48 | 100.1* |
*More than 100% due to rounding error.
Table 2. Frequency of Different Types of Measurement Used in Student Research Papers
| Type of Measurement | Number of Papers | % of Papers |
| Linguistic | 25 | 52.1 |
| Multicultural | 9 | 18.8 |
| Physiological | 5 | 10.4 |
| Psychological | 4 | 8.4 |
| Social | 8 | 16.7 |
| Survey | 5 | 10.4 |
| TOTAL* | 56 |
*Totals are inflated because some papers used more than one type of measurement
Table 3. Time-line for Student Research Projects
| Activity | Week |
| Preliminary Research and Topic Selection | 1-3 |
| Preparation of Proposals | 4-5 |
| Oral Presentation of Proposals | 6-7 |
| Data Collection; Data Analysis; Final Write-up | 7-11* |
| Oral Presentation of Results | 10-11* |
| Final Written Report Due | 11 |
*Some activities may overlap since some proposals are approved earlier than others.
STUDENT MOTIVATION
While it is common that many graduate level courses in research methods require the preparation of proposals and research designs, few of these studies are actually carried out. The extra burden on our students of conducting a complete study through to execution and write up is accompanied by certain incentives. All research reports are eligible for consideration for publication in our Student Research Journal (Rosenthal, 1994-99). To date, six annual volumes have been published with a total of 48 reports. This represents 36.6% of the 131 student reports completed over the past six years. Between 50 and 60 copies of the journal are printed at a cost to the department of under $500. These copies are disseminated to associated departments within the University, to all communicative disorders programs in California, and selected individuals who may be conducting related research. Abstracts of all of the published studies are placed on our department web site (see References) and are available through interlibrary loan.
Each year between one and five papers have been selected for sponsorship for submission to the California State University Student Research Competition and for submission as poster presentations at the ASHA Convention. A faculty committee makes these selections from the reports that have been selected for publication. Annual statistics of these submissions are shown in Table 4.
Students whose papers are accepted for presentation at ASHA receive partial financial assistance from our Graduate Studies office and from our local NSSLHA chapter to attend the convention.
Table 4. Number of Student Research Papers Submitted, Published and Sponsored by Academic Year.
| Academic Year | Total Papers Submitted | Published in Student Journal | Sponsored for CSU Research Competition | Accepted for ASHA Convention |
| 1993-94 | 14 | 7 | 1 | 1 |
| 1994-95 | 18 | 8 | 2 | 3 |
| 1995-96 | 25 | 10 | 2 | 3 |
| 1996-97 | 25 | 7 | 1 | 2 |
| 1997-98 | 21 | 7 | 2 | 2 |
| 1998-99 | 28 | 9 | 5 | 6 |
| Total | 131 | 48 (36.6%) | 13 (9.9%) | 17 (12.97%) |
CONCLUSION
Testimonials have been received from many of the students who have participated in this program, especially those who have been published or who have presented at ASHA. It is a point of great pride and accomplishment for them. Several of these students have been approached by doctoral programs as a result of their presentations. However, the truest test of the long-term success of this program will be to determine if past participants ultimately extend their education to the doctoral level, or participate in research projects at a level greater than their peers, who have not had a similar experience. These are questions that we hope to answer when the number of participants becomes sufficiently large. Meanwhile, we think that one positive effect of this program is to help future clinicians to become better consumers of research by demystifying of the research process. Conducting experimental research is more effective than simply reading about it, or merely preparing uncompleted research proposals. Adopting programs of this sort creates little additional burden on faculty and fills, somewhat, the void created by abandoning the Master's thesis as a requirement for all students.
REFERENCES
Apel, K.(1999) Checks and balances: keeping the science in our profession. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in the Schools, 30, 98-107.
Petrosino, L., Lieberman, R. J., and McNeil, M.R.(1998) 1996-97 National Survey of Undergraduate and Graduate Programs. Council of Academic Programs in Communicative Sciences and Disorders.
Rosenthal, W.S. (Ed.)(1994-99) Student Research Papers in Communicative Sciences and Disorders, Volumes 1-6, California STATE UNIVERSITY, EAST BAY, California.
Rosenthal, W.S. (Ed.)(1994-99) Student Research Papers in Communicative Sciences and Disorders, Volumes 1-6 [Abstracts Online]. Available: http://class.csueastbay.edu/commsci/abstres.htm
Schiavetti, N. and Metz, D.E.(1997) Evaluating Research in Communicative Disorders (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Please send comments and questions to: william.rosenthal@csueastbay.edu