1: THE HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL PATH OF DOCTORAL NURSING EDUCATION ■ 39
logical. One DNP track requires 1,000 hours and one perhaps does not, even if the
requirement is there, but it is tacitly not enforced. There is an inequity here. This abso-
lute requirement needs revisiting, given the NONPF’s (2006, p. 1) lack of enthusiasm
for this requirement, stating “The NONPF Board has significant concern in establishing
a random standard” (of required number of clinical hours). The NONPF has recognized
this since the inception of the DNP and more recently published further comment on
this issue, stating in 2016 “For post- baccalaureate DNP programs, a minimum of 1,000
practice hours must be acquired in the DNP program” (p. 3), but there is no specificity
on post- master’s programs, leaving this issue at least operationally unresolved.
The last issue— shared coursework between the two degree programs— was
debated extensively by attendees in one session focusing on the future of the PhD
at the January 2009 AACN Doctoral Nursing Education Conference in Coronado
Island, California. From this author’s point of view, there seem to be two camps
of nursing faculty perspectives. One camp firmly believes that students from both
degrees can learn from each other and therefore support some joint coursework
between the two programs. The other camp is firmly against crossover between the
two curricula fearing dilution of the PhD degree and the slow trajectory to one day
“the DNP becoming the same as the PhD.” Interestingly, I have not heard DNP fac-
ulty similarly state they do not want their DNP students taking courses with PhD
students. It appears, however, that across the country there is some minimal course-
work that students in the two degrees share. For administrators, it is also more cost-
effective to offer some courses to both groups, especially if the class size (usually the
PhD class these days) is small. Some of the comments I have heard, however, come
from post- master’s DNP graduates who took some common coursework with BSN-
to- DNP students and who complained of the level of the content and its appropriate-
ness for experienced master’s- prepared APRNs. This is very similar to complaints
sometimes from RNs who share coursework with generic BSN students. It is good
to see in the white paper (AACN, 2015) that more collaboration between DNP and
PhD students is being encouraged stating “DNP and PhD graduates will [should]
have the opportunity to collaborate and work synergistically to improve health out-
comes” (p. 3). Absolute separatism, which I am aware exists in some schools where
there is a PhD and a DNP program might foster elitism among PhD students and in
PhD programs (or even among faculty), and indeed we fear this. Deans and chairs
need to actively promote collegiality among students (and faculty) in both cohorts,
and if these students are going to be involved in PhD/ DNP translational research
teams, as some are now suggesting, then what better time to begin to work together
than during doctoral study (Cacchione, 2007; Hastings, Mitchell, & Loud, 2010)?
One important point, however, needs to be emphasized. “Translation of research”
and “translational research” are not the same thing. The NIH (2009b) has very clear
definitions of what constitutes translational research, indicating:
Translational research includes two areas of translation. One is the process
of applying discoveries generated during research in the laboratory, and in
preclinical studies, to the development of trials and studies in humans. The
second area of translation concerns research [italics mine] aimed at enhancing
the adoption of best practices in the community. Cost- effectiveness of pre-
vention and treatment strategies is also an important part of translational
science. (Section 1.1)