THE CHALLENGES IN ESTABLISHING A MASTER'S DEGREE PROGRAM IN CONSTRUCTION

I. INTRODUCTION

For a variety of reasons, both the construction industry and academic institutions are expressing an increased interest in Master's level construction education programs. This paper will examine some of the considerations and challenges which Arizona State University (ASU) and Texas A & M University (A&M) have addressed in deciding to establish graduate programs in construction.

Part of the reason for increased construction industry interest is the fact that the technology revolution is placing new demands on the managers of construction, especially in the area of computers and their utilization. Additionally, the now-familiar industry trend toward utilizing college-educated personnel for management positions has resulted in a situation where those professionals who have undergraduate degrees are now looking toward additional educational opportunities. It is no small coincidence that the two universities which have entered into graduate construction education both have long and proud histories of successful undergraduate construction education. Large numbers of their graduates recognize the need and value of graduate education.

Construction education programs at the undergraduate level continue to expand in size and to increase in number. According to a recent White Paper on Construction Recognition prepared by the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC), "Thirty five years ago, the number of university-level construction programs could be counted on one hand, ... [There] are approximately sixty-five colleges and universities offering four year baccalaureate degree programs. Nearly all of these programs have curricula separate and distinct from traditional engineering and architecture degree programs. In 1988, there will be an estimated 2,700 graduates from four-year degree construction programs."[1] The trend is for construction education programs to have a separate identity from classical architecture and engineering programs.

It is the premise of this paper that construction education has found its own identity, even as it continues its close affiliation with architecture and engineering. Construction education is growing rapidly at the baccalaureate level. We support the concept of co­equal status of architecture, engineering, and construction education programs. Additionally, momentum continues to increase toward Master's level graduate education in construction programs. The authors believe that the maturing of construction as an academic discipline leads naturally to consideration of graduate education programs. These graduate programs will in turn enhance the academic credibility of the discipline and will be another step forward in increasing the professionalism of the industry as a whole.

Arizona State University and Texas A & M University have comparable histories of excellence and success in baccalaureate construction education. ASU is currently administering several Master's degree construction programs; A&M established a Master's program a number of years ago. The purpose of this paper will be to provide a discussion of the challenges and considerations which these universities addressed, and continue to address, in formulating and administering their graduate construction programs.

II. EVOLUTION AND DESCRIPTION OF MASTER'S LEVEL CONSTRUCTION EDUCATION AT ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

Educators in the undergraduate construction program at ASU initiated planning of Master's degree programs for two key reasons. First, the university itself resolved to become a major research institution. The construction faculty logically concluded that in order for the construction program to remain in step with university goals, research was needed. Further, the best way to initiate construction research would be to establish graduate programs and their associated theses, investigations, etc.

A second notable influencing factor was the request, expressed by a number of ASU graduates as-well as graduates of other programs, for additional educational opportunities in graduate studies. The reputation, long-standing accreditation, industry acceptance, and graduate success which the ASU program enjoys have all contributed to the large number of students seeking graduate education opportunities. It is interesting to note that these two major stimuli for initiating graduate construction education at ASU have direct parallels in the formulation and evolution of the graduate programs at A&M, as discussed later in this paper.

Arizona State developed concepts and analyzed data for a Master's degree program by surveying industry. This information helped to formulate the basic philosophies for a successful graduate program, and additionally, helped to identify potential problems which the new educational thrust might entail. The result has been the development of the following Master's degree programs at Arizona State: Master of Technology, with a concentration in construction, a temporary degree offering available while the degree of Master of Science in Construction (MSC) is being approved; a Master of Science in Engineering with a Construction Concentration, a temporary offering of a joint degree between the Department of Construction and the Department of Industrial Engineering; and a Master of Science in Facilities Management, a joint degree with the College of Architecture, and also a pilot ' program endorsed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Details of the structure and concept of each of these programs are recapitulated in the Appendices A, B, and C.

As it embarked upon the concept of Master's degree offerings, ASU conducted a survey of construction companies in the western United States, who are the employers of many ASU undergraduates. This survey yielded the following significant points:

As the faculty continued to advance their planning with regard to graduate studies, consideration was next given to a summarization of the backgrounds of potential target student groups who might be attracted to a Master of Science in Construction program:

It was concluded that given the varied backgrounds which students might have, two approaches could be considered in the development of the graduate program. First, a separate curriculum could be developed for each category of students. Or, alternately, a highly interdisciplinary approach could be taken which would draw upon coursework from the colleges of Architecture, Business, Engineering, and Public Programs, as well as the Department of Construction.

In fact, as the logic of program formulation was advanced, a combination of these approaches was used. For students of Architecture or Engineering, the graduate program would stress Construction and Business coursework; for students with a Construction background, the focus would be on Architecture, Business, and Engineering; and for students having a non-technical background, the program would stress all of the construction and technical courses, with the possible inclusion of a certain amount of undergraduate remedial coursework. Additional remedial coursework will be required on a case-by­case basis.

The current status of the Master's degree programs at ASU can be summarized as follows. The temporary degree offering, Master of Technology, has twelve students enrolled, while the joint degree, Master of Science in Engineering with a Construction Concentration, has graduated a total of six students. The pilot Facilities Management program, slated to commence during the Fall 1989 semester, has three students scheduled at this time. Planning approval has been obtained for the degree of Master of Science in Construction. The draft of the document for final approval of this degree is in progress, with final approval anticipated in 1989/90.

III. EVOLUTION AND DESCRIPTION OF MASTER'S LEVEL CONSTRUCTION EDUCATION AT TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY

The first students were enrolled in a graduate program of construction education entitled Master of Science in Building Construction in 1975. This program was conceived as a thirty-six semester hour program of study, housed within the Department of Construction Science in the College of Architecture. The program was originally envisioned as an extension of, and a supplement to, the one hundred thirty seven credit hour program leading to the degree of Bachelor of Science in Building Construction. This undergraduate degree had been offered by the Department of Construction Science for many years.

Formal university and state coordinating board approvals were granted for the Master of Science Degree in Building Construction in 1977. The name was changed in 1981 to Master of Science in Construction Management, and thesis and non-thesis options were added. A basic description of the curriculum for this program is provided in Appendix D.

It may be of interest to note that, prior to the introduction of the Master of Science in Building Construction, considerable student demand existed for an advanced degree in construction-related topics. Just as at ASU, alumni of the A&M undergraduate construction program, as well as graduates of other programs, were requesting graduate construction education. As early as 1968, students were actively seeking opportunities for advanced construction education. Some of these students received Master's degrees through a special fifty-two hour Master of Architecture program in Construction Management. At the time, no other vehicle was available for obtaining a Master's degree in construction-related fields. This option of a Master of Architecture degree has, however, been discontinued since the establishment of the Master of Science program in the Construction Science Department.

 At about the same time that the Construction Science Master's program was evolving in the College of Architecture, the Department of Civil Engineering was developing an option called Master of Engineering in Construction Engineering and Project Management. This degree is a thirty-six hour non-thesis program which includes the requirement for a technical engineering report. This program has since been expanded to include the option of a Master of Science in Civil Engineering.

Many of the issues and challenges being addressed at ASU as that school embarks upon graduate education in construction, are identical to concerns which were felt in Construction Science at A&M. For example, the A&M Construction Science Department analyzed the issue of what this department termed the "graduate program clientele" -- an identification of the students to be educated in the program. The population identified was essentially the same as the one arrived at in the ASU studies.

Graduates of A&M and other universities' baccalaureate construction programs were initially perceived as being the primary audience. In fact, the graduate program at A&M was first structured so as to address its own graduates. Later it was discovered, as ASU has learned, that many of the graduate students in the program come from disciplines other than construction and universities other than A&M.

Another issue to be addressed was tailoring construction coursework to the varying experience levels of the graduate candidates. Some Master's degree students entered the program immediately upon completion of baccalaureate studies; others were returning to the university after years of professional practice. Many of these practitioners were coming to the graduate program from executive level positions in construction companies.

Additionally, a number of candidates came from disciplines other than construction. The matter of pre-requisites to be required of these candidates became an important consideration. Even more formidable has been the challenge of identifying the course content of the graduate program for such "career-change" students. For example, should the twelve hours of Construction Science coursework required by the Graduate College be elective or would they consist in an unvarying "core" of required courses? More recently, this same issue has been debated repeatedly as the department and faculty seek to define in philosophical terms what the content and thrust of graduate programs should include.

The resolution to the debate mentioned above may very well be found in the A&M program taking the approach which has been developed at ASU. By this approach, each degree plan (called a program of study at ASU) seeks to develop the proficiency of the candidate in a series of functional skill areas, rather than requiring a specific set of courses. Included in the functional skills considered essential are the following: technical core, computer literacy, cost and schedule control, contract administration, research capabilities, management, and interpersonal communications skills.

Another concern in early consideration 'of the graduate program at A&M was apprehension that graduate education would dilute or diminish the undergraduate program. Not only has this fear proven unfounded, exactly the opposite result has been the experience at A&M. The faculty have adapted to teaching both graduate and undergraduate coursework, without difficulty. In fact, the stimulus of graduate teaching has spurred more than one professor to greater levels of activity, with direct and positive effects on undergraduate teaching. The presence of graduate students has provided a multitude of benefits to the undergraduate students and to the program. One example, among many which could be cited, is the increased funding provided to the Department by the university for graduate teaching. These additional funds benefit both the graduate and undergraduate programs.

Still another issue addressed by the A&M faculty was the matter of competition by the graduate students for the same job opportunities available to the undergraduate students. Both ASU and A&M have found that generally, graduates and undergraduates are considered equally for entry level positions, and that prior experience and maturity have a greater influence on entry positions in construction than the additional degrees. No significant direct competition has taken place for the same employment positions between Master's and baccalaureate graduates. Employers have experienced no apparent difficulty in distinguishing the capabilities of the two sets of graduates.

It was also envisioned that graduates of this program might pursue careers in university teaching. It was reasoned that as construction education programs increased, the need for professors would grow. These educators would benefit from having Master's degree credentials. The growth of construction education at the university level has been well documented. In fact, a number of graduates from A&M have become professors.

During the planning and evolution of the A&M Master's program in Construction Science, most of the issues and concerns addressed in the preceding paragraphs have been resolved. The program currently has about thirty students enrolled, and enrollment is growing. Since the program was initiated, about one hundred fifty students have graduated from the program.

IV. INDUSTRY VIEW

A concern which was addressed early at both schools and which continues to be discussed is construction industry need for, and acceptance of, advanced education. The authors believe that mixed opinions exist among industry practitioners. Some have expressed the belief that there is no need for Master's degree students to fill entry level management positions. Other constructors have enthusiastically endorsed the concept of graduate education from the perspective of "more learning is better." Still other practitioners have demonstrated their belief in graduate construction education by returning from industry for graduate studies.

V. ACADEMIC CONSIDERATIONS

Administrators at ASU and A&M have worked to cope with the issue of academic acceptance of the graduate Construction program. The basic issue which emerges is whether or not a program which prepares practitioners for industry is a viable graduate-level academic program. Both universities have accepted the concept of construction as a discipline by virtue of their endorsement of the graduate programs. Additionally, each university has continued to emphasize the importance of the research function, along with publications and other classical academic pursuits in the graduate programs.

The authors have previously expressed their belief that construction education is becoming recognized as a bona fide academic discipline. It is further believed that as construction education programs grow and mature, they will require work from their students which passes peer review and other academic scrutiny. As this takes place, the status of construction as a discipline can only become more acceptable. Additionally, such efforts by graduate

students (and the increasing rate at which construction educators are publishing) will serve to create and expand a body of construction literature.

This will further develop the recognition of construction as an academic discipline and establish a basis for "professionalizing" the industry.

It is the opinion of the authors that educators who would form graduate construction education programs should consider research requirements as a part of the program. A&M is moving toward requiring at least one three credit hour class in "Research Methodology" of all Construction Science graduate students and ASU has a similar requirement. It is believed that the research impetus which will undoubtedly result, will be of invaluable benefit to the graduate. It follows that if graduate students and their professors become more involved in basic and applied research, the construction industry, and those it serves can benefit. In addition, academic credibility of construction programs can be enhanced by publishing a body of construction-related literature based in construction research.

Beyond the basic level of planning required to initiate a Master's program, implementation of the program should not be delayed for fear that some potential issues of concern remain unresolved.

Both schools have been able to solve many concerns as they acquired experience with new programs. Additionally, it has become apparent that many issues will continue to be debated, and alternate solutions sought, long after students are enrolled and working successfully in the graduate program of study.

VI. CONCLUSIONS

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D