Credentialism and Barriers to Entry: A Historical and Sociological Analysis of the CAPTE 50 Percent Requirement for Physical Therapy Faculty with Academic Doctorates.

Abstract

This Perspective offers historical and sociological analysis of the Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education's (CAPTE) 2016 standard requiring that at least 50% of core faculty in all physical therapist education programs hold an academic doctorate, PhD, EdD, or ScD. The author associates this mandate's development with longstanding concerns among physical therapy leaders about their field's academic status and research productivity, as well as with changes in faculty training backgrounds following the adoption of the required entry-level Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) degree. This article draws on the sociological theory of credentialism to examine the origins of the 50% rule and its narrow focus on academic doctorates as the 1 best pathway to enhance faculty research productivity, to the exclusion of other important factors, including social and professional roles, institutional resources, and research mentorship. During the 2010s, when most new graduates held practice-focused DPTs, academic leaders in physical therapy raised concerns about research training among the next generation of faculty. Traditionally, aspiring faculty pursued post-professional training in research skills, but would DPT-holding practitioners be willing to pursue another formal degree? In response, the CAPTE 50% rule required that nearly half of new faculty obtain a second, academic doctorate, after having already invested 6 to 7 years in postsecondary education and accruing over $150,000 in debt, on average. The author demonstrates that justifications for the 50% rule were rooted in professional biases and misleading evidence, and suggests that this mandate is poorly suited to present academic trends. Importantly, the 50% rule is a significant barrier to entry for all aspiring faculty, and an insurmountable one for those from less elite backgrounds. Its implementation is unlikely to improve research productivity and threatens the potential of physical therapy's parallel efforts to better represent diverse patient communities.