Doctor of Security

New Jersey City University has launched the country’s first doctorate program in security studies, but is the profession ready?
 - 
Monday, July 30, 2012

JERSEY CITY, N.J.—Since 9/11, the number of academic programs in security-related fields has exploded. Bachelor’s and master’s degrees in security studies or homeland security are now available at more than 350 programs nationwide, according to some estimates. A doctorate, however, has remained elusive.

Until now.

New Jersey City University (NJCU), based here, has launched the country's first doctorate program in security studies. On July 9, an inaugural class of 13 students arrived on campus to begin their pursuit of a Doctor of Science (DSc) in Civil Security Leadership, Management, and Policy. The term "civil security" encompasses national security, corporate security and cyber security, according to John Collins, CPP, chair of NJCU's Professional Security Studies Department.

The development of a security-related doctorate program is the logical progression of a trend that began after 9/11, some security experts told Security Director News. However, while it's a milestone in security's continued journey toward a more recognized profession, it's still far from clear what impact one security-related doctorate program will have on the profession.

NJCU's three-person security studies department began discussing the potential for a doctorate program in 2006, Collins said, after numerous trips to a conference on security education issues at the Naval Postgraduate School. (The school's Center for Homeland Defense and Security lists 354 degree or certificate programs in homeland security, emergency management, emergency preparedness, terrorism or cybersecurity, though it doesn't claim to be comprehensive.) It’s clear, he said, the security profession needs a doctorate degree because "there were lots of people with multiple masters going into academic settings or even leadership settings where their employers wanted them to have a doctorate or terminal degree," Collins told SDN.

The NJCU’s DSc in civil security is an executive-formatted program, which means students spend two weeks on campus during the summer and weekends during the regular semester. Augmented with online course work, the three-year program has a total of 48 semester hours. It received state approval and regional accreditation in April.

Collins said 95 percent of the program will focus on analytical skills and critical thinking about issues such as risk mitigation and risk management, while five percent will focus on business continuity and disaster recovery. "In other words, being proactive instead of reactive," he said.

NJCU currently awards both the Bachelor of Science and Master of Science degrees, so Collins said offering a DSc was the most logical progression. And while the DSc is not as well known as the PhD, it's by no means less respected. "Harvard University offered the first Doctorate of Science in the United States in 1872," he said.

While academia is the usual recipient of doctoral graduates, Collins said government agencies are looking for senior security people with the highest credentials they can get. "They've been leaning toward higher degrees," he said. "More specifically, the analytical aspect that we built into the degree. That's really what they're looking for."

While there's no evidence that private corporations are looking for CSOs with doctorate-level education, there's definitely more companies requesting candidates have masters degrees, according to Kathy Lavinder, an executive search specialist who focuses on high-calibre investigators and security directors. Lavinder is currently leading a search for a senior manager of security and intelligence, "and they explicitly said they would love advanced degrees," she told SDN. "They really had a strong preference for it."

She's noticed the trend over the past year. "They are looking for people who have demonstrated that they can handle advanced material. For this particular role, they're looking for very high-level analysis and writing skills, and I think a master’s degree does align with that. It does demonstrate that they can do things at that level."

However, she hasn't yet had any clients request job candidates who have doctorates, but she wouldn't be surprised if someday it became more common. "There is a little bit of an arms race going on for certifications, degrees and credentials," she said.

NJCU received 52 applications for the program, Collins said, but were only able to select 13 for the first class. In the future, class size will be limited to 30.

The initial 13 students are an eclectic bunch, Collins said. There's an administrative law judge from Cleveland who does adjudication for the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Department of Homeland Security. There's a microbiologist who wants to use the doctorate to deepen his work with DHS on bioterrorism. There's a security professional from Educational Testing Service, the world's largest private nonprofit educational testing and assessment organization. "It's all over the place," Collins said. "We have corporate people in there. We have cyber people in there. We have national security people in there. We have a branch chief from the Department of Homeland Security out of Washington. We've got local law enforcement."

However, while the trend in the security profession is heading toward more advanced degrees, whether it is ready for NJCU’s doctorate program is debatable, according to Jeffrey Grossmann, director of the Homeland & Corporate Security Program at St. John's University in Queens, and chair of ASIS International's Academic and Training Programs Council. He compares it to the field of criminal justice. "Criminal justice was in the same boat 50 or 60 years ago. There were no doctoral programs, no PhD programs in criminal justice. It was considered a vocational program at best," Grossmann said. "Then they had master’s programs creep up, then naturally as scholars chose criminal justice as a path it led to the creation of doctoral programs. I don’t think we're at that level yet in the private security industry."

NJCU faces many challenges, Grossmann said. For one, it's hard to put together a doctorate program from scratch in an industry that's never had one. "It's like a dog chasing its tail," Grossmann told SDN. "What comes first? In general, that's what the academic industry is all about. It's about demonstrating a need before actually putting something together. But there has to be something in place to develop that need."

Grossmann admitted he's currently trying to put together a graduate-level program in security studies and his biggest challenge is demonstrating the need for the program to the rest of the faculty.

Another challenge of developing a doctoral program in security is there's still debate within the field over critical aspects, such as a definition of homeland security and what such an education should entail. Grossmann believes it's only a matter of time until the government steps in to begin accrediting security-related programs, but until that time schools will have free rein to design programs as they want. "It's like the wild west out there," Grossmann said. "Schools are doing what they want to do. Nobody is policing them. Nobody is monitoring them. In fact, if security professionals can't even agree on what the definition of homeland security is, how can a university design a homeland security curriculum? It's sort of problematic."

Grossmann's doubts, however, don't mean he's not supportive of NJCU's efforts. He just knows that NJCU being the first means it will face unique challenges. "Is there a need for a doctoral-level program in civil security leadership? It's questionable," he said. "Would I like to see something like that? Absolutely, because it will help further my profession."

Ron Hurley, director of public safety for Berkeley College in Woodland Park, N.J, agrees. He believes the profession is very ready for such a doctorate program, and is a member of the inaugural class. "I think it helps me not just to do my job, but also it opens up doors for me in the future," said Hurley, who already has a master’s degree in national security studies from NJCU and is also an adjunct professor within its security studies department. "The more tools you have in your tool box the better equipped you are to survive an economy like this."

Whether NJCU’s doctorate program will be the first of many to sprout up, or a trail blazer that will struggle on its own for a while, Hurley believes it’s a positive development for the profession. "Anything that raises the bar is better for ourselves, it's better for the industry, and better for the security of our country," Hurley said.

Comments

Mr. Grossman’s comments regarding the need for a doctoral program in the security field is a bit perplexing.  He compares the security program to the Criminal Justice field, “…50 or 60 years ago.”  That it was viewed more as a vocational program at best and then a master’s degree crept up, which led to doctoral programs.  He notes that it is difficult to put together a doctoral program from scratch in an industry that has never had one, and that a need is required but there has to be something in place to develop it.  Perhaps he can identify what is that “something in place.”

He further states that he’s currently putting together a graduate program and his “biggest challenge” is “…demonstrating a need for the program to the rest of the faculty…”  I would venture to point towards intelligence failures, the need for a three-pronged partnership of privates, publics and academia to point towards that need.  It is this partnership that ASIS International supports, the very organization that he is involved with as a chairperson. 

Mr. Grossman indicates that another challenge is “…debate within the field over critical aspects such as a definition of homeland security and what such an education should entail…”  He states that it’s just a matter of time before the government, “steps in to begin accrediting security-related programs,” but until that time schools will have free rein to design programs as they want. "It's like the wild west out there," Grossmann states. "Schools are doing what they want to do. Nobody is policing them. Nobody is monitoring them. In fact, if security professionals can't even agree on what the definition of homeland security is, how can a university design a homeland security curriculum? It's sort of problematic.”  From my perspective, thankfully the U.S. Government has seen fit to initiate an anti-terrorist program for the security of the U.S. despite the fact that there continues to this day, a debate over the definition of “terrorism.”  Or, should they have waited until someone came up with an acceptable definition of “terrorism” before responding to being attacked?

As one of the three faculty at N J City University (NJCU) and the person responsible for the creation of the department with a National Security Studies program, this doctoral program was carefully thought out and developed with exhaustive reviews both internally within the University as well externally.  It has been reviewed by the New Jersey State President’s Council as well as the Middle States Commission on Higher Education.  Externally, it has been reviewed by experts in the field of National Security to include the U. S. Department of Homeland Security’s Homeland Security Defense Education Consortium Association (HSDECA) as well as an expert from the University of Maryland.  This program is not like the “…wild wild west out there, “ nor are we “…doing what they (we) want to do…” and nobody is “policing” or “monitoring” us.  This process took place five years ago as we practiced what our field preaches-the need to be “proactive” and utilized actionable and strategic information / intelligence about the needs of prospective students.  And as a side note, this department has been designated a “National Center of Academic Excellence” by both the National Security Agency and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.  In fact we are one of less than 200 colleges and universities throughout this nation with that designation.

I agree that we will be facing challenges but disagree that it’s “questionable” that we need a doctoral-level program.  What should we do, wait until something happens and there is an outcry to have doctorates in the field or should we be proactive.  The perplexing nature of Mr. Grossman’s comments is that he is director of the Homeland & Corporate Security Program at St. John's University in Queens, and chair of ASIS International's Academic and Training Programs Council, yet suggests that it is “questionable” whether or not we need such a program. 

The heart and soul of “security” is being “proactive.”  Should we have waited to put together such a program or at the very least from my perspective, see that we need such a program to help build leaders, managers and policymakers in the field of security. We are not like a “…dog chasing its tail…” and one last thing, we did not develop this doctoral program to help “further” his nor our profession.  It is simply, the appropriate thing to do and most definitely needed as reflected by the high caliber of doctoral students that are currently in this program, and the many who have already applied for admission to our next learning community of future leaders, managers and policymakers.

 

Reading the comments posted by TYBill regarding the July 30, 2012 article “Doctor of Security” reminds me of a bad television police docudrama where the hero agent has a sarcastic and condescending (yet funny) retort for every statement the suspect gives.  In fact, those comments posted by TYBill do not appear to be typical opinion-based responses, rather, an underhanded attack on the veracity of a source.  But I get ahead of myself…

Introductions are in order.  My name is Jeffrey P. Grossmann (Grossmann spelled with a double “n” TYBill).  I am an Assistant Professor and Program Director of Homeland and Corporate Security Studies at St. John’s University in Queens, New York.  I have helped develop and continue to drive the Homeland and Corporate Security Program at St. John’s.  I am the 2011-2012 Chair of the Academic and Training Programs Council of ASIS International (a highly regarded group of academic professionals dedicated to the betterment of security education).  I maintain an education-based consulting practice where I work with the American Council on Education and the Department of Defense awarding academic credit to training programs throughout our armed forces (something as a veteran I am so proud to do).  I have helped colleges and universities in the creation of their own homeland security programs.  I have conducted research, been invited to speak at numerous security conferences, and continue to publish articles on both homeland security and generic security academic programs.  In short TYBill (I use your screen name since you have chosen to remain anonymous), I have sufficient experience in this field to give an informed opinion on the creation of a security-themed academic program, regardless of your attack on my credibility.

You have taken offense to a few generalized comments regarding the state of homeland security and generic security education.  My comments were aimed at providing some background to the world we both work in.  I did not reference your program.  In fact, I refuse to make public comments on any academic program, not just yours.  My comments focused on the central issues confronting our industry (subject matter, accreditation, and the need for doctoral programs). You could even say that I included my own program in those generalized remarks concerning our industry. 

When I address an opinion in which I disagree (and there are a few), I try very hard not to attack the source of thought.  In fact as an educator, I owe a duty to my students (and the industry) to help nurture and develop these young thought mechanisms.  These opinions or thoughts will develop into ideas, ideas in which problems will be solved, innovative processes will be developed, and goals will be achieved.  Yes TYBill, I do not necessarily agree with your remarks, however, I can appreciate your point of view.  I will not call your comments “perplexing” or question your loyalty as you did with me, for I understand why someone so close to a cause would react the way you did to generalized criticism.

The truth of the matter is that our industry is growing.  It is still in its infancy, especially homeland security education, when compared to similar academic disciplines such as criminal justice. There are legitimate questions which need to be answered.  In particular, there are no formalized data sets showing the need for the creation of doctoral programs in the generic security industry at this time (none that I have encountered). You suggest that we create these programs in advance of such need.  In fact TYBill, you went on to compare the development of a national homeland security program in response to the devastating terrorist attacks of 9/11, with the creation of educational programs.  You made an off-handed and semi-patriotic point that since the government did not wait to address the terrorists attacks of 9/11 (and rightfully so), so too should your organization not wait to develop a doctoral program (not rightfully so).  The Office of Homeland Security was established in mere weeks after 9/11/01 to address an “obvious” need.  TYBill, instead of attacking opinion, make an argument for an “obvious” need in relation to the creation of a doctoral program in generic security studies.  Do not insinuate that I should “rubber-stamp” approval of such an academic endeavor because of my standing in a professional association.  Instead, explain how such a program will enhance my profession at this time.  Refrain from making patriotic comparisons and concentrate on legitimate comparisons with other programs of similar disciplines.

TYBill, I am sure you did a wonderful job in the creation of your program.  You should even be commended for completing such an arduous task.  Please do not diminish your significant accomplishments by “bullying” folks who have legitimate questions.  After all, isn’t this one of those things which makes this country so great, freedom to question, freedom of opinion?

Jeffrey P. Grossmann, JD