Introduction How Do College Homeland
The terrorist attacks upon the United States of America on September 11, 2001
demonstrated that the nation was not prepared for twenty-first century threats (S, Rep.
No. 107-351, H. Rep. No. 107-792, 2002; The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks
Upon the United States, 2004). The question was raised: How should the nation prepare
for future threats? The White House announced a “New National Calling: Homeland
Security.” (White House, Executive Office of the President, 2001a, p.3) Commissions
were launched, national strategies were issued, legislation was passed and enacted, and
government agencies were established, transformed, and reorganized (Establishing the
Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council, 2001; Homeland
Security Act of 2002, P.L. 107-296; President’s Directive on National Preparedness,
2003; S, Rep. No. 107-351; H. Rep. No. 107-792, 2002; The National Commission on
Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, 2004; White House, 2001,2002a, 2002b).
In July 2002, the United States first ever National Strategy for Homeland Security
defined homeland security as “a concerted national effort to prevent terrorist attacks
within the United States, reduce America’s vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the
damage and recover from attacks that do occur.” (White House, 2002a, p.2) Since the
events of September 11, 2001, intentional, natural, and accidental threats and risks to the
nation persisted. The U.S. Intelligence Community and National Intelligence Council
warned that terrorist, nuclear, and cyber threats to the nation were clear and present
dangers (Annual Threat Assessment, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010; Global Intelligence
Challenges, 2005; National Intelligence Council, 2004, 2008, 2013; Worldwide Threat,
2002, 2003, 2004; Worldwide Threat Assessment, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014). The Heritage
Foundation reported at least 61 terrorist plots against the U.S. since 9/11 (Lucaccioni,
2013; McNeill & Carafano, 2009; Zuckerman, Bucci, & Carafano, 2012). The White
House, Congress, U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. Department of Education;
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Department of State, Government
Accountability Office, National Governors Association, and National Climate Assessment
and Development Advisory Committee recognized that many natural and accidental
threats also posed significant risks to the nation (A Failure of Initiative 2006; Chertoff,
2009; Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2013; Government
Accountability Office, 2013; Johnson, 2014; Melillo, Terese, & Yohe, 2014; National
Governors Association, 2007, 2010, 2013; Ridge & Bloom, 2009; S. Rep. No. 109-322,
2006; Threats to the Homeland , 2013; U. S. Department of Defense, 2014; The
President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request, 2013; U.S. Department of Education,
2012; U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2005, 2008a, 2008b, 2010a, 2010b, 2011a,
2011b, 2011c, 2012a, 2012b, 2013a, 2013d, 2014a, 2014b; U.S. Department of State,
2010; White House, 2002a, 2002b, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011a, 2011b).
The U.S. government attempted to bind the evolving intentional, natural, and
accidental threats of the twenty-first century into effective homeland security policies.
The result was at least eight different U.S. government definitions of homeland security
(Appendix A) that approached different threats with distinct policies. The U.S.
government did not, however, have a consensus or common definition of homeland
security. The national emphasis on homeland security illuminated the critical need and
demand for quality educational programs that provided professionals with the
fundamental knowledge and skills to meet the nation’s homeland security requirements.
The nation’s colleges and universities were called upon to prepare local, state, tribal, and
federal leaders to help prevent future attacks and respond to those attacks that did occur
(Charting a Course for Homeland Security Strategic Studies Conference, 2005; Center for
Homeland Defense and Security, 2008, 2011 2012a, 2014a; National Research Council,
Committee on Educational Paradigms for Homeland Security, 2005; Rollins & Rowan,
2007). Hereafter, the term colleges will be used to describe both colleges and
universities.
Leading the collegiate effort was the Center for Homeland Defense and Security
(CHDS). CHDS was created by Congress, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and DOD in
April 2002 to: educate and prepare a cadre of local, state, tribal, and federal leaders to
collaborate across professional disciplines and levels of government to secure the
homeland; define through evidence-based research the emerging discipline of homeland
security; facilitate the development of a national homeland security education system by
using an open source model to develop programs and curricula; and to share those
resources with other academic institutions and agencies (Center for Homeland Defense
and Security, 2011). Oliva and Gordon (2013) found that the word curriculum, and its
plural curricula, in the world of professional education, had elusive, almost esoteric
connotations. They cited Huebner’s (1976) ascription of ambiguity and lack of precision
to the term curriculum; Grumet’s (1988) “field of utter confusion” curriculum label; and
Kliebard’s (1998) observation of the American curriculum as an assemblage of competing
doctrines and practices. Oliva and Gordon (2013) found that curricula were built,
planned, designed, constructed, improved, revised, and evaluated. They perceived
curriculum:
as a plan or program for all the experiences that the learner encounters under the
direction of the school. In practice, the curriculum consists of a number of plans,
in written form and of varying scope that delineate the desired learning experiences.
(Oliva & Gordon, 2013, p.7)
CHDS programs included a homeland security masters’ degree program and a
University and Agency Partnership Initiative (UAPI). The graduate curriculum was
designed to prepare homeland security leaders to operate in an environment of extreme
ambiguity with an emphasis on critical thinking around homeland security issues. UAPI
was established to share CHDS curriculum and educational resources with academic
institutions. Its activities included new member workshops, model curricula conferences,
and educational conferences. UAPI’s 1,200 plus partners represented over 330 colleges
and agencies that shared their curricula and specialized expertise (Center for Homeland
Defense and Security, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c, 2014d).
CHDS and its UAPI partners sought to prepare members of what would come to
be known as the homeland security enterprise to prevent, mitigate, and respond to the
intentional, natural, and accidental threats of the twenty-first century. The U. S.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (2010a) defined the homeland security
enterprise as “the collective efforts and shared responsibilities of Federal, State, local,
tribal, territorial, nongovernmental, and private-sector partners—as well as individuals,
families, and communities—to maintain critical homeland security capabilities” (pp.
viiiix). The term connoted a broad-based community with a common interest in the
public safety and well-being of American society that was composed of multiple actors
and stakeholders whose roles and responsibilities were distributed and shared. There was
little agreement, however, about what homeland security was, what academic disciplines
were involved, what subjects should be taught, and the objectives of homeland security
education (Bellavita, 2008; Bellavita & Gordon, 2006; Charting a Course for Homeland
Security Strategic Studies Conference, 2005; Kelly, 2002; Morag, 2011; National
Research Council, Committee on Educational Paradigms for Homeland Security, 2005;
Pelfrey & Kelley, 2013; Rollins & Rowan, 2007; Stelter, 2014; Tunnel, 2013).
Problem Statement
Because the discipline of homeland security is still emerging and evolving and
there is little consensus about what homeland security is, it is difficult to determine how
college homeland security curricula should prepare students for homeland security.
Theoretical Rationale
This study’s theoretical rationale reflects Clovis’ (2006) collaborative federalism
theory of homeland security. Clovis argued that federalism and the activities associated
with intergovernmental relations were fundamental to homeland security policy. The
2002 National Strategy for Homeland Security called for a common understanding of
federalism by all parts of the government. Different levels of government, however, held
different perspectives on federalism. All levels of government should aggregate,
coordinate, and integrate their homeland security capabilities to ensure the greatest level
of national preparedness.
Clovis (2006) noted that the Homeland Security Act of 2002 had brought together
22 separate organizations to form DHS. The agency was tasked to develop a national
preparedness system. National preparedness, as outlined by Homeland Security
Presidential Directive-8 was to be enhanced by a series of policies that would allow
federal, state, local, and tribal governments to collectively and comprehensively address
catastrophic events, especially those that were the results of terrorism. Preparedness was
“the existence of plans, procedures, policies, training, and equipment necessary at the
Federal, State, and local level to maximize the ability to prevent, respond to, and recover
from major events” (President’s Directive on National Preparedness, 2003, para 2).
Collaborative federalism recognized that homeland security, and particularly
national preparedness were national issues requiring national solutions. The nation
should aggregate, coordinate, and integrate their homeland security capabilities.
Congress and its executive agent DHS, should provide leadership, facilitation, and
appropriate funding. DHS should be an agent of subnational levels of government.
States and local governments should collaborate with jurisdictions both vertically and
horizontally. The nation might achieve the best possible level of homeland security
preparedness through collaboration. Failure to collaborate would lead to inefficiencies
and a nation unnecessarily at risk (Clovis, 2006).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to determine how college homeland security curricula
prepare students for homeland security.
Research Questions
Owing to an unresolved debate about the efficacy of undergraduate homeland
security curricula (Bellavita, 2012; Collier, 2013; Morton, 2012; National Research
Council, Committee on Educational Paradigms for Homeland Security, 2005; Pelfrey &
Kelley, 2013; Pelfrey, Kelley, & May, 2002), undergraduate and graduate homeland
security curricula were analyzed separately.
The National Research Council, Committee on Educational Paradigms for
Homeland Security (2005) argued that as an area of study, homeland security was too
immature and too broad. A bachelor’s degree in homeland security might give the false
impression that some professional consensus about what actually constituted knowledge
of homeland security existed and was not recommended. Instead, course work and
recognition as undergraduate minors, concentrations, or certificates would be appropriate.
Pelfrey and Kelley (2013) concluded that the objectives and competencies for
graduate homeland security education were known, could be taught, and would produce
benefits in the preparedness of homeland security organizations. It would be “ludicrous”
to replicate the same education at the undergraduate level. While, there seemed to be
little vocational support for undergraduate education in homeland security, there might be
stronger academic objectives such as critical thinking and critical writing in the courses
developed for advanced undergraduates (p.6). DHS and other federal agencies should
take a leadership role in a process similar to the Bologna Process that would involve
identifying, with some particularity, the roles and objectives of undergraduate and
graduate homeland security using homeland security as a proxy since it is at a germinal
stage of development. The Bologna Process was a European higher education framework
designed to define learning outcomes and ensure compatibility in the standards and
quality of higher education qualifications (Benelux Bologna Secretariat, 2009).
Collier (2013) questioned the methodology used by Pelfrey and Kelley (2013).
They provided only a partial view of homeland security education. Pelfrey and Kelley
did not address recent efforts in homeland security curriculum development that were
related to their fundamental questions. While the lack of a consistent definition of
homeland security (Reese, 2013) hampered efforts to create undergraduate and graduate
homeland security curricula, the community of homeland security educators had made
progress toward establishing curriculum standards. The Center for Homeland Defense
and Security’s (2009) model undergraduate homeland security curriculum, and the
Homeland Security and Defense Consortium Association’s (2009b, 2009c) drafts of
specialized accreditation standards for graduate and undergraduate homeland security
programs revealed a growing consensus of both the academic and professional
communities. “It is probably time to recognize that the most recent approaches to
undergraduate teaching and learning ensure graduates have the substantive knowledge
and professional skills which were in the past mainly developed in graduate programs”
(Collier, 2013, para 1).
Research questions one to three examined undergraduate homeland security
curricula. Research questions three to six examined graduate homeland security
curricula. The research questions are as follows:
1. How do colleges develop their undergraduate homeland security curricula?
2. How do colleges categorize their undergraduate homeland security curricula?
3. How do colleges ensure that their undergraduate homeland security curricula
remain current as homeland security needs change?
4. How do colleges develop their graduate homeland security curricula?
5. How do colleges categorize their graduate homeland security curricula?
6. How do colleges ensure that their graduate homeland security curricula
remain current as homeland security needs change?
Significance of the Study
The national emphasis on homeland security led to the development of college
homeland security curricula to prepare members of the homeland security enterprise to
prevent, mitigate, and respond to the intentional, natural, and accidental threats of the
twenty-first century. Government-sponsored educational programs including CHDS and
over 290 public, private, and military colleges have since established over 400 homeland
security programs. Twelve years after the nation’s first national strategy for homeland
security, however, there is little consensus about what homeland security is and how
colleges should prepare students for homeland security. A current survey of college
homeland security faculty helps identify common and core homeland security educational
requirements that will help colleges develop curricula to prepare students for homeland
security.
Definition of Terms
All-hazards – incidents that range from accidents and natural disasters to actual or
potential terrorist attacks (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2008b).
Curriculum – a plan or program for all the experiences that the learner encounters under
the direction of the school. “In practice, the curriculum consists of a number of plans, in
written form and of varying scope that delineate the desired learning experiences” (Oliva
& Gordon, p.7).
Curriculum workers – curriculum planners, consultants, coordinators, and professors of
curriculum that may approve, modify, mold, shape, and tailor curricula (Oliva & Gordon,
2013).
Focusing events – sudden, unpredictable, and harmful or potentially harmful events that
gained the attention of policy makers and the public simultaneously and drove national
policy more so than other policy areas (Birkland, 1997).
Homeland security – See Appendix A.
Homeland security enterprise – “The collective efforts and shared responsibilities of
Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, nongovernmental, and private-sector partners—as
well as individuals, families, and communities—to maintain critical homeland security
capabilities” (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2010a, pp. viii-ix). Meta-discipline
– a larger curricular focus that transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries to create a
truly holistic, systemic, integrative worldview uncluttered by familiar limits and barriers
(Werth, 2003).
National preparedness – policies that would allow federal, state, local, and tribal
governments to collectively and comprehensively address catastrophic events, especially
those that were the results of terrorism (President’s Directive on National Preparedness,
2003).
Paradigm – universally recognized scientific achievements that for a time provide model
problems and solutions to a community of practitioners (Kuhn, 1996, p. x).
Preparedness – The existence of plans, procedures, policies, training, and equipment
necessary at the Federal, State, and local level to maximize the ability to prevent, respond
to, and recover from major events (President’s Directive on National Preparedness, 2003)
Strategic corporals are entry-level and first-line supervisors that are trained to make
critical decisions.
Three block war – a tactical engagement with strategic implications (Krulak, 1999).
Tipping point – a critical mass of circumstances that set us on a new and unstoppable
course (Gladwell, 2000).
Unidisciplinary – a disciplinary approach in which members of a single discipline work
together to address a common problem (Stokols, Hall, Taylor, & Moser, 2008). Whole
of government approach to national security – an approach to national security that
balances and integrates U.S. defense, diplomacy, economic, and homeland security
capabilities (White House, 2010).
Wicked problems – policy issues that cannot be described definitively and do not have any
ultimate or objective answers (Rittel and Weber, 1973).
Chapter Summary
Chapter 1 identified a new national calling, homeland security. Homeland
security was “a concerted national effort to prevent terrorist attacks within the United
States, reduce America’s vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the damage and recover
from attacks that do occur” (White House, 2002a, p.2). The national calling illuminated
the critical need for educational programs that provided members of the homeland
security enterprise with the knowledge and skills to meet the nation’s homeland security
requirements. CHDS and its 1,200 plus UAPI partners sought to prepare members of the
homeland security enterprise to prevent/mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover
from twenty-first century threats. There was little agreement, however, about what
homeland security was and how colleges should prepare students for homeland security.
The purpose of this study was to determine how college homeland security curricula
prepare students for homeland security. The study helps to identify common and core
homeland security educational requirements that assist colleges in preparing students for
homeland security.
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature
Introduction and Purpose
Bellavita (2005, 2006) argued that homeland security was produced by events that
initiated and sustained multiple issue-attention cycles and that homeland security was a
wicked problem. Wicked problems were policy issues that could not be described
definitively and did not have any ultimate or objective answers (Rittel & Weber, 1973).
Moreover, Birkland (1997) referred to issue-attention cycle events as focusing events.
The events were sudden, unpredictable, and harmful or potentially harmful. They gained
the attention of policy makers and the public simultaneously and drove national policy
more so than other policy areas. Bellavita (2006) argued that most of the significant
problems in homeland security were too undefined, too broad, too complex, and too
wicked to allow an ordered and intentional journey into the future. He was joined by
Horn and Weber (2007), Joyce (2007), Nairn (2009), Kettl (2009), Treverton (2008),
Allen (2012), Falkow (2013), the Center for Homeland Defense and Security’s Future
Advisory Committee, (2013) and Kahan (2014), all of which also found that homeland
security was a wicked problem.
Bellavita (2012) proposed several arguments that might allow an ordered and
intentional journey into the future of homeland security. One argument maintained that
the homeland security enterprise should have paid attention to the problems they cared
about and to where they were in the issue-attention cycle. Homeland security scholars
had an obligation to the emerging profession to demonstrate that they had a theoretical
foundation for what they taught and that their lessons had practical consequences in the
real world. Scholars should operationalize terms like theory and homeland security and
announce what they mean by those terms. They should develop and test theories for that
foundation. Scholars must, however, realize that there are alternative meanings for many
of the core terms and select meaning from what most informed and knowledgeable
people would say are reasonable understandings of those words.
Review of the Literature
The review of the literature examines how multiple issue-attention cycles fostered
different homeland security policies and how people in homeland security perceived
homeland security. The review continues with an examination of how colleges
interpreted the nation’s evolving homeland security policies and how they developed
curricula to prepare students for homeland security.
A new national calling. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001
demonstrated that the U.S. was not prepared for twenty-first century threats. The
question was raised: How should the nation prepare for future threats? Commissions
were launched, national strategies were issued, legislation was passed and enacted, and
government agencies were established, transformed, and reorganized (Establishing the
Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council, 2001; Homeland
Security Act, 2002; President’s Directive on National Preparedness, 2003; Senate,
Report. No. 107-351 and House of Representatives Report. No. 107-792, 2002; The
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, 2004; White House,
2001, 2002a, 2002b).
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) established DHS through the
integration of 22 different federal departments and agencies. DHS’ primary mission was
to prevent terrorism within the U.S., reduce America’s vulnerability to terrorism, and
minimize the damage and assist in the recovery of attacks that did occur. The White
House’s (2002a) National Homeland Security Strategy addressed the threat of terrorism
to the U.S. The intent was to “mobilize and organize the Nation to secure the U.S.
homeland from terrorist attacks.” Acknowledging that American democracy was rooted in
the precepts of federalism, the challenge was to develop interconnected and
complementary systems. The national strategy required a national effort. Homeland
security was “a concerted national effort to prevent terrorist attacks within the United
States, reduce America’s vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the damage and recover
from attacks that do occur.” (White House, 2002a, p.2)
All-hazards approach to homeland security. The events of Hurricane Katrina
in the summer of 2005 demonstrated that the nation was again not prepared for
twentyfirst century threats. As was the case of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks,
the question was raised; how should the nation prepare for future threats? Congressional
committees were empaneled, strategies were issued, legislation was passed and enacted,
and agencies were restructured to prepare the nation for future threats including natural
disasters (A Failure of Initiative, 2006; Chertoff, 2008; Post-Katrina Emergency Reform
Act of 2006, P.L. 109-295; S. Rep. No. 109-322, 2006; U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, 2008a; White House, Executive Office of the President, 2006, 2007).
The White House’s (2007) National Strategy for Homeland Security maintained
that the nation’s understanding of homeland security must adapt to new realities and
threats. Hurricane Katrina was a reminder that threats came not only from terrorism, but
also from nature. The nation must improve its all-hazards response and recovery
capabilities. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2008a) applied an all-hazards
approach to homeland security predicated on a culture of preparedness and risk
management. All-hazards events were incidents that ranged from accidents and natural
disasters to actual or potential terrorist attacks (U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
2008b). Homeland security was a unified national effort to prevent and deter terrorist
attacks, protect and respond to hazards, and to secure the national borders (U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, 2008a).
Homeland security was national security. The 2010 National Security Strategy
presumed a whole of government approach to national security – an approach that
balanced and integrated defense, diplomacy, economic, and homeland security policy.
Homeland security was “a seamless coordination among federal, state, and local
governments to prevent, protect against and respond to threats and natural disasters”
(White House, 2010, p.2). To improve national preparedness, the nation must integrate
its domestic all-hazards planning and build key capabilities to respond to emergencies
(White House, 2010). National preparedness was “a secure and resilient Nation with the
capabilities required across the whole community to prevent, protect against, mitigate,
respond to, and recover from the threats and hazards that pose the greatest risks” (U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, 2011b, p.1).
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2014a) maintained that the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, Hurricane Sandy in 2012, and the Boston Marathon
bombing in 2013 illustrated the “evolving” homeland security threat and hazard
landscape. DHS’ homeland security vision was “a homeland that is safe, secure, and
resilient against terrorism and other hazards, where American interests, aspirations, and
way of life can thrive” (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2014b, p.14).
Homeland security perceptions. Bellavita (2008) maintained that the “truth”
about homeland security might be derived from a correspondence view of the truth or a
pragmatic view of the truth. A correspondence view of the truth was the objective reality
one might derive by discovering what people actually did when they claimed to have
done homeland security. A pragmatic view of the truth could be represented by
something a fire chief said: “There are lots of definitions, and they will be activated at
different times and we each have different roles to play in different scenarios” (Bellavita,
2008, p.2). Identifying the different times, roles, and scenarios that triggered homeland
security definitions might produce the pragmatic view of the truth about homeland
security.
Bellavita (2008) offered seven defensible definitions of homeland security. Each
was based upon a correspondence view of the truth –assertions about what homeland
security emphasized or ought to have emphasized: terrorism, all-hazards, terrorism and
catastrophes, jurisdictional hazards, meta-hazards, national security, and security über
alles. Uber alles is German for a superlative example of a kind or a class (Merriam
Webster, 2011). Metaphorically, the definitions represented sets of interests in the
homeland security ecosystem.
The terrorism definition was enshrined in the 2002 National Homeland Security
Strategy. Homeland security was “a concerted national effort to prevent terrorist attacks
within the United States, reduce America’s vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the
damage and recover from attacks that do occur.” (White House, 2002a, p.3) The
allhazards definition maintained that the skills, equipment, and knowledge needed to
respond to most emergencies would also come into play when people were needed to
respond to terrorism. The terrorism and catastrophes definition held that homeland
security was about preventing terrorism and mitigating disasters.
The jurisdictional hazards definition held that homeland security meant something
different in each jurisdiction. The focus was on how jurisdictions actually treated
homeland security rather than how they defined homeland security. The meta-hazards
definition held that homeland security could be about practically anything. Jurisdictional
hazards were opposite meta-hazards on the homeland security ecosystem continuum. The
former was tailored to individual jurisdictions. The latter focused on hazards that affected
everyone in the nation. Accordingly, homeland security could be a national effort to
prevent or mitigate any social trend or threat that could disrupt the long term stability of
the American way of life. The national security definition held that homeland security
was an element of national security that worked with other instruments of national power
to protect the sovereignty, territory, domestic population, and critical infrastructure of the
U.S. against threats and aggression. The über alles definition suggested that homeland
security was about justifying government efforts to curtail civil liberties (Bellavita, 2008).
Bellavita (2008) found that law enforcement officials favored the terrorism
definition. Emergency managers and fire service officers preferred the all hazards
definition. People who worked for federal agencies chose the terrorism and major
catastrophes definition. DOD saw homeland security as something that civilians did.
The community that selected the national security definition was small but growing.
There were few proponents of the jurisdictional, meta- hazards, and über alles
definitions. If your colleagues believed homeland security was about terrorism, all
hazards, or other things, then that was your “truth.” Those truths created semantic
stovepipes that insisted on one worldview. People who were involved with homeland
security should have talked to each other about those issues to dissolve stovepipes. Such
conversations would evolve the homeland security ecosystem.
Education for the new national calling. McIntyre (2002) argued that homeland
security was the most complex challenge ever undertaken by the U.S. government. The
nation, however, had no idea what to do to prepare for, recognize, or reverse the threat. A
progressive program of professional education in homeland security was essential. At a
minimum, a common curriculum that addressed modern terrorist threats and identified the
national resources available to counter those threats was necessary. U.S. colleges
responded to the call for academic programs that would provide professionals with the
knowledge and skills to meet the nation’s homeland security educational requirements
(Carnevale, 2005; Center for Homeland Defense and Security, 2008, 2011; Charting a
Course for Homeland Security Strategic Studies Conference, 2005; Committee on
Educational Paradigms for Homeland Security, 2005; Gearon, 2011; National Research
Council, 2005; Noftsinger, Newbold, & Wheeler, 2007; Winegar, 2008).
Foundations. Homeland security education began as an inquiry into the
preparedness for the threat of weapons of mass destruction. The events of the terrorist
attack on the World Trade Center in New York City in 1993 and other major terrorist
attacks left the U.S. with the sense that the homeland was vulnerable to attack and the
nation was unprepared (Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for
Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, 1999, 2000; President’s Commission
on Critical Infrastructure Protection, 1997; U.S. Commission on National Security/21st
Century, 2001; White House Commission on Aviation Security, 1997). In 1998, the DOJ
established the Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP) to enhance domestic
preparedness capacity within state and local governments to assure effective response to
weapons of mass destruction incidents. ODP asked: Who should be trained? What tasks
should they be trained to perform? Which training instruction/delivery methods and
training sites should be paired with which tasks to maximize success in training? What
methods are most capable of evaluating competency and performance upon completion of
training? What gaps need to be remedied in existing training? (Pelfrey et al., 2002).
ODP identified 10 key disciplines and the tasks that they would need to
accomplish to respond to weapons of mass destruction incidents. The disciplines
included: emergency medical services, emergency management agency, fire,
governmental administration, health care, hazardous materials, law enforcement, public
health, public safety communications, and public works. ODP identified 152 tasks that
were necessary prior to, during, and after an incident involving weapons of mass
destruction. The majority of the tasks fell into the lower half of the cognitive domain and
32 of the tasks were complex and operated at the higher levels of the cognitive domain
(Pelfrey et al., 2002). Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, and Krathwohl (1956) classified
learning objectives into three domains: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. The
cognitive domain included, in progressive order, knowledge, comprehension, application,
analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.
ODP developed training programs to address tasks that fell in the lower order
cognitive domain. In addition, the office helped establish CHDS to provide graduate
level education for select members of the homeland security enterprise. The terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001 accelerated the inquiry into the preparedness for the threat
of weapons of mass destruction and the emergence of the homeland security discipline.
CHDS became the nation’s homeland security education leader, homeland security
education associations emerged, homeland security education conferences and workshops
proliferated, and over 290 colleges established over 400 homeland security programs
(Center for Homeland Defense and Security,2014b, 2014c, 2014d; Pelfrey et al., 2002).
Evolution of homeland security higher education. CHDS was established in
April 2002 to strengthen the national security of the U.S. by providing evidence-based
graduate level educational programs and services that met the leadership needs of
organizations responsible for homeland defense and security. The center was housed at
the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, California. CHDS’ programs and resources
included a masters’ degree program, an executive leaders program, executive education
seminars, a fusion center leaders program, self-study courses, the Homeland Security
Digital Library, the Homeland Security Affairs journal, and the University and Agency
Partnership Initiative (Center for Homeland Defense and Security, 2014a).
Bellavita and Gordon (2006) provided an insider’s view of CHDS. Bellavita was
the director and Gordon the associate director of academic programs. They described
how particular elements were selected from the uncertainty that was homeland security to
fashion an evolving homeland security curriculum in in their Introduction to Homeland
Security course. Homeland security was in a pre-paradigm stage. Colleges, agencies,
and textbooks conceptualized homeland security education in at least 51 different ways
(Appendix B). While they did not know enough about homeland security to say with
certainty which subjects should be addressed, Bellavita and Gordon knew that homeland
security included an understanding of terrorism, homeland security laws and strategies,
and homeland security programs. The Introduction to Homeland Security course was
predicated upon 12 broad homeland security leader competency domains (Appendix C)
and a constructed narrative. The narrative held that homeland security leaders operated in
a domain categorized by problems and opportunities. The problems, opportunities,
solutions and visions existed within a multidimensional, social, political, and technical
environment that influenced what constituted effective action.
CHDS’ graduate program was evaluated extensively both internally and
externally. The initial graduate curriculum was developed by ODP and the Naval Post
Graduate School from the university’s curricula and by creating other courses where gaps
occurred (Appendix D). Each course was assessed continuously for relevance and value
of course content. End of course evaluations showed course relevance and overlap and
resulted in the replacement of courses and modification of others (Pelfrey, 2013; Pelfrey
& Pelfrey, 2009). CHDS’ current graduate curriculum was available on the center’s
website (Appendix E) (Center for Homeland Defense and Security, n.d.).
Ryan (2009) concluded that CHDS had successfully created an effective masters’
degree in security studies (homeland security). The graduate program incorporated what
Haworth and Conrad (1997) referred to as five emblems of a quality program in higher
education: diverse and engaged participants; adequate resources and support; interactive
teaching and learning; connected program requirements; and a participatory culture.
CHDS was a model community of learners. Demonstrable contributions to the discipline
of homeland security were evidenced by students’ white papers, service on subject matter
expert panels and visiting fellows, and thesis that revealed enthusiasm for reframing
homeland security efforts. The graduate program, however, was limited to a small cadre
of homeland security leaders from federal, state, local, and tribal governments. As of
May 2014, 590 students graduated from the graduate program (H. Issvoran, personal
communication, May 19, 2014). Due to congressional constraints, members of the
private sector were not eligible to attend the CHDS graduate program. The relatively
small number of participants and exclusion of the private sector created an educational
gap and parallel demand for alternative opportunities at public and private homeland
security educational institutions (Center for Homeland Defense and Security, 2008;
Congressional Budget Office, 2004).
The University Agency Partnership Initiative (UAPI) was established in 2005 to
share CHDS’ resources with the nation’s academic institutions to build national homeland
security preparedness through education. UAPI hosted educational summits and
workshops and maintained a member subscribed website that provided members with
access to UAPI course materials. In 2009, a UAPI-facilitated workshop produced
recommendations (Appendix F) for undergraduate homeland security curricula. UAPI
membership grew to over 1,200 academic partners from over 330 colleges and agencies
who shared their curricula and expertise with the center and its partners (Center for
Homeland Defense and Security, 2014a, 2014b, 2014d). UAPI Director, Dr. Stanley
Supinski noted that UAPI reached out to its members via its website forum and that many
of its “partners have not adopted our model, but our materials.” (S. Supinski, personal
communication, October 31, 2013) UAPI’s website originated as a forum on the CHDS
website and was converted to its own Internet domain in December 2009 and has had
over 168,000 site visits (W. Colie, personal communication, June 10, 2014). In addition
to UAPI initiatives, CHDS has capitalized on what it referred to as the multiplier-effect:
graduates that go on to spread the homeland security message and practice to peers to
develop a cadre of professionals. Since the inception of CHDS, at least 90 graduates
have taught homeland security courses at over 85 different institutions at the
undergraduate and graduate levels as well as directing training classes (Center for
Homeland Defense and Security, 2013).
In 2003, U.S. Northern Command established the Homeland Security and Defense
Education Consortium to promote education that supported its bifurcated mission. The
unified combatant command was established in the wake of September 11, 2001 to
defend the homeland and to provide support to civil authorities. The consortium evolved
into a network of homeland security academic institutions and organizations that
promoted education that would enhance members’ understanding of each other’s roles,
responsibilities, and capabilities. The consortium sponsored the HS Curriculum
Workshop, the Workshop on National Needs, and the Homeland Security and Academic
Environment study. In 2007, the consortium’s membership exceeded 250 colleges and
other agencies (Homeland Security and Defense Education Consortium, 2006; Homeland
Security and Defense Education Consortium Association, 2009a; Robinson, 2006).
The HS Curriculum Workshop explored homeland security graduate content
options and offered recommendations for a graduate program (Appendix G) (Homeland
Security and Defense Education Consortium, 2005). The Homeland Security and
Academic Environment study found that scholars had not reached consensus on what
homeland security was or what constituted a homeland security course. The homeland
security academic discipline was an evolving ungoverned environment of numerous
programs claiming to prepare students for various positions of responsibility. Colleges
were augmenting existing courses and launching entire programs around security,
defense, and terrorism related issues to attract federal funding, recruit new students, and
prepare graduates for careers in homeland security. Some schools focused on research
while others concentrated on degree granting programs and certificates. Before there
would be agreement and recognition of homeland security as an academic undertaking,
the discipline must be accepted as a profession (Rollins & Rowan, 2007).
The Workshop on National Needs asked prospective homeland security employers
what they expected to gain from hiring people with graduate degrees in homeland
security. Participants included representatives from federal, state, and local government
and private industry. The single most common desired skill for employees in the
homeland security field, was the “ability to read large amounts of material, draw logical
conclusions, communicate those conclusions clearly and concisely in writing and orally”
(Homeland Security and Defense Education Consortium & Texas A&M
University, 2007, pp. 2-3). The single most desired employee quality was “integrity.” The
single most desired knowledge for employees was knowledge of existing policy as well
as how to work with state and local agencies. Desirable skills included: core knowledge,
skills, and abilities and discipline specific knowledge (Homeland Security and Defense
Education Consortium & Texas A&M University, 2007).
In 2007, the Homeland Security and Defense Education Consortium decided that
the organization had grown beyond the original scope of Northern Command’s intent and
that it would be more appropriate to convert to a member-run organization. In 2008, the
Homeland Security and Defense Education Consortium Association was established to
provide a coordinating body that might help develop the homeland security academic
community. The association’s activities included model curricula, accreditation, and
professional development initiatives. In 2009, the association drafted lists of core
competencies for undergraduate (Appendix H) and graduate level programs (Appendix I)
as part of its accreditation program initiatives (Homeland Security and Defense Education
Consortium Association, 2009b, 2009c).
The National Research Council’s Committee on Educational Paradigms for
Homeland Security (2005) found that the extreme and uncertain nature of homeland
security required an educational counterpart with an equally broad, multidisciplinary, and
evolving mandate. Homeland security educational programs content ranged from
technical prevention to workforce skills development to social understanding. Given the
breadth of homeland security, the wide range of homeland security educational programs
was appropriate. One theme, however, stood out. Nearly all aspects of homeland
security gravitated toward the issue of complex threats and how to manage them. The
theme, risk management, might serve as an organizing framework for homeland security
education. Homeland security was not a discipline—at least not in the traditional sense.
It was an area to which many academic specialties could be applied, but one that required
core knowledge in order for the application to occur intelligently. Core knowledge was
recommended for anyone planning a career in the homeland security enterprise.
However, no bachelor degree in homeland security per se should be offered. Instead, core
coursework should be offered and recognized as a minor, concentration, or certificate.
The Charting a Course for Homeland Security Strategic Studies Conference
(2004) maintained that higher education homeland security education curricula should
contain core elements (Appendix J) that would help achieve homeland security readiness
by producing knowledgeable and highly effective executives. Curricula should: align
with homeland and national security; encompass interdisciplinary and global
perspectives; emphasize integration; meet multiple stakeholder needs; and promote
innovation. The greatest peril facing homeland security education might be the
combination of unformed common culture and outside entities following their own
instincts and agendas in the absence of appropriate central guidance, and the proliferation
of such outside programs.
In 2008, DHS’ Transportation Security Administration partnered with higher
education institutions to provide its employees with the opportunity to earn an agency
certificate of achievement in homeland security and to continue on to earn an associate
degree in homeland security or related field. The agency envisioned a program that
provided continuing education and career development of its employees by equipping
them with critical thinking skills that aligned with the organization’s mission and values.
The program has since expanded to 87 college partners and all 50 states (Transportation
Security Administration, 2013a, 2013b).
In 2008, the California State University Council for Emergency Management and
Homeland Security was established as a collaborative network of state colleges, K-12
education, government, and non-governmental organizations. The network facilitated
strategic partnerships in the promotion of multidisciplinary academic approaches and
solutions in education and research development in emergency management, homeland
security, and cyber security (California State University, Council for Emergency
Management and Homeland Security, 2012).
In 2013, the International Society for Preparedness, Resilience, and Security was
established to facilitate trans-disciplinary collaboration between academics, policy
makers, and practitioners that contributed to the homeland security, civil security, and
public enterprise. The global organization focused on preparedness, mitigation,
emergency management, security, resiliency, and related public sector education and
training initiatives and higher education. Initial goals included setting education
standards and supporting accreditation in higher educational programs for homeland
security and similarly named programs. The organization had over 490 members that
represent 13 nations (International Society for Preparedness, Resilience, and Security,
2013; J. Ramsay, personal communication, April 1, 2014).
Renda-Tanali (2012) noted, notwithstanding the Homeland Security and Defense
Education Consortium Association’ accreditation initiatives, no consensus on what
constituted a common body of homeland security knowledge existed. No professional
organization took charge of, or offered a vetted set of program-level outcomes. One
reason for the lack of consensus was the complex, dynamic, multidisciplinary, and
interdisciplinary nature of homeland security. She also noted movements for the fields of
homeland security and emergency management to come together and particularly the
consortium’s plans to introduce a homeland security track to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency’s (FEMA) Emergency Management Institute.
Multiple disciplines. Supinski (2011, 2012, 2014) held that academia responded
to the events of September 11, 2001 by developing what many viewed as a new academic
discipline. Homeland security was a combination of three existing areas: emergency
management, public administration, and national security affairs. The majority of
homeland security programs were linked to three primary content areas: criminal justice,
emergency management, and public administration, but also resided in political science,
history, psychology, public health, law, and other academic departments. Homeland
security academics and operations were inter and multidisciplinary in nature and made
for exciting times in terms of research and education. Kiltz (2009, 2011) argued that the
success of the homeland security enterprise was dependent on its ability to work
collaboratively across disciplines to prepare homeland security and emergency
management professionals and to conduct research that enhanced our understanding of
the complexity of the homeland security enterprise. Homeland security education
curricula must be multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary, include core competencies including
emergency management, and help develop public servants with a public service ethos and
citizens who embodied civic virtues.
Smith (2005) evaluated undergraduate and graduate homeland security syllabi.
He found numerous concepts, threads, and topics that made it difficult to accurately
construct one inclusive definition of homeland security. There was little agreement about
what constituted homeland security. Topical coverage seemed to be heavily grounded in
a variety of disciplines that suggested an interdisciplinary focus for many courses. The
syllabi suggested that homeland security was a system of emergency preparedness that
required military and civilian response to perceived, potential, or eminent threats against
U.S. citizens and interest at home.
Drabek (2007) argued that homeland security and emergency management would
be constrained by cultural differences, governmental policies, and disaster events.
Clement (2011) found that there was no widely-accepted body of emergency
management-homeland security knowledge put forward by the academic community.
McCreight (2009, 2011) argued that emergency management and homeland security
professionals were operational cousins. However, core emergency management and
homeland security curriculum, offered no consensus about what mattered. Neither DHS
nor any professional association agreed upon a common benchmark standard for
collegiate education. Homeland security and emergency management needed all hazards
educational programs aimed at enhancing terrorism prevention, preparedness, and
response. Moreover, without a benchmark standard in emergency management and
homeland security the discipline of public administration becomes even “murkier” as
public policy matters diffuse into ambiguous directions.
Steward and Vocino (2013) found that homeland security and emergency
management were important topics within the field of public administration. Kettl (2003,
2007) argued that homeland security was fundamentally about the ageless problem of
coordinating administrative work. Coordination was both the diagnosis of homeland
security problems and the diagnosis of its failures. Homeland security required
contingent coordination, “a sophisticated approach that builds on existing administrative
structures and policy capacity but which pulls them together, effectively, when they are
needed, as they are needed” (Kettl, 2003, p.254). Jones and Givens (2011) argued that
homeland security was integrated across a range of policies and programs within a highly
decentralized and intergovernmental context. Public Administration was at “the core of
homeland security being essential for the success of the many professional practices
involved” (p.69) suggesting that graduate-level public administration and public policy
degrees in homeland security would be offered in the future.
Pelfrey and Pelfrey (2009) found that homeland security like public
administration was striving to go beyond professional training by establishing and
encompassing a growing body of knowledge, linking that body of knowledge to critical
inquiry, and extending that body of knowledge through research. Similarly, Plant,
Armino, and Thompson (2011) found that homeland security, like public administration
was striving to find a way to relate theory to practice, and education to professional
identity. They offered Pennsylvania State University’s Intercollegiate Masters in
Professional Studies in Homeland Security as a balance of common and specific subject
matter that corresponded to homeland security’s need to evolve as a loosely coupled but
emergent procession. The program assumed a matrix approach to homeland security
education that included concentrations in: management, public health, geospatial
intelligence, computer and network security, information security and forensics, and
agricultural biosecurity.
Louden (2007) maintained that the police typically play a leading role during
disasters. Criminal justice was the ultimate multidisciplinary discipline that drew from
emergency management, political science, public health, public management, psychology,
and sociology. Williams, McShane, and Karson (2007) maintained that homeland security
represented a “profound and fundamental change” in the social, legal, and political
landscape (p.165). Criminal justice curriculum complete with security management,
organizational theory, public administration, international justice, and existing core
curricula and particularly statistical and data analysis could inform and educate homeland
security practitioners as well as legislators, administrators, and policy makers. Criminal
justice programs will actively develop a security sub-discipline to meet homeland
security’s academic requirements. Ryan and Klinger (2012), however, found that the
discipline of homeland security had not yet included input from existing fields such as
criminal justice, political science, and public administration. In developing Pace
University’s graduate homeland security curricula, they built upon CHDS curricula by
focusing on leadership development and the selection of courses that would strengthen
and develop critical thinking by public safety officers and homeland security leaders.
Church (2008) argued that homeland defense and homeland security were
dependent on unity of effort. Multiple agencies, public and private, must transcend
jurisdictional boundaries to defend and secure the homeland. Homeland defense and
homeland security required an interdisciplinary educational model to advance the
elements of unity of effort and collaborative capacity. The CHDS cohort model should be
applied in DOD professional military education, fire and law enforcement academies,
Department of State training, and other educational forums to fill the void created from a
lack of a National Security University. UAPI and HSDECA would provide sample
curricula and accreditation potential to the educational programs.
Ramsay, Cutrer, and Raffel (2010) maintained that the lack of consistent core
homeland security curricula was attributable, at least in part, to a lack of a professional
association that could offer a vetted set of program-level student learning outcomes and
an accrediting organization to perform program accreditation. Using the Delphi method,
they developed and tested a consensus set of core academic areas that could be used to
represent the breadth of the homeland security enterprise in an undergraduate curriculum
and to develop and examine a consensus set of educational objectives and program
learning outcomes. Study participants were homeland security professionals with
educational and professional credentials in a variety of areas involving homeland security.
The participants identified three educational objectives (Appendix K), six general
program-level outcomes (Appendix L), and eight core academic areas and student
learning objectives (Appendix M). However, the study did not reflect all operational
areas of homeland security. Therefore, the degree to which the outcomes identified were
representative of the skills, knowledge, and behaviors practitioners need to have to
function appropriately would need to be demonstrated. Ramsay (2013) maintained that if
homeland security evolves the way medicine, nursing, law, and engineering have, a formal
and widely understood and adopted accreditation mechanism would provide significant
benefits to quality control, legitimacy and professionalism.
Travis and Bradshaw (2012) used the Delphi method to identify, validate, and
prioritize appropriate subject areas for baccalaureate curricula in homeland security.
Study participants were directors of homeland security at the state, province, and
territorial level. Fourteen major content areas were identified and eight were selected as
being important enough to be considered for inclusion in homeland security curricula.
Thirteen subjects were identified from the major content areas as suitable for workable
curricula with 90% of all participants agreeing that curricula should focus on all-threats
and all-hazards (Appendix O).
Ramirez and Riox (2012) surveyed over 5,000 DHS employees from Customs and
Border Protection, Transportation Security Administration, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, and Citizenship and Immigration Services nationwide as to what they
believed were relevant subjects and courses in homeland security college curricula.
According to DHS respondents, Terrorism and Fundamentals of Homeland Security
ranked as the two most important courses for homeland security curricula. Five of the
next six ranked courses were related to general education and included Critical
Thinking/Analytical Skills, Ethics, Technical Writing, English Composition, and
Informational and Oral Communications. Analysis of the data by agency pointed to some
differences in the importance of subjects for an undergraduate education in homeland
security which could relate to the responsibilities of the agency. For example, Border
Protection agents indicated that Spanish was the most important subject. The assessment
indicated that homeland security curricula should include general education, homeland
security operations and procedures, law, and disaster response and mitigation.
Multiple approaches. Alexander and Johnson (2009) argued that, in the
postSeptember 11, 2001 era, the U.S. government needed higher caliber homeland
security and intelligence professionals. Government and private institutions that provided
undergraduate, graduate, and professional training did not provide the requisite
thoroughness and tailored academic exposure. They proposed a Homeland Security
Intelligence Academy that would produce tier-one education and training for future
homeland security and intelligence-focused professionals. Moore, Hatzadony, Cronin,
and Breckenridge (2010) argued that small private liberal arts colleges were ideal
environments to educate security and intelligence professionals. The colleges had strong
commitments to teaching, low student-to-faculty ratios, and greater ease for student
interactions with faculty. Liberal arts educated students trained their minds to think
critically and gained a holistic understanding of the world. Notre Dame College’s
Bachelors of Arts in History with an Intelligence Studies Emphasis and Masters of Art in
Security Policy Studies were exemplars of career-oriented academic programs that
prepared students for national security positions. The undergraduate curriculum was
designed to teach students basic skills needed to compete successfully for entry-level
intelligence positions. Intelligence practitioners were asked what skills a prospective
intelligence analysis should possess. The universal response emphasized good critical
thinking, reasoning, analytical abilities, communication skills, and good computer skills.
Repeatedly, practitioners opted for a solid liberal arts education as the foundation for
preparing future analysts. The graduate curriculum was predicated on the finding that
staff office level positions required strategically-oriented and policy focused instruction.
Collier (2012) offered Eastern Kentucky University’s experience in developing its
undergraduate homeland security curriculum as a guide for developing a homeland
security program. One of the biggest challenges in developing a new academic program
was balancing new curriculum content with the expertise of existing and anticipated new
faculty. The university used the Center for Homeland Defense and Security (2009) model
undergraduate curriculum, benchmarked other undergraduate homeland security
programs, and worked with the Homeland Defense and Security Consortium Association
as it worked to become the specialized accrediting body for homeland security academic
programs. In 2007, the university rolled out its Bachelors of Science in Homeland
Security that balanced its curriculum with the capabilities of existing faculty. New
faculty members with national security policy/intelligence and state/federal emergency
management backgrounds were hired and provided fresh experiences to a review of the
curriculum. In 2009, the undergraduate curriculum (Appendix N) was revised to include
four new courses and seven new supporting courses.
Persell and Speraw (2008) concluded that homeland security nursing was a new
and necessary role in nursing. Nurse leaders who manage and respond to worldwide
mass casualty incidents must look to new and innovative methods of education and
training if they are to prepare and execute comprehensive plans for major public health
emergencies. They offered the University of Tennessee at Knoxville’s graduate degree in
nursing with a concentration in homeland security as an opportunity to garner the
requisite expertise to provide such care. The degrees built upon the Columbia University
School of Nursing Center for Health Policy’s (2001) and the International Nursing
Coalition for Mass Casualty Education’s (2003) public health competencies for nurses
responding to mass casualty incidents. The homeland security curricula included courses
in homeland security threats, planning, ethics, management, and leadership and how they
related to nursing (University of Tennessee at Knoxville, 2014).
Polson, Persyn, and Cupp (2010) offered the development of the Kansas State
University and U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Homeland Security
Graduate program as an aid to colleges considering the development of
regionallyresponsive homeland security graduate programs. Program development was
threefold.
First, the institutions identified the Homeland Security and Defense Education
Consortium’s content area recommendations (Appendix G) and DOD’s Homeland
security competencies (Appendix P) as predicates for their program. Second, the
institutions conducted a Regional Homeland Security Educational Needs Analysis
Workshop to collect data that could help shape the development of a viable homeland
security graduate program designed to serve the diverse needs of homeland security
professionals throughout the Midwest. The workshop identified 15 discrete
regiondefined core competencies that highlighted the need for an interdisciplinary
program to address each of those diverse competencies. Third, the results were correlated
with the Homeland Security and Defense Education Consortium’s content area
recommendations and DOD’s Homeland security competencies (Appendix Q). Core
courses were defined to address the foundational and interdisciplinary program objectives
that focused on:
Foundations of Homeland Security, Homeland Threats, Organizations amid Crisis,
Homeland Security Processes and Management, and Homeland Security in Practice.
Preston, Armstrong, and McCoy (2010) offered the development of Colorado
Technical University’s Doctor of Management with a Concentration in Homeland
Security curriculum as a means to change the elusive area of homeland security from
what it is today to a mature, evolved presence not only in the U.S. but around the globe.
The development process comprised a review of CHDS’ graduate curriculum and the
assembling of an advisory board of homeland security subject matters experts. The
advisory board found that homeland security practitioner concerns included: poor intra
and interagency communication, lack of structure, inadequate coordination of plans prior
to crisis, silos, limited external planning, and confusion over who was in charge in
varying situations. The advisory board developed a homeland security doctoral
curriculum that would help develop trans-organizational solutions and skill sets necessary
for large-scale interventions for seemingly unsolvable problems. The curriculum, four
homeland security courses and eight management courses with an emphasis on homeland
security (Appendix R), was designed for a cohort construct that would share perspectives
and approaches and ultimately help solve the unsolvable problems. The cohort construct
and the blending of many theoretical fields facilitated authentic practitioner and
researcher interaction.
Ways forward. Homeland security higher educational programs traversed
numerous disciplines at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Still, the question
remained what should higher education do to prepare students for homeland security.
Palin (2010), Pelfrey and Kelley (2013), Collier (2013), CHDS Futures Advisory
Committee (2013), U.S. Department of Homeland Security Academic Advisory Council
(2012, 2013, 2014a, 2014b), and McCreight (2014) offered ways forward for homeland
security higher education.
Palin (2010) maintained that homeland security academic programs should focus
on the properties of change. As a new or “at least a potential discipline,” homeland
security should avoid Newtonian precepts of mechanistic cause and effect (p.9).
Homeland security should develop an Aristotelian framework for engaging the reality of
change. The framework combines different mindsets and skillsets to identify what we
know about what changes and what does not change to begin to observe reality as a
whole. Testing and refining this framework is essential to any meaningful profession of
homeland security:
Did our action produce a result consistent with our purpose? Did we understand
our purpose to sufficiently calibrate it with what we know about change and
changelessness, about material and formal reality? Was our choice of action
wellsuited to reality? Did we nudge emerging reality in our desired direction or
did we unleash an intended consequence that upended our purpose? (Palin, 2010,
p.10)
Learning to ask these questions may be the most important aspect of academic
preparation for homeland security.
Pelfrey and Kelley (2013) argued that homeland security education raised the
nation’s potential for being prepared. “Education tends to enhance the performance of
strategic, complex cognitive tasks, such as planning, coordination, and achievement of
consensus” (p.2). They asked graduates and faculty of CHDS’ master’s program and
homeland security subject matter experts five fundamental questions in the context of an
overarching goal of national preparedness. Who should be the consumers of homeland
security education? What is the effect of homeland security education? What learning
objectives and capabilities should be the foundation of homeland security education?
What courses and curricula best serve as vehicles for educating the appropriate students
on the appropriate objectives and capabilities? Are established, more mature, parallel
disciplines better capable of educating students in the appropriate capabilities?
Pelfrey and Kelley (2013) found that the most appropriate students for homeland
security education were practitioners with leadership and administrative responsibilities.
The most appropriate tier of education was at the first graduate level. Homeland security
education could help prepare professionals to operate in ambiguous environments and to
engage in strategic collaboration and critical thinking. There was little agreement on
what courses/curricula best served the needs of homeland security professionals.
Established programs in other fields and disciplines did not offer the requisite objectives
and capabilities of homeland security education. Ways forward for homeland security
education included: graduate education that emphasized strategic collaboration, critical
thinking, and the ability to operate in ambiguous environments; assessing the impact of
homeland security education; disseminating the results to colleges with recommendations
of smart practices; and engaging existing disciplines to adopt homeland security issues in
their research and graduate education (Pelfrey & Kelley, 2013).
Collier (2013) argued that despite the lack of a consistent definition of homeland
security (Reese, 2013), the community of homeland security educators had made progress
toward establishing undergraduate and graduate curriculum standards. The Center for
Homeland Defense and Security’s (2009) model undergraduate homeland security
curriculum, and the Homeland Security and Defense Consortium Association’s
(2009b, 2009c) drafts of specialized accreditation standards for graduate and
undergraduate homeland security programs revealed a growing consensus of both the
academic and professional communities. It was “probably time to recognize that the
most recent approaches to undergraduate teaching and learning ensure graduates have the
substantive knowledge and professional skills which were in the past mainly developed in
graduate programs” (Collier, 2013, para. 1).
The Center for Homeland Defense and Security Futures Advisory Committee
(2013) queried the CHDS “family” and other homeland security professionals with
respect to their views as to homeland security threats and challenges that were either new
or emerging challenges or existing challenges that would persist. Respondents identified
18 critical trends within the homeland security enterprise (Appendix S). Respondents
also identified three process-related issues having to do with skill sets needed for higher
education: leadership development and strategy/problem solving; critical thinking,
analytical skills, and higher level reasoning; and exposure to people from other
disciplines.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2008a, 2014a) maintained that the
department did not carry out the homeland security mission alone. Homeland security
depended upon all levels of government, the private sector, academia, and the general
public working together collaboratively. The DHS Homeland Security Academic
Advisory Council (HSAAC) was established in March, 2012 to provide advice and
recommendations to DHS on matters related to homeland security and the academic
community. The U.S. Homeland Security Academic Advisory Council (2012, 2013)
recommended that: DHS and CHDS establish a definition of homeland security academic
programs to serve as a guide for program development; CHDS should convene a
workshop to review and update the suggested graduate curriculum; and CHDS, DHS, and
the Transportation Security Administration should develop outlines for certificate,
associate, and bachelors programs that provided clear pathways for progressive
movement from certificate to associate to bachelors’ degree. HSAAC noted that the DHS
National Study of Homeland Security Curricula was underway.
The DHS Office of Academic Engagement reported that it was working across the
department and with a number of partners including FEMA and CHDS to compile
foundational information for the National Study of Homeland Security Curricula. They
were developing the study in conjunction with the creation of the National Training and
Education System the objectives of which were to: improve the knowledge and core
capabilities of homeland security professionals; build and sustain a community of
practice for homeland security training and education; and establish a defined career path
with associated training and education requirements for emergency management
professionals (L. Kielsmeirer personal communication, April 26, 2014).
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security Academic Advisory Council (2014a)
recommended that DHS should consider new training partnerships between DHS and
academic organizations that provide participants the opportunity to earn academic credit
for homeland security coursework. DHS should explore opportunities to leverage an
academic credit-based professional education model, such as the DOD's Defense Activity
for Non-Traditional Education Support, to provide department employees with access to
continuing education. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security Academic Advisory
Council (2014b) reported that DHS was progressing on its recommendations related to:
prioritizing and promoting DHS research projects; expanding DHS cooperation with
DOD academic schools; support of international education initiatives; campus resilience;
recruiting student interns and veterans to DHS and particularly cyber security positions;
and partnering with academics to build a pipeline of diverse students in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics.
McCreight (2014) found that homeland security was a shared enterprise between
Washington, the 50 states, and major U.S. cities. The DHS role in the enterprise did not
afford the department the authority and oversight to help shape curriculum. Academia
was largely on its own and must look to itself for sensible solutions. He called for a
college and university conclave that would upgrade existing homeland security curricula;
revise and update relevant textbooks; identify key topics and issues; reach agreement on
core courses; examine DHS functional issues and translate them into viable course
materials; discuss skill sets deemed essential for successful performance in homeland
security; and discuss various simulation and exercise options for possible classroom use.
Recommendations for homeland security higher education ranged from
undergraduate to graduate degrees and certificates that were multidisciplinary and/or
interdisciplinary and emphasized terrorism, strategic collaboration, risk management,
critical thinking, preparedness, and numerous others. There was, however, little
agreement about what homeland security was or how to best prepare college students for
homeland security. There was little in the way of substantive change since Rollins and
Rowan (2007) found that the homeland security academic discipline was an evolving
ungoverned environment of numerous programs claiming to prepare students for various
positions of responsibility. The review of the literature raised the question, how do
college homeland security curricula prepare students for homeland security currently?
Before homeland security higher education moves forward, there is a need to assess what
is being taught in U.S. colleges’ homeland security programs.
Chapter Summary
The review of the literature chronicled the emergence of the homeland security
enterprise and higher education’s efforts to prepare students for roles in the enterprise.
Homeland security was a wicked problem that was produced by events that initiated and
sustained multiple issue-attention cycles. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and
the events of Hurricane Katrina in the summer of 2005 demonstrated that the nation was
not prepared for twenty-first century threats. The U.S. government attempted to bind the
evolving intentional, natural, and accidental threats of the twenty-first century into
effective homeland security policies. The result was at least eight different U.S.
government definitions of homeland security (Appendix A) that approached different
threats with distinct policies. The U.S. government did not, however, have a consensus or
common definition of homeland security.
Bellavita (2008) offered seven defensible definitions of homeland security based
upon a correspondence view of the truth –assertions about what homeland security
emphasized or ought to have emphasized: terrorism, all-hazards, terrorism and
catastrophes, jurisdictional hazards, meta-hazards, national security, and security über
alles. Law enforcement officials favored the terrorism definition. Emergency managers
and fire service officers preferred the all hazards definition. People who worked for
federal agencies chose the terrorism and major catastrophes definition. DOD saw
homeland security as something that civilians did. The community that selected the
national security definition was small but growing. There were few proponents of the
jurisdictional, meta- hazards, and über alles definitions. Different disciplines perceived
homeland security different ways.
Homeland security education began as an inquiry into the preparedness for the
threat of weapons of mass destruction. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001
accelerated the inquiry into the preparedness for the threat of weapons of mass
destruction and the emergence of the homeland security discipline. CHDS was
established in April 2002 to strengthen the national security of the U.S. by providing
evidence-based graduate level educational programs and services that met the immediate
and long-term leadership needs of organizations responsible for homeland defense and
security. CHDS’ programs and resources included a masters’ degree program and the
UAPI. The UAPI was established in 2005 to share the center’s programs and resources
with the nation’s academic institutions to build national homeland security preparedness
through education. UAPI’s membership grew to over 1,200 academic partners from over
330 colleges and agencies (Center for Homeland Defense and Security, 2008, 2014b).
CHDS became the nation’s homeland security education leader, homeland
security education associations emerged, homeland security education conferences and
workshops proliferated, and over 290 colleges established over 400 homeland security
programs. Homeland security higher education programs ranged from undergraduate to
graduate degrees and certificates that were multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary and
emphasized strategic collaboration, critical thinking, preparedness, risk management, and
others. There was, however, little agreement about how to best prepare students for
homeland security. The review of the literature review raised the question, how do college
homeland security curricula prepare students for homeland security currently?
Chapter 3: Research Design Methodology
Introduction
The review of the literature related to homeland security higher education
suggested that there was little consensus about what homeland security was and how
college homeland security curricula prepare students for homeland security. Over 290 of
the nation’s colleges offered undergraduate/graduate level homeland security curricula.
However, no common or core curricula standard existed for homeland security higher
education at any level. In order to obtain data on current homeland security higher
education curricula in the U.S., an Internet-based survey was developed to measure how
colleges developed, categorized, and ensured that their homeland security curricula
remained current as homeland security needs changed. The survey gathered information
from college faculty whose institutions offered higher education homeland security
curricula.
Using the Center for Homeland Defense and Security’s (CHDS) University
Agency Partnership Initiative’s (UAPI) database of homeland security educators, surveys
were emailed to 578 UAPI homeland security educators identified as faculty at colleges
in the U.S. that offered homeland security curricula. The use of a quantitative research
survey was appropriate for this research, as the goal was to obtain self-reported
information from a sample of the population and to extrapolate this information to assess
industry practices (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2009; Fowler, 2009).
An analysis of the response data was conducted using IBM Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences® data analysis software (hereafter SPSS). These data were used to
answer the research questions.
Owing to the unresolved debate about the efficacy of undergraduate homeland
security curricula (Bellavita, 2012; Collier, 2013; National Research Council, Committee
on Educational Paradigms for Homeland Security, 2005; Morton, 2012; Pelfrey & Kelley,
2013; Pelfrey et al, 2002), undergraduate and graduate homeland security curricula were
analyzed separately. Research questions one to three examined undergraduate homeland
security curricula. Research questions three to six examined graduate homeland security
curricula. The research questions are as follows:
1. How do colleges develop their undergraduate homeland security curricula?
2. How do colleges categorize their undergraduate homeland security curricula?
3. How do colleges ensure that their undergraduate homeland security curricula
remain current as homeland security needs change?
4. How do colleges develop their graduate homeland security curricula?
5. How do colleges categorize their graduate homeland security curricula?
6. How do colleges ensure that their graduate homeland security curricula
remain current as homeland security needs change?
Research Context
All research participants were faculty at various U.S. colleges that offered
homeland security curricula. College faculty was defined here as Professors, Associate
Professors, Assistant Professors, Specialist Professors, Lecturers, Instructors, and
Chairpersons (department), Program Coordinators/Directors/Managers and Adjunct
Professors. Associate/assistant positions as in Associate Chair were also included.
UAPI’s database of homeland security educators (Center for Homeland Defense and
Security, 2014c) served to identify and contact the research study population. The
research population, described as the entire group of persons or institutions that the
researcher wants the study to generalize (Vogt & Johnson, 2011), was comprised of UAPI
members that were identified as faculty at a U.S. college.
The research format consisted of a quantitative survey. The survey design
consisted of fixed-response multiple-choice questions; fixed-response multiple-choice
questions with the option to select an open-ended response choice with space to comment
if none of the fixed answers were applicable to colleges’ homeland security curricula;
fixed-response matrix questions, and fixed-response matrix questions with the option to
select an open-ended response choice with space to comment if none of the fixed answers
were applicable to colleges’ homeland security curricula.
Prospective study participants received an Internet-based survey sent to their
email address via Qualtrics®, an on-line survey tool. The questions were relevant to: the
levels of homeland security curricula offered at participants’ colleges (undergraduate and
graduate); participants’ positions at their colleges (full-time or part-time faculty);
participants level of involvement in the development, categorization, and ensuring that
their colleges’ homeland security curricula remained current; and how participants’
colleges developed, categorized, and ensured that their homeland security curricula
remained current. In addition, participants were asked to provide demographic data on
their colleges including: year that homeland security program was established; name and
the academic background of faculty of departments that housed institutions’ homeland
security programs; type (public or private, four-year or two-year, military); and
geographical location. In addition, an open-ended comment box at the end of each
subsection and at the end of the survey was provided for participants to add additional
information related to their colleges’ homeland security program that participants felt was
related to the study.
The researcher ensured that identifying information on the survey, including the
identities of the research participants and their affiliated institutions remained
anonymous.
Research Participants
Participants for this research study consisted of homeland security educators who
were faculty at colleges in the U.S. that offered homeland security curricula. The
researcher solicited the participation of college homeland security faculty that was
identified as such in the UAPI (Center for Homeland Defense and Security, 2014c)
homeland security educator database. UAPI was an organization of over 1,200 homeland
security educators and over 330 colleges and agencies in the U.S. that had a vested
homeland security interest. The purpose of UAPI was to share CHDS’ programs and
resources with the nation’s academic institutions to build national homeland security
preparedness through education. UAPI was recognized in the homeland security higher
education sector as a source of information and guidance on current homeland security
higher education initiatives. It was appropriate to use the members of this organization as
research participants as they represented faculty at colleges nationwide that offered
homeland security curricula. Participants’ names and their affiliated colleges were
anonymous.
Instruments Used in Data Collection
The study used a quantitative Internet-based survey to measure how colleges
developed, categorized, and ensured that their homeland security curricula remained
current. The survey included separate questionnaires for undergraduate and graduate
homeland security curricula. The first section consisted of an informed consent form
(Appendix T). The survey questions (Appendix U) were based on a lack of consensus
about how colleges developed, categorized, and ensured that their homeland security
curricula remained current.
This study for education purposes used human research participants and was
subject to ethical and legal guidelines. The structure and content for this research study,
the survey instrument, was submitted and approved by St. John Fisher College’s
Institutional Review Board for research approval (Appendix V).
A three-part Internet-based survey was emailed to prospective research
participants. Prospective participants were also notified via a UAPI Internet-based forum
that provided a direct link to the survey instrument. The first section consisted of an
informed consent form explaining the intent of the study, the method of protecting each
participant’s anonymity, and the participant’s rights regarding the research study. Study
participants were asked to read and electronically acknowledge consent to participate in
the study. The survey asked participants to answer each question in the second and third
section by electronically checking radio buttons, placed under or beside each question,
which most correctly aligned with their colleges’ homeland security curricula or
demographic information.
The second section was subdivided into three major subsections: screening
questions, undergraduate homeland security curricula, and graduate homeland security
curricula. The undergraduate and graduate subsections were further subdivided into three
subsections; development of homeland security curricula, categorization of homeland
security curricula, and ensuring the homeland security curricula remained current.
The second section of the survey contained: closed-ended fixed-response multiple
choice questions; fixed-response multiple-choice questions with the option to select an
open-ended response choice with space to comment if none of the fixed answers were
applicable; fixed-response matrix questions; and fixed-response matrix questions with the
option to select an open-ended response choice with space to comment if none of the
fixed answers were applicable. Nine multiple choice questions offered the response
option other (please specify) and provided participants the opportunity to expand upon
their answers in open-ended follow-up spaces.
Rea and Parker (2005) recommend closed-ended fixed answer questions as they
fix the number of alternative responses to questions. This allows ease of data transfer and
more uniform answers. Open-ended follow-up questions are, however, appropriate if the
researcher seeks information not readily discernible solely from fixed answer questions.
Four of the 11 multiple choice questions that offered the response option other,
were designed to populate response options that led to follow-up questions. Other
responses to survey question four (SQ4) were designed to lead to response options that
identified the contents of other as part of a matrix question in survey question five (SQ5)
and a multiple choice answer in survey question six (SQ6). Other responses to survey
question 14 (SQ14) were designed to lead to a response option that identified the contents
of other as part of a multiple choice answer in survey question 15 (SQ15). Other
responses to survey question 18 (SQ18) were designed to lead to response options that
identified the contents of other as part of a matrix question in survey question 19 (SQ19)
and a multiple choice answer in survey question 20 (SQ20). Other responses to survey
question 28 (SQ28) were designed to lead to a response option that identified the contents
of other as part of a multiple choice answer in survey question 29 (SQ29). Section two
also contained an open-ended comment box at the end of each subsection for participants
to write any additional information related to their colleges’ homeland security program
that they felt was related.
The third section of the survey inquired about participating colleges’ demographic
information including: type (public, private, or military, and four-year or two-year);
geographical location; student population; number of students in homeland security
programs; accrediting agency; year that homeland security program was established;
name, number of, and the academic background of faculty of the department that housed
the colleges’ homeland security program. The section also contained closed-ended, fixed-
response multiple choice questions. Five of the multiple choice questions offered the
response option other (please specify) that provided participants the opportunity to
expand upon their answers in the open-ended follow-up space if more clarity was
necessary. Section three also contained an open-ended comment box at the end of the
survey for participants to write any additional information related to their colleges’
homeland security program that they felt was related.
As this was a new survey instrument, validity and reliability had to be established
prior to use on the research participants. Validity requires that the questions measure
what they are purported to measure and that the participants interpret the questions as the
researcher intends (Dillman et al., 2009; Fowler, 2009). Reliability requires consistency
of a measure internally from one use to another. Repeated measurements of the same
thing give highly similar results (Vogt & Johnson, 2011). To aid in establishing validity
and reliability of the survey instrument, an expert panel of four homeland security higher
education faculty members were selected to help determine the survey’s validity and
reliability. The panel consisted of a convenience sample of homeland security college
faculty belonging to UAPI.
To establish reliability, the panelists pre-tested the Internet-based survey to ensure
that the questions were appropriate and assessed the time necessary for the research
participants to complete the survey. A pre-test is a small-scale distribution of the survey
to a convenience group, in this case a group of college homeland security faculty (Rea &
Parker, 2005). The panelists were also asked to suggest alternative verbiage if necessary
and to ensure the contents of the questions were clear. The panelists then returned the
survey with written comments. The panel’s responses and comments were reviewed and
incorporated into a corrected survey. The panelists recommended the rewording of two
questions and the addition of two categories to four questions. The corrected survey was
prepared for a test distribution to the panel.
The four members of the panel were sent an email via Qualtrics containing an
Internet-link to the survey. The test surveys were distributed to the panelists in the same
manner as the actual research participants to simulate the actual research conditions. The
panelists were asked to complete the survey and to return it electronically via Qualtrics.
They were also asked to include any comments or suggestions for additional changes to
the survey. The panelists completed the entire Internet-based survey electronically. The
data from this test survey were analyzed and this revealed that the survey was
mechanically sound. A review of the data on Qualtrics revealed that all data recorded
correctly. The survey was redistributed to the same expert panel for retest and
finalization of the survey (Kelley, 1999).
Procedures for Data Collection and Analysis
The fixed answer survey results were collected via Qualtrics from the research
participants and were downloaded into SPSS. Demographic statistics provided the count
and percentile statistics. Descriptive statistics and analysis of quantitative data were used
to assess the research questions. Research participants specific responses to survey
questions that provided the response option other (please specify) and survey questions
that offered research participants the opportunity to comment were analyzed for
relevancy to corresponding survey and research questions.
Chapter Summary
There was little consensus about what homeland security was (Appendix A) and
how college homeland security curricula should prepare students for homeland security.
No common or core curriculum standard existed for homeland security higher education
(Charting a Course for Homeland Security Strategic Studies Conference, 2005; National
Research Council, Committee on Educational Paradigms for Homeland Security, 2005;
Rollins & Rowan, 2007). In order to obtain data on current homeland security higher
education curricula in the U.S., an Internet-based survey was developed related to how
colleges developed, categorized, and ensured that their homeland security curricula
remained current as homeland security needs changed.
The researcher developed and distributed a quantitative Internet-based survey that
asked college homeland security faculty to assess their colleges’ homeland security
curricula. Study participants were asked how their colleges developed, categorized, and
ensured that their homeland security curricula remained current. Participants were also
asked to provide demographic information about their colleges including: type; student
population; number of students in homeland security programs; accrediting agency; year
that homeland security program was established; and the name, number of, and academic
background of faculty of departments that housed colleges’ homeland security programs.
The survey contained a series of questions for faculty of college homeland
security faculty directly related to the research questions. Owing to the unresolved debate
about the efficacy of undergraduate homeland security curricula (Bellavita, 2012; Collier,
2013; National Research Council, Committee on Educational Paradigms for Homeland
Security, 2005; Morton, 2012; Pelfrey & Kelley, 2013; Pelfrey et al, 2002), undergraduate
and graduate homeland security curricula were analyzed separately. The research
questions are as follows:
1. How do colleges develop their undergraduate homeland security curricula?
2. How do colleges categorize their undergraduate homeland security curricula?
3. How do colleges ensure that their undergraduate homeland security curricula
remain current as homeland security needs change?
4. How do colleges develop their graduate homeland security curricula?
5. How do colleges categorize their graduate homeland security curricula?
6. How do colleges ensure that their graduate homeland security curricula
remain current as homeland security needs change?
Chapter 4: Results
Research Questions
The Internet-based research survey was designed to collect data to answer the six
research questions. The survey (Appendix U) consisted of questions related to how
colleges developed, categorized, and ensured that their homeland security curricula
remained current. The results of the survey were organized and presented in the
following order: (a) screening questions, (b) demographic data of the survey population,
and (c) individual survey questions as they related to specific research questions.
Owing to the unresolved debate about the efficacy of undergraduate homeland
security curricula (Bellavita, 2012; Collier, 2013; Morton, 2012; National Research
Council, Committee on Educational Paradigms for Homeland Security, 2005; Pelfrey et
al., 2002; Pelfrey & Kelley, 2013), undergraduate and graduate homeland security
curricula were analyzed separately. Research questions one to three examined
undergraduate homeland security curricula. Research questions four to six examined
graduate homeland security curricula. The research questions are as follows:
1. How do colleges develop their undergraduate homeland security curricula?
2. How do colleges categorize their undergraduate homeland security curricula?
3. How do colleges ensure that their undergraduate homeland security curricula
remain current as homeland security needs change?
4. How do colleges develop their graduate homeland security curricula?
5. How do colleges categorize their graduate homeland security curricula?
6. How do colleges ensure that their graduate homeland security curricula
remain current as homeland security needs change?
The research study utilized descriptive statistics to examine factors associated
with the development, categorization, and ensuring that college homeland security
curricula remained current.
Data Analysis and Findings
The research study assessed the validity and reliability of the survey instrument.
Validity requires that the survey questions measure what they are purported to measure
and that participants interpret the questions as the researcher intends (Dillman et al. 2009;
Fowler, 2009; Huck, 2012). Reliability requires consistency of a measure internally from
one use to another. Repeated measurements of the same thing give highly similar results
(Vogt & Johnson, 2011). The survey instrument was distributed to a panel of four subject
matter experts to assess its validity. The panel validated the survey instrument, i.e.
determined that the survey questions measured what they purported to measure and that
participants would interpret the questions as the researcher intended.
After establishing the validity of the survey instrument, the study assessed the
reliability of the survey instrument using a test-retest percent agreement methodology as
the number of the expert panelists, n=4, was insufficient for traditional correlation
coefficients (Cohen, 2003; Maxwell, Kelley, & Rausch, 2008; Schonbrodt & Perugini,
2013). The likelihood of Type I and Type II errors when calculating correlation
coefficients is directly related to the sample size of datasets. Several researchers have
attempted to calculate minimum sample sizes to compute correlation coefficients with
appropriate degrees of power and reliability. Cohen recommended a sample of 85,
Schonbrodt and Perugine recommended 250, and Maxwell, Kelly, and Rausch maintained
that a sample of 1,000 was necessary for the calculation of meaningful and accurate
coefficients.
The reported survey results of the first test (Test-1) completed by the four
members of the panel of subject matter experts, was compared to the responses from the
survey retest (Test-2) that the panel completed seven days later to establish test-retest
reliability of the survey instrument (Litwin, 1995). Both surveys were substantially the
same with only small typographical errors. The errors did not affect the meaning of the
questions and were corrected for the second survey. All four panelists responded to the
screening questions (SQ1-SQ3). All four panelists indicated that their colleges had an
undergraduate homeland security curriculum. Accordingly, they were directed to respond
to the undergraduate homeland security curricula-specific questions (SQ4SQ17). Two of
the four panelists also indicated that their colleges had a graduate homeland security
curriculum. Accordingly, those two panelists were directed to respond to the graduate
homeland security curricula-specific questions (SQ18-31). Survey questions that elicited
comments (SQ8, SQ13, SQ17, SQ22, SQ27, and SQ31) or that contained strictly
demographic data (SQ32- SQ-44) were not included in this analysis.
All four panelists of the expert panel responded to the screening questions, survey
questions one through three (SQ1-SQ3). The four panelist’s Test-2 responses matched
Test-1 responses 100% for all three screening questions (SQ1-SQ3). One of the three
screening questions, survey question (SQ3), was a matrix question that included two
questions bringing the total number of screening questions to four. Of the total responses
16 (4 panelists: 4 questions), 16 Test-2 responses matched Test-1 responses (100%
agreement).
All four expert panelists responded to survey questions four through 14 and
survey questions 16 and 17 (SQ4-SQ14 and SQ16-SQ17). SQ8, SQ13, and SQ17 were
comment questions and were not analyzed. SQ15 was not analyzed here and will be
discussed below. The total number of questions analyzed for SQ4 to SQ17 was 10, of
which five questions were matrix questions that contained a total of 49 questions bringing
the total number of questions analyzed for SQ4 to SQ17 to 54. The four panelists’ Test-2
responses matched Test-1 responses 100% for the following questions: SQ6-SQ11, SQ14,
and SQ16. The following variances were identified and examined. Survey question four
(SQ4) was a matrix question with nine questions that offered response options yes and no.
Of the total 36 responses (4 panelists: 9 questions), 30 Test-2 responses matched Test-1
responses (83.3 % agreement). Survey question five (SQ5) was a matrix question with
nine multiple choice questions. Of the total 36 responses (4 panelists: nine questions), 32
Test-2 responses matched Test-1 responses (88.9% agreement). Survey question 12
(SQ12) was a matrix question with 21 questions that offered response options yes and no.
Of the total 84 responses (4 panelists: 21 questions), 81 Test-2 responses matched Test-1
responses (96.4% agreement). Of the total responses analyzed for SQ4 to SQ17, 216
responses (4 panelists: 54 questions): 203 Test-2 responses matched Test -1 responses
(94% agreement).
The two panelists that indicated that their colleges also had graduate level
homeland security curricula were directed to respond to survey question 18 to 28 and
survey questions 30 and 31 (SQ18-SQ28 and SQ30, SQ31). SQ22, SQ27, and SQ31
were comment questions and were not analyzed. SQ29 was not analyzed here and will
be discussed below. The total number of questions analyzed for SQ18 to SQ31 was 10 of
which five questions were matrix questions that contained a total of 49 questions bringing
the total number of questions analyzed for SQ18 to SQ31 to 54. The panelists’ Test-2
responses matched Test-1 responses 100% for the following questions: SQ19, SQ21,
SQ24, SQ25, SQ28, and SQ30. The following variances were identified and examined.
Survey question 18 (SQ18) was a matrix question with nine questions that offered
response options yes and no. Of the total 18 responses (2 panelists: 9 questions), 16 Test2
responses matched Test-1 responses (88.9% agreement). Survey question 20 (SQ20) was
a multiple choice question. Of the total two responses (2 panelists: 1 question), one Test-
2 response matched Test-1 responses (50% agreement). The panelist that changed his
response to SQ20 reported that his Test-1 response was an oversight. The Test-1 response
and the test-retest variance were attributed to human error. Survey question 23 (SQ23)
was a multiple choice question. Of the total two responses (2 panelists: 1 question), one
Test-2 response matched Test-1 responses (50% agreement). The panelist that changed
his response to SQ23 reported that he completed Test-1 on a tabular computer that he was
not familiar with and that his Test-1 response to SQ23 was not intended. The panelist’s
response to Test-1 and the test-retest variance were attributed to technical error. Survey
question 26 (SQ26) was a matrix question with 21 questions that offered response options
yes and no. Of the total 42 responses (2 panelists: 21 questions), 39 Test-2 responses
matched Test-1 responses (92.8% agreement). Of the total responses for SQ18 to SQ30,
108 responses (2 panelists: 54 questions): 101 Test-2 responses matched Test-1 responses
(93.5% agreement).
Subsequent to the test-retest analysis, the researcher determined that two
additional survey questions were necessary to answer research questions three (RQ3) and
six (RQ6) respectively. The following two questions were developed and incorporated
into the survey instrument: survey question 15 (SQ15) Which of the following was the
most important factor in how your college kept its undergraduate curriculum current?
and survey question 29 (SQ29) Which of the following was the most important factor in
how your college kept its graduate curriculum current? Survey question 15 (SQ15) was
a multiple choice question that was predicated on respondents’ responses to survey
question 14 (SQ14). Survey question 29 (SQ29) was a multiple choice question that was
predicated on respondents’ responses to survey question 28 (SQ28). The researcher
submitted survey questions 15 and 29 to the panel of experts for examination. The panel
of experts determined that the two questions (SQ15 and SQ29) were valid, i.e. the
questions measured what the researcher intended. Due to the expert panels’ familiarity
with SQ15 and SQ29, test-retest analysis was determined not to be necessary. In the
aggregate, the expert panel responded to a total of 112 questions of which 320 out of 340
Test-1 responses matched Test-2 responses (94% agreement). The analysis supported the
reliability of the survey instrument. The final survey instrument was renumbered to
reflect the addition of SQ15 and SQ19. The test-retest survey question numbers above
reflect the final survey question numbers.
SPSS was used to code and tabulate scores collected from the survey and provide
summarized values where applicable. Demographic statistics provided count and percent
statistics. Descriptive statistics and analysis of quantitative data were used to answer the
research questions.
Screening questions. Three survey questions (SQ1-SQ3) were used to describe:
survey participants’ positions at their colleges; survey participants’ levels of involvement
in the development, categorization, and ensuring that their colleges’ homeland security
curricula remained current; and the levels of homeland security curricula that survey
participants’ colleges offered.
Survey question one (SQ1) and survey question two (SQ2) were also used to
remove survey participants that did not meet all research study criteria from the analysis.
Survey participants who indicated that they were other than full-time or part-time faculty
(SQ1) or were not at all involved in the development, categorization, and keeping their
colleges’ homeland security curricula current (SQ2) were directed to the end of the
survey and not included in further analysis. Survey question three (SQ3) was also used to
determine survey participants’ suitability for questions that pertained exclusively to
undergraduate or graduate homeland security curricula. Participants that reported that
their colleges offered undergraduate or graduate curricula where directed to
undergraduate or graduate specific sections respectively. Participants that reported that
their colleges offered both undergraduate and graduate homeland security curricula were
directed to both the undergraduate and graduate specific sections.
The population consisted of 587 college faculty members that teach homeland
security at a U.S. college that offered homeland security curricula and were registered
UAPI members. The Internet-based survey was administered to the entire population that
resulted in a preliminary voluntary return rate of n=102 (17.4%). That is, 102 faculty
members, as identified by UAPI (Center for Homeland Defense and Security, 2014c),
responded to the survey. However, as UAPI’s 1,200 plus members self-identified their
professional credentials and particularly their faculty status, the survey was designed to
filter out UAPI members that were mistakenly identified as college faculty. Specifically,
n=10 (9.8%) of the survey participants were identified as not meeting the college faculty
requirement. They were directed to the end of the survey and removed from further
analysis. Survey question two (SQ2) asked participants to describe their involvement in
the development, categorization, and ensuring that their colleges’ homeland security
curricula remained current. Response options included very involved, somewhat
involved, not too involved, and not at all involved. Six (5.8 %) survey participants
identified themselves as either not too involved or not at all involved in the development,
categorization, and ensuring that their colleges’ homeland security curricula remained
current. It was determined that they did not merit inclusion in the study and were not
included in further analysis. The final sample population was n=86 participants. Table
4.1 features research participants’ faculty positions and levels of involvement in the
development, categorization, and ensuring that their colleges’ curricula remained current.
Table 4.1
Participants’ Positions and Level of Involvement
_____________________________________________________________________
Frequency Statistics for Research Participants’ Positions at their Colleges and Level of
Involvement in the Development, Categorization, and Ensuring that their Colleges’ Homeland
Security Curricula Remained Current
Level of Involvement Full-Time Part-Time Total
Faculty Faculty Faculty
n % n % n %
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Very Involved 60 89.6 12 63.2 72 83.7
Somewhat involved 7 10.4 7 36.8 14 16.3
Total 67 88.0 19 100.0 86 100.0
___________________________________________________________________________
Note. n = 86
The sample population from UAPI included participants whose colleges offered
undergraduate/graduate homeland security curricula. Specifically, n=60 (69.8%)
participants reported that their colleges offered undergraduate curricula; n=52 (60.5%)
participants reported that their colleges offered graduate homeland security curricula; and
n=26 (30.2%) participants reported their colleges offered both undergraduate and
graduate homeland security curricula. Levels of colleges’ homeland security curricula are
depicted in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2
Frequency Statistics for Levels of College Homeland Security Curricula
____________________________________________________________________
Curricula Level n %
____________________________________________________________________
Undergraduate 60 69.8
Graduate 52 60.5
Undergraduate and Graduate 26 30.2
____________________________________________________________________
Note. n = 86
Demographics. The population consisted of 587 faculty members from colleges
in the U.S. that offered undergraduate/graduate homeland security curricula. The
Internet-based survey was administered to the entire population and that resulted in a
voluntary return rate of n=86 (14.6%). That is, 86 faculty members from colleges in the
U.S. that offered undergraduate/graduate homeland security curricula responded to the
survey and, as was discussed in the preceding screening questions section, were
determined to be faculty members from colleges that offered homeland security curricula
that were, at a minimum, somewhat involved in the development, categorization, and
ensuring that their colleges’ homeland security curricula remained current.
All n=86 research participants were affiliated with at least one of 293 colleges
identified by UAPI (Center for Homeland Defense and Security, 2014d) as having a
homeland security program. The number of colleges n=293 reflects the UAPI database
as of March 1, 2014. Specifically, n=35 (40.7%) colleges were four-year private
institutions, n=30 (34.9%) four year public schools, n=12 (14%) two-year public or
private institutions, and n=9 (10.5%) military institutions. Table 4.3 depicts college
types.
Table 4.3
Frequency Statistics for College Type
_____________________________________________________________________
College Type n %
_____________________________________________________________________
Four-year private college 35 40.7
Four-year public college 30 34.9
Two-year public or private college 12 14.0
Military 9 10.5
_____________________________________________________________________
Note. n = 86
Research participants’ colleges were regionally located in the U.S., as identified
by the U.S. Census Bureau (2000). Three of the four responses indicated a U.S. state and
one respondent indicated “World Wide teaching sites.” The three responses that indicated
a U.S. state were attributed to their respective region and recoded accordingly. The
colleges were dispersed throughout the nation with the largest percentages residing in the
Northeast–Mid–Atlantic 25.6% (n=22) and South–South Atlantic 17.4% (n=15).
Table 4.4 depicts colleges’ regional locations.
Table 4.4
Frequency Statistics for Colleges Regional Location
_____________________________________________________________________
College Location n %
_____________________________________________________________________
Northeast–New England (ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT) 4 4.7
Northeast–Mid-Atlantic (NY, PA, NJ) 22 25.6
Midwest–East North Central (WI, MI, IL, IN OH) 8 9.3
Midwest–West North Central (MI, ND, SD, NE., KA, MN, IA) 5 5.8
South–South Atlantic (DE, MD, DC, VA, WV, NC, SC, GA., FL) 15 17.4
South–East South Central (KY, TN, MS, AL) 4 4.7
South–West South Central (OK, TX, AR, LA) 12 14.0
West–Mountain (ID, MT, WY, NV, UT, CO, AR, NM) 4 4.7
West–Pacific (AL, WA, OR, CA, HI) 11 12.8
Other 1 1.2
________________________________________________________________________
Note. n = 86
As depicted in Table 4.5, n=80 (93%) of the research participants’ colleges were
accredited by one of the six U.S. Department of Education (2014) recognized regional
accreditors. Three colleges identified as other, one of which was reported as a
subdivision of U.S. Department of Education recognized accrediting agency and was
recoded as such. The remaining two others were recoded as not accredited by a
Department of Education recognized regional accreditor. Colleges’ national accrediting
agencies are depicted in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5
Frequency Statistics for National Accrediting Agencies
_____________________________________________________________________
Accrediting Agency n %
_____________________________________________________________________
Middle States Association 26 30.2
of Colleges and Schools
New England Association 2 2.3
of Colleges
Northwest Commission on
Colleges and Universities 2 2.3
North Central Association
of Colleges and School 21 24.4
Southern Association of
Schools and Colleges 19 22.1
Western Association of
Schools and Colleges 10 11.6
Not Accredited 6 7.0
____________________________________________________________________________________
Note. n = 86
Research participants’ colleges included institutions of various sizes of student
populations ranging from less than 1,000 to more than 10,000. The majority of colleges
n=58 (65.9%) had student populations of more than 5,000. College student populations
are depicted in Table 4.6.
Table 4.6
Frequency Statistics for Number of Students
______________________________________________________________________
Number of students n %
______________________________________________________________________
Less than 1,000 students
9
10.5
1001-5000 students
20
23.3
5001-10,000 students
21
24.4
More than 10,000 students
36
41.9
______________________________________________________________________
Note. n = 86
Research participants’ colleges enrolled various numbers of students in homeland
security programs at both the undergraduate and graduate levels ranging from 1-50 to
more than 100 with most colleges having homeland security student bodies of more than
100 at both the n=25 (41%) undergraduate and n=19 (36.6%) graduate levels. The
numbers of students enrolled in homeland security programs are depicted in Table 4.7.
Table 4.7
Students Enrolled in Homeland Security Curricula
_____________________________________________________________________
Frequency Statistics for Number of Students Enrolled in Undergraduate
And Graduate Homeland Security Curricula
Number of Students Undergraduate Graduate
n % n %
_____________________________________________________________________
1-50 20 33.3 19 36.6
51-100 15 25.0 14 26.9
More than 100 25 41.0 19 36.6
_____________________________________________________________________
Note. Undergraduate n = 60; Graduate n = 52
Research participants reported that their colleges established their homeland
security programs in varying years ranging from prior to 2002 to 2014. The years that
colleges established their homeland security programs are depicted in Table 4.8.
Table 4.8
Year Colleges Established Their Homeland Security Programs
_______________________________________________________________________
Frequency Statistics for Year that Colleges Established Their Homeland
Security Programs
Year n %
_______________________________________________________________________
Prior to 2002 5 5.8
2002 3 3.5
2003 6 7.0
2004 8 9.3
2005 3 3.5
2006 7 8.1
2007 9 10.5
2008 4 4.7
2009 4 4.7
2010 11 12.8
2011 5 5.8
2012 4 4.7
2013 12 14.0
2014 5 5.8
_______________________________________________________________________
Note. n = 86; 2014 numbers are as of March 1, 2014
Research participants reported that the departments that housed their colleges’
homeland security programs were named differently with the largest percentages
specified as 26.7% (n=23) Criminal Justice, 11.6% (n=10) Homeland Security, 8.1%
(n=7) Public Administration and 4.7% (n=4) for each of the following: Emergency
Management, Intelligence, and National Security Affairs. Interestingly, 36% (n=31) of
participants reported that the departments that housed their colleges’ homeland security
programs bore other names including: business, health, and science; legal, interagency
and multinational operations; engineering; global health; international rescue and relief;
security studies; social science and human services; sociology; and anthropology. Table
4.9 depicts the names of departments that housed colleges’ homeland security programs.
Table 4.9
Names of Departments that offer Homeland Security Programs
______________________________________________________________________
Frequency Statistics for Names of Departments that offer
Homeland Security Programs
Department Name n %
______________________________________________________________________
Criminal Justice
23
26.7
Homeland Security
10
11.6
Public Administration/
Public Policy
7
8.1
Emergency Management
4
4.7
Intelligence
4
4.7
National Security /
International Affairs
4
4.7
Fire Science
2
2.3
Cyber Security/IT
1
1.1
Other
31
36.0
______________________________________________________________________
Note. n = 86
Faculty academic background was reported as all academic backgrounds of
faculty from departments that housed colleges’ homeland security programs and the
academic background that best described departments’ faculty. Survey question 42
(SQ42) permitted participants to choose multiple answers to best convey the academic
backgrounds of faculties from departments that housed their colleges’ homeland security
programs. Survey question 43 (SQ43) asked participants to specify which if any
academic background best described the department that housed their colleges’ homeland
security programs.
Faculty from departments that housed colleges’ homeland security programs had
varied academic backgrounds. The majority (68% or higher) of research participants
reported that the departments that housed their colleges’ homeland security programs had
some faculty with academic backgrounds that included: 88.6% (n=78) criminal justice,
83% (n=73) homeland security, 80.7% (n=71) emergency management, 75% (n=66)
intelligence, 72.7% (n =64) public administration/policy, and 68.2% (n= 60) national
security affairs/international affairs. In addition, 29.5% (n=26) reported other academic
backgrounds including: agricultural biology, food defense, anthropology, architecture,
aviation, business, civil rights, criminology, customs intelligence, economics, education,
engineering, geospatial intelligence, history, international relations, instructional
systemsleadership, workforce development, journalism, law, medical, military science,
national security, nursing, political science, psychology, and social work.
Research participants further reported that various academic backgrounds best
described the academic background of the departments that housed their colleges’
homeland security programs with the largest percentage 30.2% (n=26) reporting that their
faculty’s academic background was best described as “mixed to the extent that no one
academic background represented a majority,” followed by 26.7% (n=23) Criminal
Justice, 15.1% (n=13) Homeland Security, and 7% (n=6) Emergency Management. In
addition, 5.8% (n=5) participants responded other and specified the following as the best
description of the academic background of the department: computer and cyber,
engineering, geospatial intelligence, and law.
Research participants reported that the number of full-time and part-time faculty
assigned to the departments that housed their colleges’ homeland security programs
varied ranging from 1-5 to 16 or more for both full-time and part-time faculty. Table 4.10
depicts the numbers of full-time and part-time faculty assigned to the departments that
housed colleges’ homeland security programs. Table 4.11 depicts the academic
background of departments that housed colleges’ homeland security programs.
Table 4.10
Frequency Statistics for Number of Department Faculty
_____________________________________________________________________
Faculty Full-Time Faculty Part-Time Faculty
Size n % n %
_____________________________________________________________________
1-5 39 45.3 23 26.7
6-10 27 31.4 20 23.3
11-15 9 10.5 18 20.9
16 + 11 12.8 25 29.1
_____________________________________________________________________
Note. n = 86 for both full and part time faculty
Table 4.11
Frequency Statistics for Department Faculty’s Academic Background
____________________________________________________________________
Academic Background Best Description of Some Members of
Department Faculty Department Faculty
n % n %
___________________________________________________________________
Criminal Justice
23
26.7 76
88.4
Homeland Security
13
15.1 72
83.7
Emergency Management
6
7.0 69
80.2
Intelligence
Public Administration/
5
5.8 66
76.7
Public Policy
3
3.5
64
74.4
National Security Affairs/
International Affairs
3
3.5
60
69.8
Cyber Security/
Information Technology
1
1.2
57
66.3
Emergency
Medical Services
0
0
37
43.0
Fire Science
1
1.2
37
43.0
Public Health
0
0
36
41.9
Other
5
5.8
25
29.1
Mixed to the extent that
no one academic
background represents
a majority
26
30.2
N/A
____________________________________________________________________
Note. n = 86
Undergraduate homeland security research questions. Research questions one
through three (RQ1-RQ3) examined undergraduate homeland security curricula.
Research question one. The following data analysis was related to Research
Question One (RQ1): How do colleges develop their undergraduate homeland security
curricula? Survey question four (SQ4) asked participants to report the means that their
colleges used to develop their undergraduate homeland security curricula. The question
permitted participants to choose multiple answers to best convey the means their colleges
used to develop their undergraduate homeland security curricula. Survey question six
(SQ6) asked participants to choose the means that most influenced the development of
their colleges’ undergraduate homeland security curricula.
Research participants reported that their colleges used multiple and varied means
to develop their undergraduate homeland security curricula, 38% or higher of research
participants’ colleges employed focus groups/advisory councils and accreditation/agency
processes and adopted preexisting department, DHS, CHDS, and UAPI (other than
CHDS) course materials. The majority (63.3%, n=38) reported that their colleges
employed a focus group/advisory council process. Near majorities adopted pre-existing
course materials (46.7%, n=28), DHS course materials (46.7%, n=28), UAPI (other than
CHDS) course materials (45%, n=27), and CHDS course materials (43.3%, n=26).
In addition, 21.7% (n=13) of colleges used other means including: considered
course offerings at other institutions (including graduate level courses); developed their
program from scratch based on interviews with Customs and Border Patrol and
Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials; consulted external subject matter
experts; adapted Fire and Emergency Services Higher Education course materials; used
FEMA certifications as supplements; based program on DHS and Center for Disease
Control competencies and objectives; and used the CHDS “Undergraduate Curriculum:
Recommended Areas of Focus” and meetings with stakeholders.
Research participants further reported that various means most influenced the
development of their colleges’ undergraduate homeland security curricula with the largest
percentages reporting that 25% (n=15) focus groups/advisory councils, 16.7% (n=10)
preexisting department course materials, and 10% (n=6) CHDS course materials most
influenced the development of their colleges’ undergraduate homeland security curricula.
Table 4.12 depicts the means and the means that most influenced the development of
colleges’ undergraduate homeland security curricula.
To analyze the importance of each of the means that research participants’
colleges used to develop their undergraduate homeland security curricula, participants
were asked to rate the importance of each of the means that their college used in the
development of the curricula. Response options included very important, somewhat
important, not too important, and not at all important. Focus group/advisory councils
(38.3%, n=23), DHS course materials (25%, n=15), and CHDS and preexisting
department course materials each at 23.3% (n=14) represented the means that were most
rated as very important in the development of the curricula.
Table 4.13 depicts the means used to develop undergraduate homeland security
curricula and their relative importance.
Table 4.12
Frequency Statistics for Survey Question 4 & 6
__________________________________________________________________ How
did your college develop its undergraduate homeland security curriculum?
Which of the following most influenced the development of your college’s
undergraduate homeland security curricula?
__________________________________________________________________
Response Options How Developed Most Influenced
n % n %
__________________________________________________________________
Adopted/modified
CHDS course materials
Adopted/modified UAPI
course materials
26
43.3
6
10.0
(Other than CHDS)
Adopted/modified
27
45.0
5
8.3
DHS course materials
Adopted/modified DOD
28
46.7
7
11.7
course materials
Adopted/modified pre-
existing department
13
21.7
3
5.0
course materials
Adopted/modified
course materials
28
46.7
10
16.7
from other departments
23
38.3
1
1.7
Employed focus/
advisory group
38
63.3
15
25.0
Employed accreditation/
agency process
23
38.3
1
1.7
Other
13
21.7
9
15.0
_____________________________________________________________________
Note. How Developed n = 60; Most Influenced n = 57, 3 research participants responded no to all
SQ4 matrix questions and were excluded from SQ6’s analysis. All percentages reflect n=60
Table 4.13
Frequency Statistics for Survey Question 5
___________________________________________________________________
How important were each of the following in the development of
colleges undergraduate homeland security curriculum?
___________________________________________________________________
Response Options Very Somewhat Not too Important
Important Important n % n % n %
____________________________________________________________________
CHDS
course materials (n=26)
14
53.8
11
42.3
1
3.8
UAPI course
materials
13
48.1
13
48.1
1
3.7
(other than CHDS) (n=27)
DHS
15
53.6
13
46.4
0
—
course materials (n=28)
DOD
6
46.2
6
46.2
1
7.7
course materials (n=13)
Pre-existing department
14
50.0
11
39.3
3
10.7
course materials (n=28)
Course materials from
7
30.4
13
56.5
3
5.3
other departments (n=23)
Employed focus/advisory
23
60.5
12
31.6
2
5.3
Group (n=38)
Employed
accreditation/agency
12
52.2
5
21.7
6
26.1
process (n=23)
Other (n=13)
9
69.2
3
23.1
1
7.7
____________________________________________________________________
Note. Each response option n was predicated on the number of participants that selected
corresponding responses to SQ4. The table does not reflect one participant that reported
that focus/advisory councils were not at all important.
As shown in Table 4.14, research participants reported that their colleges offered
their undergraduate homeland security curricula through various program-delivery modes
with 80% (n=48) delivering at least part of their program on-line: 36.7% (n=22) using a
mixture of traditional, on-line, and blended platforms; 25% (n=15) using on-line
platforms; and 18.3% (n=11) using blended platforms. College undergraduate homeland
security curricula program delivery modes are depicted in Table 4.14.
Table 4.14
Frequency Statistics for Survey Question 7
____________________________________________________________________
Which of the following best describes the program delivery of
your college’s undergraduate homeland security curriculum?
____________________________________________________________________
Response Options n %
____________________________________________________________________
Traditional
12
20.0
On-Line
15
25.0
Blended (Hybrid, Traditional
Classroom and on-line)
11
18.3
Mixture of traditional,
22
36.7
On-line, and blended
____________________________________________________________________
Note. n = 60
Survey question eight (SQ8) offered participants the opportunity to add any
comments regarding the development of their colleges’ undergraduate homeland security
curricula that were not covered in the study. Participants comments included: breadth and
challenges inherent to homeland security made choosing what to include and what to
exclude difficult; faculty was most important; faculty had practitioner experience; courses
were developed in partnership with a learning management system; courses were
solicited from FEMA; curricula emerged from Transportation Security Administration
course outlines blended with pre-existing criminal justices courses in terrorism; student
surveys reported preference for hybrid courses; senior administrators determined course
offerings and program delivery; minors, concentrations, and certifications grew into
homeland security majors; and developed courses based on graduate thesis from the
Naval Post Graduate School. Research participants specified responses to SQ8 such as
interviewing/meeting with FEMA, Customs and Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement officials, subject matter experts, and stakeholders likely represents an
increase in the role that focus groups/advisory councils played in the development of
colleges undergraduate homeland security curricula.
Research question two. The following data analysis was related to Research
Question Two (RQ2): How do colleges categorize their undergraduate homeland security
curricula? Research participants were asked to rate both the importance of the
department that housed their colleges’ undergraduate homeland security curricula and
their colleges’ administration in determining the categorization of the curricula. The vast
majority of participants, 68.3% (n=41), reported that the departments that housed their
colleges’ undergraduate homeland security curricula were very important compared to
21.7% (n=13) that reported that their colleges’ administration was very important.
The importance of departments that housed college undergraduate homeland
security curricula and college administrations in determining how undergraduate
homeland security curricula were categorized are depicted in Table 4.15.
Table 4.15
Frequency Statistics for Survey Question 10
___________________________________________________________________
How important were each of the following in determining the categorization of your
college’s undergraduate homeland security curriculum?
___________________________________________________________________
Response Options College College
Department Administration
n % n %
___________________________________________________________________
Very important
41
68.3
13
21.7
Somewhat important
15
25.0
24
40.0
Not too important
3
5.0
18
30.0
Not at all important
1
1.7
5
8.3
___________________________________________________________________ Note.
n = 60
Research participants were asked to best describe how their colleges categorized
(labeled) their undergraduate homeland security curricula. As shown in Table 4.16,
colleges categorized their undergraduate homeland security curricula using various labels.
The vast majority of research participants, 71.7% (n=43) reported that their colleges
categorized their undergraduate homeland security curricula as either 28.3%
(n=17) Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 21.7% (n=13) Homeland
Security and Criminal Justice, or 21.7% (n=13) Homeland Security.
In addition, 11.7% (n=7) participants reported that their colleges categorized their
undergraduate homeland security curricula as Homeland Security and Other with
specified responses ranging from Security Studies (with Border Security) and Homeland
Defense to Cyber Security and Corporate Security. How colleges categorized their
undergraduate homeland security are depicted in Table 4.16.
Table 4.16
Frequency Statistics for Survey Question 9
___________________________________________________________________
Which of the following best describes how your college categorized (labeled) its
undergraduate homeland security curriculum?
___________________________________________________________________
Category n %
___________________________________________________________________
Homeland Security and
Emergency Management 17 28.3
Homeland Security and
Criminal Justice 13 21.7
Homeland Security 13 21.7
Homeland Security and Cyber
Security/Information Technology 2 3.3
Homeland Security and
Intelligence 4 6.7
Homeland Security and
Fire Science 2 3.3
Homeland Security and
Emergency Medical Services 1 1.7
Homeland Security and
National Security Affairs/
International Security Affairs 1 1.7
Homeland Security and
Other 7 11.7
_________________________________________________________________ Note.
n = 60
Cumulatively, (a) the percentage (21.7%, n=13) of participants that reported that
their colleges’ undergraduate homeland security curricula was best described as
Homeland Security per se; (b) the percentage (10%, n=6) of college academic
departments that housed undergraduate homeland security curricula that were best
described by research participants as Homeland Security per se; and (c) the percentage
(13.3%, n=8) of faculty whose academic background was best described by research
participants as Homeland Security per se suggests that homeland security is evolving as
an academic discipline. The cumulative findings align with the research that suggests the
emergence of homeland security as a new, emerging, and developing discipline (Center
for Homeland Defense and Security, 2008, 2011a; Falkow, 2013; Palin, 2010; Recca,
2013; Supinski, 2012).
Survey question 11 (SQ11) asked participants to identify the disciplinary approach to
their colleges’ undergraduate homeland security curricula. The vast majority
(81.7%, n=49) of participants reported that their colleges’ approach to their
undergraduate homeland security curricula was either 43.3% (n=26) multidisciplinary or
38.3% (n=23) interdisciplinary rather than unidisciplinary. Unidisciplinary is a
disciplinary approach in which members of a single discipline work together to address a
common problem (Stokols et al., 2008). This aligns with the research that suggested that
homeland security as field of study or an academic discipline was, or should be
multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary (Bellavita & Gordon, 2006; California State
University, Council for Emergency Management and Homeland Security, 2012; Charting
a Course for Homeland Security Strategic Studies Conference, 2005; Clement, 2011;
Falkow, 2013; Kiltz, 2011; Louden; 2007; McCreight, 2014; National Research Council
Committee on Education Paradigms for Homeland Security, 2005; Pelfrey & Kelley,
2013; Polson, Persyn, & Cupp, 2010; Ramsay, Cutrer, & Raffel, 2010; Renda-Tanali,
2012; Rollins & Rowan, 2007; Smith, 2005; Supinski, 2012). Table 4.17 depicts
colleges’ undergraduate homeland security disciplinary approaches.
Table 4.17
Frequency Statistics for Survey Question 11
_____________________________________________________________________ Which
of the following best describes your college’s undergraduate
homeland security curricula?
_____________________________________________________________________
Response option n %
_____________________________________________________________________
Single Discipline (curriculum focus is on a single discipline)
11 18.3
Multidisciplinary (curriculum includes multiple perspectives)
26 43.3
Interdisciplinary (curriculum integrates multiple perspectives
23 38.3
and disciplines)
_____________________________________________________________________
Note. n = 60
Survey question 12 (SQ12) asked participants to report topics that their colleges’
undergraduate homeland security curricula included. The question permitted respondents
to choose multiple answers to best convey the topics that their colleges’ undergraduate
homeland security curricula included. All participants (n=60, 100%) reported that their
colleges’ undergraduate curricula included terrorism, followed by vast majorities that
reported that their colleges undergraduate curricula included critical thinking (n=59,
98.3%), intelligence (n=57, 95%), collaboration (n=56, 93.3%), and strategy, all-hazards,
and critical infrastructure each at n=55 (91.7%). Moreover, n=11 (18.3%) participants
reported that their colleges offered or where considering offering other topics including:
cultural compliance, ethics, maritime security, transnational criminal organizations,
military science, personal and family preparedness, public and private partnership, and
writing and research analysis.
The large number of topics that were included in colleges’ undergraduate
homeland security curricula mirrors the research that revealed the range and vastness of
homeland security as a field, field of study, or discipline (Bellavita, 2014; Bellavita &
Gordon, 2006; Charting a Course for Homeland Security Strategic Studies Conference,
2005; Falkow, 2013; McCreight, 2014; National Research Council’s Committee on
Educational Paradigms, 2005; Ramsay, 2013; Reese, 2013, 2014; Rollins & Rowan,
2007; U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2014b). The topics that colleges included
in their undergraduate homeland security are depicted in Table 4.18.
Survey question 13 (SQ13) offered research participants the opportunity to add
any comments regarding the categorization of their colleges’ undergraduate homeland
security curricula that they felt were not covered in the survey. Thirteen (21.7%)
participants added comments that included: adopted homeland security and emergency
management courses because both were critical to students’ employment; included
prerequisite critical thinking course; homeland security curriculum could be taken as part
of a criminal justice program or as a stand-alone program; homeland security was open to
all majors; homeland security was a minor in a new criminal justice program, but was
growing to the extent that homeland security might expand into a new major;
undergraduate program was an intelligence program; program was designed for students
seeking careers in community service in times of humanitarian need. The curriculum
provided graduates with the knowledge, skills, and abilities for professional certification
in emergency response and management and a variety of career opportunities; curriculum
transformed from criminal justice-centric program into a multidisciplinary curriculum;
college offered four areas of concentration: organizational security, emergency
management, intelligence; and national security; and public safety major would be an
umbrella major or minor in emergency management, fire service, and homeland security.
Table 4.18
Frequency Statistics for Survey Question 12
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Does your college’s undergraduate homeland security curriculum include the following topics?
Response Option n %
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Terrorism 60 100
Critical Thinking 59 98.3
Collaboration 56 93.3
Intelligence 57 95.0
Strategy 55 91.7
All-hazards 55 91.7
Critical Infrastructure 55 91.7
Emergency Management 52 86.7
Preparedness 53 88.3
Risk Management 53 88.3
Cyber Security/IT 51 85.0
Law 51 85.0
Public Administration/Policy 46 76.7
Resilience 45 75.0
National Security Affairs/International Affairs 44 73.3
Immigration 33 55.0
Mapping (GIS) 31 51.7
Public Health 31 51.7
Emergency Medical Services 24 40.0
Fire Science 18 30.0
Other 11 18.3
_____________________________________________________________________________ Note.
n = 60
Research question three. The following data analysis was related to Research
Question Three (RQ3): How do colleges ensure that their undergraduate homeland
security curricula remain current as homeland security needs change? Survey question
14 (SQ14) permitted participants to choose multiple answers to best convey the means
that their colleges used to ensure that their undergraduate homeland security curricula
remained current. Survey question 15 (SQ15) asked participants to identify the means
that was most important in keeping their colleges undergraduate homeland security
curricula current.
Research participants’ colleges used multiple and varied means to ensure that their
undergraduate homeland security curricula remained current with the vast majority
reporting that their colleges: 95% (n=57) reviewed current homeland security academic
literature and current government homeland security policy directives; 91.7% (n=55)
solicited student input/feedback; 85% (n=51) reviewed the UAPI website for new and
updated course material, 80% (n=48) conducted independent research, and 80% (n=48)
attended national homeland security conferences. The majority 61.7 % (n=38) convened
focused groups/advisory councils, and 13.3% (n=8) employed other means ranging from
sought advice from expert faculty that worked in the field and employee feedback to
required course revision cycle and faculty reviewed sub-discipline literature such as
cybersecurity.
Research participants also reported that various methods were the most important
means that their colleges used to ensure that their undergraduate homeland security
curricula remained current, with the largest percentages (28.3%, n=17) reporting that
faculty reviewed current government homeland security policy directives and strategies,
followed by 21.7% (n=13) reporting that faculty reviewed current homeland security
literature, and 15% (n=9) reporting that faculty convened focus groups/advisory
councils.
Table 4.19 indicates how colleges ensured that their undergraduate curricula
remained current and which means were most important.
Table 4.19
Frequency Statistics for Survey Question 14 & 15
_____________________________________________________________________
How does your college keep its undergraduate homeland security curriculum current?
Which of the following was the most important factor in how your college kept its
undergraduate homeland security curriculum current?
_____________________________________________________________________
Response options Means used Most Important
n % n %
____________________________________________________________________
Faculty review current homeland security
academic literature
57
95.0
13
21.7
Faculty review current government homeland
security policy directives and strategies
57
95.0
17
28.3
Faculty solicits student input/feedback
55
91.7
1
1.7
Faculty review UAPI website for new and
updated course material
51
85.0
4
6.7
Faculty conducts independent research
48
80.0
5
8.3
Faculty attends national security conferences
48
80.0
8
13.3
Faculty convenes focus group/advisory councils
37
61.7
9
15.0
Other
8
13.3
2
3.3
___________________________________________________________________
Notes. n = 60. Most Important Means Used: n = 59. One respondent answered no to all SQ14
response options and was not eligible to respond to SQ15. All percentages reflect n=60
Survey question 16 (SQ16) asked participants how much their colleges’
undergraduate homeland security curricula changed since they were first offered.
Response options included: a lot, somewhat, just a little, and none. The vast majority
80% (n=48) participants reported that their colleges’ undergraduate homeland security
curricula had changed at least somewhat with 31.7% (n=19) reporting that their colleges
undergraduate homeland security curricula had changed a lot and 48.3% (n=29) reporting
that the curricula had changed somewhat. This mirrored the research that suggested that
homeland security was an evolving field, field of study, or discipline (Bellavita, 2014;
Bellavita & Gordon, 2006; Charting a Course for Homeland Security Strategic Studies
Conference, 2005; Falkow, 2013; McCreight, 2014; National Research Council’s
Committee on Educational Paradigms, 2005; Ramsay, 2013; Reese, 2013, 2014; Rollins
& Rowan, 2007; U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2014b). The varying degrees
that participants’ colleges’ undergraduate homeland security curricula changed are
presented in Table 4.20.
Table 4.20
Frequency Statistics for Survey Question 16
______________________________________________________________________
Since your college first offered its undergraduate homeland security curriculum,
how much has the curriculum been modified?
______________________________________________________________________
Response options n %
______________________________________________________________________
A lot 19 31.7
Somewhat 29 48.3
Just a little 7 11.7
None 5 8.3
______________________________________________________________________
Note. n = 60
Survey question 17 (SQ17) offered participants the opportunity to add any
comments relevant to how their colleges kept their undergraduate curricula current that
were not covered in the survey that might be relevant to the study. Eleven participants
added comments including: there was no single factor. Each course had an “owner” who
solicited input to keep materials up-to-date. Information sources were anything we could
get access to and input from advisors; courses were reviewed every three years and
critical items might be changed immediately; program was being reviewed at end of third
year cycle to meet formatting and accreditation requirements and to incorporate better
texts; CHDS workshops were helpful; wished that more national conferences were
available to incorporate recent terrorist cases; constant updating of pedagogy, texts, and
professional development; new program still in development; faculty expected to keep
current; each course reviewed annually; our program began in one department and is now
interdisciplinary and needs the involvement of more departments and college appears
stagnant now that 9/11 is long past; just completed major review after seven years;
current program was criminal justice with emphasis on homeland security and new
program will be called homeland security with no criminal justice courses except
electives; adding on-site courses at airport by request of Transportation Security
Administration beyond Certification of Completion including emergency management
courses; and focus on employer certifications.
Graduate homeland security research questions. Research questions four
through six (RQ4-RQ6) examined graduate homeland security curricula.
Research question four. The following data analysis was related to Research
Question Four (RQ4): How do colleges develop their graduate homeland security
curricula? Survey question eighteen (SQ18) asked participants to report the means that
their colleges used to develop their graduate homeland security curricula. The question
permitted participants to choose multiple answers to best convey the means their colleges
used to develop their graduate homeland security curricula. Survey question twenty
(SQ20) asked participants to choose the means that was most important in the
development of their colleges’ graduate homeland security curricula.
Research participants reported that their colleges used multiple and varied means
to develop their undergraduate homeland security curricula. The majority of research
participants, 61.5% (n=32) reported that their colleges employed a focus group/advisory
council process, 59.6% (n=31) adopted/modified CHDS course materials, and 50%
(n=26) adopted/modified preexisting department course materials. Near majorities of
colleges, 46.2% (n=24) employed accreditation/agency processes and 44.2% (n=23)
adopted/modified UAPI (other than CHDS) course materials. In addition, 21.2% (n=11)
colleges used other means to develop their graduate homeland security curricula
including: employing subject matter experts and ad hoc committees and consulted
Customs and Border Control and Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials;
workshops with State homeland security agency; and input from the department of
education (state-level).
Research participants reported that various means most influenced the
development of their colleges’ graduate homeland security curricula with the largest
percentages reporting that 26.9% (n=14) adoption/modification of CHDS course
materials and 23.1% (n=12) focus groups/advisory councils most influenced the
development of their colleges’ graduate homeland security curricula. Table 4.21 depicts
the means and the means that most influenced the development of colleges’ graduate
curricula.
Table 4.21
Frequency Statistics for Survey Question 18 & 20
__________________________________________________________________
How did your college develop its graduate homeland security curriculum?
Which of the following most influenced the development of your college’s
graduate homeland security curricula?
__________________________________________________________________
Response Options How Developed Most Influenced
n % n %
__________________________________________________________________
Adopted/modified
CHDS course materials
Adopted/modified
UAPI course materials
31
59.6
14
26.9
(Other than CHDS materials)
Adopted/modified
23
44.2
4
7.0
DHS course materials
Adopted/modified
20
38.5
1
1.9
DOD course materials
Adopted/modified pre-existing
17
32.7
3
5.8
department course materials
26
50
4
7.7
Adopted/modified course materials
from other departments
Employed focus group/
19
36.5
2
3.8
advisory council
Employed accreditation/
32
61.5
12
23.1
agency process
24
46.2
4
7.7
Other
11
21.2
7
13.5
__________________________________________________________________
Notes. How Developed n=52; Most Influenced n = 51 due to one (1) research participant responding no to
all SQ18 matrix questions and hence being excluded from SQ20. All percentages are predicated on n=52
To analyze the importance of each of the means that research participants’
colleges used to develop their graduate homeland security curricula, participants were
asked to rate the importance of each of the means that they reported were used in the
development of the curricula. Response options included very important, somewhat
important, not too important, and not at all important. Participants reported that each of
the means were important to varying degrees, with the largest percentages of research
participants reporting that 38.5 % (n=20) CHDS course materials, 30.8% (n=16) UAPI
(other than CHDS) course materials, and 28.8% (n=15) focus groups/advisory were very
important.
As shown in Table 4.22, research participants reported that their colleges offered
their graduate homeland security curricula through various program-delivery modes with
78.8 % (n=41) colleges delivering at least part of their graduate homeland security
curricula on-line, 36.5% (n=19) on-line, 13.5% (n=7) hybrid, and 28.8% (n=15) a
mixture of on-line and hybrid.
College graduate homeland security curricula program delivery modes are
depicted in Table 4.22. The degrees of importance of means used to develop graduate
homeland security curricula are depicted in Table 4.23.
Survey question 22 (SQ22) offered research participants the opportunity to add
any comments regarding the development of their colleges’ graduate homeland security
curricula that were not covered in the study. Participant’s comments included: used a
combination of DHS, FEMA, DOD, and criminal justice resources for insights; most
curricula content were determined by two instructors; one of whom had a criminal justice
background and the other a public health-military-disaster background; program director
paired with a faculty member experienced in homeland security to develop each course;
traditional program delivery was used to facilitate veterans using the GI Bill benefit
requirements; used a needs assessment coupled with DOD guidance; and Homeland
Security Studies track provides Defense Security Corporation Agency credentialing.
Participants’ specified other responses likely represents an increase in the role that focus
groups/advisory councils played in the development of colleges graduate homeland
security curricula.
Table 4.22
Frequency Statistics for Survey Question 21
____________________________________________________________________
Which of the following best describes the program delivery of your college’s
graduate homeland security curriculum?
____________________________________________________________________
Response Options n %
____________________________________________________________________
Traditional 11 21.2
On-Line 19 36.5
Blended (Hybrid, Traditional 7 13.5
Classroom and on-line)
Mixture of traditional, 15 28.8 on-line,
and blended
____________________________________________________________________
Note. n = 52
Table 4.23
Frequency Statistics for Survey Question 19
____________________________________________________________________
How important were each of the following in the development of
your colleges graduate homeland security curriculum?
____________________________________________________________________
Response Options Very Somewhat Not too Important
Important Important n % n % n %
____________________________________________________________________
CHDS
course materials (n=31)
20
64.5
9
29.0
2
6.5
UAPI course materials
(other than CHDS) (n=23)
16
69.6
7
30.4
0
—
DHS
8
40.0
12
60
0
—
course materials (n=20)
DOD
course materials (n=17)
7
41.2
9
52.9
1
5.9
Pre-existing department
12
46.2
11
42.3
3
11.5
course materials (n=26)
Course materials from
6
31.6
10
52.6
3
15.8
other departments (n=19)
Focus group/
15
46.9
12
37.5
4
12.5
advisory council (n=32)
Accreditation
11
45.8
10
41.7
2
8.3
agency process (n=24)
Other (n=13)
8
72.7
2
18.2
1
9.1
____________________________________________________________________
Notes. Each response option n was predicated on the number of participants that selected
corresponding response from SQ18. The table does not reflect one participant that
reported that focus/advisory councils were not at all important.
Research question five. The following data analysis was related to Research
Question Five (RQ5) How do colleges categorize their graduate homeland security
curricula? Research participants were asked to rate the importance of the department
that housed their colleges’ graduate homeland security curricula and their colleges’
administration in determining the categorization of their graduate homeland security
curricula. The majority, 57.5% (n=30) of participants reported that the department that
housed their colleges’ graduate homeland security curricula was very important while a
much smaller percentage, 35% (n=13) said that their colleges’ administration was very
important. The importance of departments that housed college graduate homeland
security curricula and college administrations in determining the categorization of
colleges graduate homeland security curricula are depicted in Table 4.24.
Table 4.24
Frequency Statistics for Survey Question 24
___________________________________________________________________ How
important were each of the following in determining the categorization of your college’s
graduate homeland security curriculum?
___________________________________________________________________
College Department College Administration
___________________________________________________________________
Response Options n % n %
___________________________________________________________________
Very important
30
57.7
13
25.0
Somewhat important
11
21.2
20
38.5
Not too important
7
13.5
14
26.9
Not at all important
4
7.7
5
9.6
___________________________________________________________________
Note. n = 52
Research participants were asked to best describe how their colleges categorized
(labeled) their graduate homeland security curricula. Research participants reported that
their colleges categorized their graduate homeland security curricula using various names.
The vast majority of colleges, 71.2% (n=37), categorized their graduate homeland
security curricula as either Homeland Security, 32.7% (n=17), Homeland Security and
Criminal Justice, 19.2% (n=10), or Homeland Security and Emergency Management,
19.2% (n=10).
In addition, 12.8% (n=11) participants reported that their colleges categorized
their graduate homeland security curricula as Homeland Security and Other including:
Homeland Defense, Terrorism, and Leadership; Safety Engineering; Integrated
Homeland Security Management; Law; Management; Public Health Preparedness,
Geospatial Intelligence, Information Security and Forensics, Agricultural Biosecurity and
Food Defense, and Security Policy Studies.
Cumulatively, the percentage (32.7%, n=17) of participants that reported that
their colleges’ graduate homeland security curricula was best described as Homeland
Security per se; (b) the percentage (15.4%, n=8) of college academic departments that
housed graduate homeland security curricula that were best described by research
participants as Homeland Security per se; and (c) the percentage (19.2%, n=10) of faculty
whose academic background was best described by research participants as Homeland
Security per se suggests that homeland security is evolving as an academic discipline.
The cumulative findings align with the research that suggests the emergence of homeland
security as a new, emerging, and developing discipline (Center for Homeland Defense
and Security, 2008, 2011a; Falkow, 2013; Palin, 2010; Recca, 2013;
Supinski, 2012).
How colleges categorized their graduate homeland security curricula is depicted
in Table 4.25.
Table 4.25
Frequency Statistics for Survey Question 23
____________________________________________________________________
Which of the following best describes how your college categorized (labeled) its
graduate homeland security curriculum?
____________________________________________________________________
Category n %
____________________________________________________________________
Homeland Security and 10 19.2
Criminal Justice
Homeland Security and 10 19.2
Emergency Management
Homeland Security and 1 1.9
Intelligence
Homeland Security 17 32.7
Homeland Security and
National Security Affairs/
International Security Affairs 2 3.8
Homeland Security and
Public Administration/
Public Policy 1 1.9
Homeland Security and
Other 11 21.2
____________________________________________________________________
Note. n = 52
Survey question 25 (SQ25) asked participants to identify the disciplinary
approach to their colleges’ graduate homeland security curriculum. The vast majority,
84.6% (n=44), reported that their colleges’ graduate homeland security curricula was
either multidisciplinary, 44.2% (n=23) or interdisciplinary, 40.4% (n=21). As was the
case of this research study’s analysis of undergraduate homeland security curricula, this
validated the research literature that suggested that homeland security as a field of study
or an academic discipline was, or should be multidisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary
(California State University, Council for Emergency Management and Homeland
Security, 2012; Charting a Course for Homeland Security Strategic Studies Conference,
2005; Church, 2008; Clement, 2011; Falkow, 2013; Kiltz, 2009, 2011; McCreight, 2009,
2011, 2014; National Research Council Committee on Education Paradigms for
Homeland Security, 2005; Pelfrey & Kelley, 2013; Polson et al., 2010; Ramsay et al.,
2010; Renda-Tanali, 2012; Rollins & Rowan, 2007; Smith, 2005; Supinski, 2012).
Colleges’ graduate homeland security disciplinary approaches are presented in Table
4.26.
Survey question 26 (SQ26) asked participants to report topics that their colleges’
graduate homeland security curricula included. All but one participant, n=51 (98.1%)
reported that their college’s graduate homeland security curricula included terrorism.
Following directly behind terrorism were emergency management and preparedness, each
at n=49 (94.2%), critical thinking at n=48 (92.3%), n=47 (90.4%) for strategy, allhazards,
and critical infrastructure, n=46 (88.5%) for collaboration, and n=46 (88.5%) for
intelligence and risk management.
In addition, n=13 (25%) participants reported that their colleges offered or were
considering offering other topics including: agricultural biosecurity and food defense;
comparative law, counterterrorism, constitutional issues, domestic military operations;
defense support of civil authorities; environmental protection; general management;
capstone; management; maritime security and transnational criminal organizations;
military science; military support of humanitarian assistance; and leadership and safety.
Topics that colleges included in their graduate homeland security curricula are depicted in
Table 4.27.
The large number of topics that were included in colleges’ graduate homeland
security curricula mirrors the research that revealed the range and vastness of homeland
security as a field, field of study, or discipline (Bellavita, 2014; Bellavita & Gordon,
2006; Charting a Course for Homeland Security Strategic Studies Conference, 2005;
Falkow, 2013; McCreight, 2014; National Research Council’s Committee on Educational
Paradigms, 2005; Ramsay, 2013; Reese, 2013,2014; Rollins & Rowan, 2007; U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, 2014b).
Survey question 27 (SQ27) offered research participants the opportunity to add
any comments regarding the categorization of their colleges’ graduate homeland security
curricula that they felt were not covered in the survey. Participants comments included:
program focused on homeland security law that required base knowledge in 10 key
disciplines including emergency management, domestic intelligence, critical
infrastructure and cyber, public health, transportation security, counter-terrorism and
counter-radicalization, domestic military operations, immigration, border security, and
countering weapons of mass destruction and chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear,
and explosive agents; completion of courses results in military certification and skill
identifier at the low end, a training certificate at the mid-range, and a homeland security
masters at the top end; holistic approach taken and required research course; curriculum
is an intercollege masters’ degree that included numerous colleges and campuses; most
frequent question asked by prospective students was if homeland security or emergency
management was applied differently in the field; and other aspects included agricultural
security and military forces supporting domestic incidents that were vital at both the
undergraduate and graduate level.
Table 4.26
Frequency Statistics for Survey Question 25
_____________________________________________________________________
Which of the following best describes your college’s graduate homeland security
curricula?
_____________________________________________________________________
Response option n %
_____________________________________________________________________
Single Discipline 8 15.4
(curriculum
focus is on a single discipline)
Multidisciplinary 23 44.2
(curriculum includes
multiple perspectives)
Interdisciplinary 21 40.4
(curriculum integrates
multiple perspectives and
disciplines)
_____________________________________________________________________
Note. n = 52
Table 4.27
Frequency Statistics for Survey Question 26
________________________________________________________________________ Does
your college’s graduate homeland security curriculum include the following topics?
________________________________________________________________________
Response Option n %
________________________________________________________________________
Terrorism 51 98.1
Critical Thinking 48 92.3
Collaboration 46 88.5
Intelligence 46 88.5
Strategy 47 90.4
All-hazards 47 90.4
Critical Infrastructure 47 90.4
Emergency Management 49 94.2
Preparedness 49 94.2
Risk Management 46 88.5
Cyber Security/IT 47 90.4
Law 42 80.8
Public Administration/ Policy 35 67.3
Resilience 40 76.9
National Security Affairs/
International Affairs 42 80.8
Immigration 31 59.6
Mapping (GIS) 24 46.2
Public Health 31 59.6
Emergency Medical Services 20 38.5
Fire Science 10 19.2
Other 13 25.0
________________________________________________________________________
Note. n = 52
Research question six. The following data analysis was related to Research
Question Six (RQ6): How do colleges ensure that their graduate homeland security
curricula remain current as homeland security needs change? Survey question 28
(SQ28) permitted respondents to choose multiple answers to best convey the means that
their colleges used to ensure that the curricula remained current. Participants reported
that their colleges used multiple and varied means with the vast majority reporting that
faculty (90.4%, n=47) conducted independent research, 90.4% (n=47) reviewed current
homeland security academic literature; 95% (n=57) reviewed current government
homeland security policy directives, 84.6% (n=44) solicited student input/feedback,
84.6% (n=44) reviewed current government homeland security policy directives, 78.8%
(n=41) attended national homeland security conferences. In addition, 17.3% (n=9)
reported that their colleges employed other means to keep their graduate homeland
security curricula current including: employer feedback; faculty are former/current
practitioners who maintain currency through training and networks; faculty continues
formal education; faculty meet individually with subject matter experts; faculty publish
peer reviewed articles; cited new military doctrine, and student research.
Research participants also reported that various means were the most important in
ensuring that their graduate homeland security curricula remained current with the largest
percentage, 32.7% (n=17) reporting that faculty reviewed current government homeland
security policy directives and strategies as most important, followed by 15.4% (n=8) for
both faculty conducting independent research and faculty reviewing current homeland
security academic literature. How colleges kept their graduate curricula current and
which factors were the most important in ensuring that curricula remained current are
depicted in Table 4.28.
Table 4.28
Frequency Statistics for Survey Questions 28 & 29
__________________________________________________________________
How does your college keep its graduate homeland security curriculum current?
Which of the following was the most important factor in how your college kept its
undergraduate homeland security curriculum current?
__________________________________________________________________
Response options Means used Most Important
n % n %
__________________________________________________________________
Faculty review current homeland
security academic literature
47
90.4
8
15.4
Faculty review current government
homeland security policy directives
44
84.6
17
32.7
and strategies
Faculty solicits student
input/feedback
44
84.6
1
1.9
Faculty review UAPI website for
new and updated course material
33
63.5
4
7.7
Faculty conducts
independent research
47
90.4
8
15.4
Faculty attends national homeland
security conferences
41
78.8
3
5.8
Faculty convenes focus
group/advisory councils
27
51.9
5
9.6
Other
9
17.3
5
9.6
__________________________________________________________________
Notes. n = 52. Most Important n = 51. One participant responded no to all of SQ28
response options and was, therefore, excluded from SQ29. All percentages reflect n=52.
Survey question 30 (SQ30) asked participants how much their colleges’ graduate
homeland security curricula changed since it was first offered. The vast majority (92.3%,
n=48) of participants reported that their colleges’ graduate homeland security curricula
had changed at least somewhat with 32.7% (n=17) reporting that the curricula had
changed a lot, and 59.6% (n=31) reporting that the curricula had changed somewhat. This
mirrored the research that suggested that homeland security was an evolving field, field
of study, or discipline (Bellavita, 2014; Bellavita & Gordon, 2006; Charting a Course for
Homeland Security Strategic Studies Conference, 2005; Falkow, 2013; McCreight, 2014;
National Research Council’s Committee on Educational Paradigms, 2005; Ramsay, 2013;
Reese, 2013, 2014; Rollins & Rowan, 2007; U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
2014b). The degrees to which college graduate homeland security curricula were
modified since they were first offered are depicted in Table 4.29.
Table 4.29
Frequency Statistics for Survey Question 30
____________________________________________________________________
Since your college first offered its graduate homeland security curriculum, how
much has the curriculum been modified?
____________________________________________________________________
Response options n %
____________________________________________________________________
A lot 17 32.7
Somewhat 31 59.6
Just a little 3 5.8
None 1 1.9
____________________________________________________________________
Note. n = 52
Survey question 31 (SQ31) offered participants the opportunity to add any
comments relevant to how their colleges kept their graduate curricula current that were
not covered in the survey that might be relevant to the study. Participants responses
included: homeland security leadership component was added to an existing criminal
justice leadership program; advisory councils are conducted at least every other year,
feedback from graduates and DHS employees; curriculum content was intersected and
de-conflicted; courses were revised every time they were taught; regular curriculum
reviews with program sponsors DHS/FEMA; annual workshop at Naval Post Graduate
School was helpful; faculty members completed academic fellowships to study terrorism
in Israel; focus was on the 10 subjects that were believed to constitute homeland security
in the U.S. and syllabus evolved to reflect law and policy changes; and curriculum was
adjusted to stay aligned with the U.S. Northern Command. U.S. Northern Command is a
single US military command comprised of all branches of the U.S. military that is
charged with protecting the homeland and providing support to civil authorities during
national emergencies (U.S. Northern Command, 2014).
Summary of Results
This research study was designed to analyze the homeland security curricula
policies of colleges in the United States. Specifically, the study looked at how colleges
developed, categorized, and ensured that their homeland security curricula remained
current as homeland security needs changed.
The study results were obtained from an Internet-based survey of faculty at
colleges in the United States. The population of 587 college faculty resulted in a
voluntary return of 86 participants.
Screening questions identified research participants’ positions at their institutions;
level of involvement in the development, categorization, and ensuring that their colleges’
homeland security curricula remained current; and levels of colleges’ homeland security
curricula. The screening information on each research participant and their college was
self-identified by research participants. The vast majority of research participants, 88.8%
(n=67) were full-time faculty, and 83.7% (n=72) of all faculty were very involved in the
development, categorization, and ensuring that their colleges’ homeland security curricula
remained current. Sixty (69.8%) of research participants’ colleges offered undergraduate
homeland security curricula, n=52 (60.5%) offered graduate homeland security curricula,
and n=26 (30.2%) offered both undergraduate and graduate homeland security curricula.
The demographic information on each college was self-identified by their faculty.
The colleges consisted of a mix of public, private, four-year, two-year, and military
colleges. Colleges were located throughout the U.S. and 93% (n=80) were accredited by
one of six U.S. Department of Education recognized regional accrediting agencies. The
sizes of student populations at participating colleges varied from, under 1,000 to over
10,000 students. The sizes of student populations enrolled in homeland security
programs at both the undergraduate and graduate level varied from, 1-50, to more than
100. The years that colleges established their homeland security programs also varied,
from prior to 2002 to 2014.
Departments that housed college homeland security curricula bore varied names
with the largest percentages reported as: 26.7% (n=23) Criminal Justice, 11.6% (n=10)
Homeland Security, and 8.1 % (n=7) Public Administration. Faculty from those
departments had multiple and varied academic backgrounds. Moreover, various
academic backgrounds best described the academic background of departments with the
largest percentage, 30.2% (n=26) reported as mixed to the extent that no academic
background represented a majority, followed by 26.7% (n=23) Criminal Justice, 15.1%
(n=13) Homeland Security, and 7% (n=6) Emergency Management. Faculty size for
both full-time and part-time faculty varied from 1-10, to 11-16 or more faculty.
The survey then questioned participants on the development, categorization, and
ensuring that their undergraduate/graduate homeland security curricula remained current.
Owing to the unresolved debate about the efficacy of undergraduate homeland security
curricula (Bellavita, 2012; Collier, 2013; National Research Council, Committee on
Educational Paradigms for Homeland Security, 2005; Pelfrey & Kelley, 2013; Pelfrey et
al., 2002), undergraduate and graduate homeland security curricula were analyzed
separately.
Colleges used multiple and varied means to develop their undergraduate and
graduate homeland security curricula. The following analysis aggregates participants’
responses to undergraduate and graduate curricula survey questions. Unless otherwise
specified, the aggregate number n=112 represents the total undergraduate (n=60) and
graduate programs (n=52) homeland security curricula. In the aggregate, focus
group/advisory councils (62.5%) and adopting/modifying CHDS course materials
(50.9%) respectively represented the means most used to develop undergraduate and
graduate homeland security curricula. CHDS course materials played a significantly
larger role in graduate than undergraduate homeland security curricula, n=26 (43.3%) of
participants reported that they adopted/modified CHDS course materials for their
undergraduate curricula and n=31 (59.6%) reported that they adopted/modified CHDS
course materials for their graduate curricula.
CHDS course materials (29.4%) and focus groups (24.1%) respectively most
influenced the development of undergraduate and graduate homeland security curricula.
Again, CHDS course materials were significantly more important in the development of
graduate compared to undergraduate homeland security curricula, n=6 (10.5%) of
participants reported that CHDS course materials most influenced the development of
their undergraduate curricula and n=14 (27.5%) reported that the materials most
influenced the development of their graduate curricula. The variances between the role of
CHDS course materials in the development of undergraduate and graduate curricula is
likely due to the existence of CHDS’ graduate homeland security curriculum and the
nonexistence of a CHDS undergraduate curriculum.
Colleges used varied means to deliver their undergraduate and graduate homeland
security curricula with the vast majority (79.5%, n=89) of colleges delivering at least part
of their homeland security curricula on-line. There were no significant differences
between undergraduate and graduate curricula.
Departments that housed college undergraduate and graduate homeland security
curricula and college administrations both played a role in the categorization of the
curricula with the vast majority (63.4 %, n=71) of departments rated as being very
important as compared to 23.2% (n=26) of college administrations that were rated very
important. There were no significant differences between undergraduate and graduate
curricula.
Colleges used various names to categorize their undergraduate and graduate
homeland security curricula with the vast majority of participants (71.4%, n=80)
reporting that their colleges categorized the curricula as either 24.1 % (n=27) Homeland
Security and Emergency Management, 20.5% (n=23) Homeland Security and Criminal
Justice, or 29.4% (n=30) Homeland Security. Homeland Security and Emergency
Management curricula were more likely to be found in undergraduate programs, n=17
(21.6%) colleges categorized their undergraduate curricula Homeland Security and
Emergency Management and n=10 (19.2%) colleges categorized their graduate curricula
as Homeland Security and Emergency Management. Homeland Security and Criminal
Justice curricula were slightly more likely to be found in undergraduate programs, n=13
(21.7%) colleges categorized their undergraduate curricula as Homeland Security and
Criminal Justice and n=10 (19.2%) of colleges categorized their graduate curricula as
Homeland Security and Criminal Justice. Conversely, Homeland Security per se
curricula were more likely to be found in graduate programs, n=17 (32.7%) colleges
categorized their graduate curricula as Homeland Security and n=13 (21.7%) colleges
categorized their undergraduate curricula as Homeland Security.
The vast majority (83%, n=93) of colleges’ approach to their undergraduate and
graduate homeland security curricula was either multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary
rather than a unidisciplinary approach. Colleges included numerous and varied topics in
their curricula with n=111 (99.1%) terrorism, n=107 (95.5%) critical thinking, and
n=103 (92%) intelligence topping a list of 21 topics. There were no significant
differences between undergraduate and graduate curricula.
Colleges used multiple and varied means to ensure that their undergraduate and
graduate homeland security curricula remained current with the vast majority (75% or
higher) reviewing current academic and government literature and policy; soliciting
student input/feedback; reviewing UAPI website for new course material; conducting
independent research; and attending conferences. The majority of colleges (57.1%,
n=38) convened focus groups. Colleges were more likely to review the UAPI website to
ensure that their undergraduate curricula (85%, n=51) remained current than for their
graduate curricula (63.5%, n=33). In addition, colleges were more likely to convene a
focus group to ensure that their undergraduate curricula (61.7%, n=37) remained current
than for their graduate curricula (51.9%, n=27). Varied means were reported as most
important with the largest percentages of research participants reporting that reviewing
current government homeland security policy directives and strategies (30.4%, n=34) and
reviewing current homeland security academic literature (18.8%, n=21) respectively were
the most important. There were no significant differences between undergraduate and
graduate curricula.
Colleges’ undergraduate and graduate homeland security curricula were modified
to varying degrees since they were first offered with the vast majority, 85.7%, being
modified at least somewhat. Graduate curricula (92.3%, n=48) were more likely to be
modified than were undergraduate curricula (80%, n=48).
Chapter 5: Discussion
Introduction
In the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, the
nation’s colleges were called upon to help prepare members of the homeland security
enterprise to secure the nation. Homeland security was a wicked policy issue that could
not be described definitively and did not have any ultimate or objective answers. At first,
homeland security was a national effort to protect against, prevent, prepare for, respond
to, and recover from those attacks that did occur. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in
2005, homeland security was a national effort to protect against, prevent/mitigate, prepare
for, respond to, and recover from all-hazards to the nation. Most recently, homeland
security was “a homeland that is safe, secure, and resilient against terrorism and other
hazards, where American interests, aspirations, and way of life can thrive” (U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, 2014, p.14).
The national emphasis on homeland security illuminated the critical need and
demand for quality educational programs that provided professionals with the
fundamental knowledge and skills to meet the nation’s homeland security requirements.
The nation’s colleges were called upon to prepare members of the homeland security
enterprise to make the nation safe, secure, and resilient. Leading the collegiate effort was
the Center for Homeland Defense and Security (CHDS). CHDS was created by
Congress, DOJ, and DOD in April 2002 to: educate and prepare a cadre of local, state,
tribal, and federal leaders to collaborate across professional disciplines and levels of
government to secure the homeland; define through evidence-based research the
emerging discipline of homeland security; facilitate the development of a national
homeland security education system by using an open source model to develop programs
and curricula; and to share those resources with other academic institutions and agencies
(Center for Homeland Defense and Security, 2011).
CHDS’ programs and resources included a homeland security masters’ degree
program and a University and Agency Partnership Initiative (UAPI). The essence of the
graduate curriculum was to prepare homeland security leaders to operate in an
environment of extreme ambiguity with an emphasis on critical thinking around
homeland security issues. UAPI was established to share the CHDS curriculum and
educational resources with academic institutions. As a result, over 290 U.S. colleges
developed over 400 homeland security curricula each claiming to prepare students for
homeland security.
Colleges’ homeland security curricula were located in various academic
departments, were taught by faculty from various academic disciplines, and bore various
program names. The curricula were mostly located, taught, and bore program names that
resembled criminal justice, emergency management, and homeland security per se.
Colleges convened focus groups and advisory councils, and adopted and modified
existing courses from their institutions and course materials from CHDS, UAPI, DHS,
and others. The curricula were mostly multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary and contained
multiple and varied subjects. Such curricula emphasized terrorism, collaboration,
intelligence, strategy, all-hazards, critical infrastructure, emergency management,
preparedness, risk management, cyber security/IT, and law.
The discipline of homeland security is still emerging and evolving and there is
little consensus about what homeland security actually is. Therefore, it is difficult to
determine how homeland security curricula should prepare students for homeland
security. The purpose of this study is to describe how homeland security curricula are
being developed in the nation’s colleges.
An Internet-based survey, designed to assess how colleges develop, categorize,
and ensure that their homeland security curricula remain current was forwarded to 587
prospective participants who were identified as faculty members associated with college
homeland security programs by the UAPI (Center for Homeland Defense and Security,
2014c, 2014d). The survey was administered to the entire population and resulted in a
preliminary voluntary return rate of n=102 (17.4%). However, 16 respondents were
deemed ineligible because they failed to meet the faculty requirement or were not at least
somewhat involved in the development, categorization, and ensuring that their colleges’
homeland security remained current. The final response rate was n=86 (14.6%).
Implications of Findings
The implications of the findings relate to the development, categorization, and
ensuring that homeland security curricula remain current as homeland security needs
change. The implications are discussed as they apply to the six research questions.
Owing to the unresolved debate about the efficacy of undergraduate homeland security
curricula (Bellavita, 2012; Collier, 2013; Morton, 2012; National Research Council,
Committee on Educational Paradigms for Homeland Security, 2005; Pelfrey & Kelley,
2013; Pelfrey et al., 2002), undergraduate and graduate homeland security curricula were
analyzed separately.
Included in this discussion is the relationship of the study’s theoretical rationale,
collaborative federalism as it relates to the results of the research. Collaborative
federalism holds that the nation should aggregate, coordinate, and integrate its homeland
security capabilities to achieve the highest level of homeland security preparedness
through collaboration (Clovis, 2006). College level homeland security curricula designed
to prepare students for homeland security are critical to that end.
Undergraduate homeland security curricula. Research questions one through
three discuss the development, categorization, and ensuring that undergraduate homeland
security curricula remain current as homeland security needs change.
Research question one. How do colleges develop their undergraduate homeland
security curricula? McCune’s (1986) curricula planning process aptly employed by
Pelfrey et al. (2002) in their seminal homeland security curriculum initiative asks: Where
are we going? What do we do to get there? Research question one focused on what
colleges actually did to develop their undergraduate homeland security curricula.
Colleges used multiple and varied means to develop their undergraduate homeland
security curricula, 38% or higher of research participants’ colleges employed focus
groups/advisory councils and accreditation/agency processes and adopted preexisting
department, DHS, CHDS, and UAPI (other than CHDS) course materials. In addition,
21% of research participants’ colleges employed other means that ranged from starting
from scratch and adopting graduate level courses to soliciting input from homeland
security officials and stakeholders.
Focus group/advisory councils (63.3%, n=38), adopting/modifying pre-existing
department materials (46.7%, n=28), and adopting/modifying DHS course materials
(46.7%, n=28), represent the means most used. Focus groups/advisory councils (25%,
n=15) and adopting/modifying pre-existing department materials (16.7%, n=10) also
represent the means that most influenced the development of the curricula. Focus
groups/advisory councils (38.3%, n=23), DHS course materials (25%, n=15), CHDS
course materials (23.3%, n=14), and preexisting department course materials (23.3%,
n=14) represent the means that were most rated as very important in the development of
the curricula. In addition, colleges use varied means to deliver their undergraduate
homeland security curricula with the vast majority (80%) of colleges delivering at least
part of the curricula on-line. Comparatively in 2012, the percentage of college students in
the U.S. taking at least one on-line course was at an all-time high of 33.5% (Allen &
Seaman, 2014).
Research question two. How do colleges categorize their undergraduate
homeland security curricula? Employing, McCune’s (1986) curricula planning process,
research question two focused on what colleges actually did to categorize their
undergraduate homeland security curricula. Colleges use various names to categorize
their undergraduate homeland security curricula that range from emergency management
and criminal justice to cyber and corporate security. The vast majority of participants
(71.7%, n=43) report that their colleges categorize the curricula as either Homeland
Security and Emergency Management (28.3%, n=17), Homeland Security and Criminal
Justice (21.7%, n=13), or Homeland Security (21.7%, n=13).
The varied categorization of undergraduate homeland security curricula with
concentrations in emergency management and criminal justice validates the research that
suggests that: (a) the breadth of homeland security warrants a wide range of programs,
(National Research Council, Committee of Educational Paradigms for Homeland
Security, 2005) and (b) the majority of homeland security programs are linked to three
primary content areas: emergency management, criminal justice, and public
administration, but also resides in political science, history, psychology, public health,
law, and other academic departments. In the case of public administration, this research
study varied from the literature in that no research participants reported that their college
categorized their undergraduate homeland security curricula as public administration
(Center for Homeland Defense and Security, 2014d; Supinski, 2011, 2012).
The vast majority (81.7%, n=49) of colleges' approach to undergraduate
homeland security curricula was multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary rather than
unidisciplinary. This is a significant departure from what Friedman, Friedman, and
Hampton-Sosa (2013) referred to as “academic bigotry i.e. disciplinary elitism” (p.2)
that permeates colleges in direct opposition to an otherwise open minded culture that
opposes bigotry and intolerance. Seemingly, higher education homeland security
academics have: (a) achieved one of the essential goals of a liberal arts higher education,
focusing on problems rather than academic disciplines (Dewey, 1916); (b) identified
substantive and theoretical links between disciplines despite their fractal distinctions
(Abbot, 2001); and (c) eschewed the rigidity and narrow-mindedness of disciplinary
elitism, and are communicating across disciplines, collaborating, and adapting to rapidly
changing conditions inherent to the modern world (Friedman, Friedman, &
HamptonSosa, 2013).
Furthermore, homeland security academics seem to be dissolving the semantic
homeland security stovepipes that Bellavita (2008) argued insisted on one worldview and
impeded the strategic goal of a secure homeland. Academic homeland security may be
what Werth (2003) described as a meta-discipline –a larger curricular focus that
transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries to create a truly holistic, systemic,
integrative worldview uncluttered by familiar limits and barriers. A metadisciplinary
focus assumes that all such fields are related theoretically and practically.
This study’s theoretical rationale, collaborative federalism, (Clovis, 2006) found
that different levels of government hold different perspectives on federalism. They must
aggregate, coordinate, and integrate their homeland security capabilities to ensure the
greatest level of national preparedness. Academic disciplines, under the lens of homeland
security undergraduate curricula, appear to have aggregated, coordinated, and integrated
their capabilities to prepare students for homeland security.
Research participants’ colleges include numerous and varied topics in their
undergraduate homeland security curricula with terrorism (n=60, 100%), critical thinking
(n=59, 98.3%), intelligence (n=57, 95%), collaboration (n=56, 93.3%), and strategy,
allhazards, and critical infrastructure each at n=55 (91.7%), topping a list of 21 topics
(Table 4.18). Moreover, participants report that their colleges offer or were considering
offering other topics not specified on the survey questionnaire that range from cultural
compliance and ethics to maritime security and public and private partnerships.
Despite the range and vastness of homeland security, colleges consistently agree
(85% or higher) that undergraduate homeland security curricula should consist of 11
topics that include: terrorism, critical thinking, collaboration, intelligence, strategy,
allhazards, critical infrastructure, emergency management, preparedness, risk
management, and cyber security. The majority (51% or higher) of colleges also agree on
six other topics that include: public administration/policy, resilience, national security
affairs/international affairs, immigration, mapping (GIS), and public health (Table 4.14).
This affirms the conclusion of Bellavita and Gordon (2006) that the “discipline” of
homeland security was actively working to identify core ideas with which anyone who
wished to speak intelligently about homeland security had to be conversant. Bellavita
and Gordon also argued that the homeland security discipline was in a pre-paradigm
phase and that there was no “conceptual” agreement about the range of topics that
constituted the field of study. They thought that was a “good thing.” The data from these
findings suggest that the homeland security paradigm is evolving and that the large range
of topics might well be a “good thing.”
Significantly, terrorism, collaboration, intelligence, strategy, all-hazards, critical
infrastructure, emergency management, preparedness, risk management, cyber
security/IT, and law that were included by the vast number of research participants’
colleges undergraduate homeland security curricula, (85% or higher) all play a prominent
role in the most recent homeland security policy guidance (U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, 2014a). Moreover, the inclusion of terrorism by all research participants’
colleges mirrors current White House and DHS policy that clearly identifies
counterterrorism as the primary homeland security objective. On May 28, 2014,
President Barack Obama stated that “for the foreseeable future, the most direct threat to
America at home and abroad remains terrorism” (Obama, 2014, para 19). The 2014
Quadrennial Homeland Security Review published in June of 2014 maintained that
“preventing terrorist attacks on the Nation is, and should remain the cornerstone of
homeland security” (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2014a, p.6).
Cumulatively, (a) the percentage (21.7%, n=13) of participants that reported that
their colleges’ undergraduate homeland security curricula was best described as
Homeland Security per se; (b) the percentage (10%, n=6) of college academic
departments that located undergraduate homeland security curricula that were best
described by research participants as Homeland Security per se; and (c) the percentage
(13.3%, n=8) of faculty whose academic background was best described by research
participants as Homeland Security per se, suggests that homeland security is evolving as
an academic discipline. It appears that a significant number of colleges and academics
are accepting and converting to homeland security in what Kuhn (1996) referred to as a
new paradigm; “universally recognized scientific achievements that for a time provide
model problems and solutions to a community of practitioners” (Kuhn, 1996, p. x).
A paradigm is a constellation of group commitments to a particular discipline
wherein the community of practitioners share: (a) symbolic generalizations (core beliefs),
(b) commitment to meta-physical parts of the paradigm, (c) values and particularly
among those that differ in their application, and (d) paradigm exemplars (Kuhn, 1996).
The findings follows the research that suggests the emergence of homeland security as a
new, emerging, and developing discipline (Center for Homeland Defense and Security,
2008, 2011a; Falkow, 2013; Palin, 2010; Recca, 2013; Supinski, 2012).
Research question three. How do colleges ensure that their undergraduate
homeland security curricula remain current as homeland security needs change?
Employing, McCune’s (1986) curricula planning process, research question three focused
on what colleges actually did to keep their undergraduate homeland security curricula
current as homeland security needs change. Colleges use multiple and varied means to
keep the curricula current with the vast majority (80% or higher) reviewing current
academic and government literature and policy; soliciting student input/feedback;
reviewing UAPI website for new course material; conducting independent research; and
attending conferences. The majority of colleges 61.7% (n=38) convene focus groups.
Study participants also report that their colleges employ other means ranging from
“information sources were anything we could get our hands on” and seeking advice from
faculty that worked in the field, to requiring course revision cycles. Varied means were
reported as most important with the largest percentages of research participants reporting
that reviewing current government homeland security policy directives and strategies
(28.3%, n=17) and reviewing current homeland security academic literature (21.7%,
n=13) were the most important.
Colleges undergraduate homeland security curricula were modified to varying
degrees since they were first offered with the vast majority (80%) being modified at least
somewhat. Ostensibly, colleges are adapting their undergraduate homeland security
curricula to meet the challenges of the dynamic and rapidly evolving homeland security
threat landscape (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2014; Worldwide Threat
Assessment, 2014a).
Graduate homeland security curricula. Research questions four through six
discuss the development, categorization, and ensuring that graduate homeland security
curricula remain current as homeland security needs change.
Research question four. How do colleges develop their graduate homeland
security curricula? Employing, McCune’s (1986) curricula planning process, research
question four focused on what colleges actually did to develop their graduate homeland
security curricula. Colleges use multiple and varied means to develop their graduate
homeland security curricula, 38% or higher of research participants’ colleges employ
focus groups/advisory councils and accreditation/agency processes and adopt preexisting
department, DHS, CHDS, and UAPI (other than CHDS) course materials. In addition,
21% of research participants’ colleges employ other means that range from starting from
scratch and adopting graduate level courses to soliciting input from homeland security
officials and stakeholders.
Focus group/advisory councils (61.5%, n=32) and adopting/modifying CHDS
course materials (59.6%, n=31) represent the means most used. Adopting/modifying
CHDS course materials (26.9 %, n=14) and focus groups/advisory councils (23.1%,
n=12) also represent the means that most influenced the development of the curricula. In
addition, adopting/modifying CHDS course materials (38.5%, n=20), adopting/modifying
UAPI (other than CHDS) course material (30.8%, n=16), and focus groups/advisory
councils (28.8 %, n=15) represent the means that were most rated as very important in
the development of the curricula. Numerous research participants’ comments referenced
exchanges with officials and subject matter experts suggesting that the role of focus
groups/advisory councils plays an even larger role in the development of the curricula.
In addition, colleges use varied means to deliver their graduate homeland security
curricula with the vast majority (78.8%) of colleges delivering at least part of the
curricula on-line. Comparatively in 2012, the percentage of college students in the U.S.
taking at least one on-line course was at an all-time high of 33.5% (Allen & Seaman,
2014).
Significant variances between the way colleges develop their undergraduate and
graduate homeland security curricula are limited to the role of CHDS course materials,
43.3% (n=26) of research participants report that their colleges adopt/modify CHDS
course materials for their undergraduate curricula as compared to 59.6% (n=31) of
participants that report that their colleges adopt/modify CHDS course materials for their
graduate curricula. Moreover, 10% (n=6) of research participants report that CHDS
course materials most influenced the development of their undergraduate homeland
security curricula as compared to 26.9% (n=14) of participants that report CHDS course
materials most influenced the development of their graduate homeland security curricula.
The variances are likely due to the existence of CHDS’ graduate homeland security
curriculum and the nonexistence of a CHDS undergraduate curriculum.
Research question five. How do colleges categorize their graduate homeland
security curricula? Employing McCune’s (1986) curricula planning process, research
question five focused on what colleges actually do to categorize their graduate homeland
security curricula. Colleges use various names to categorize their graduate homeland
security curricula that range from emergency management and criminal justice to cyber
and corporate security. The vast majority of participants (71.2%, n=37) report that their
colleges categorized the curricula as either Homeland Security (32.7%, n=17), Homeland
Security or Emergency Management (19.2%, n=10), or Homeland Security and Criminal
Justice (19.2%, n=10).
The varied categorization of graduate homeland security curricula with
concentrations in emergency management and criminal justice validates the research that
suggests that: (a) the breadth of homeland security warranted a wide range of programs
(National Research Council, Committee of Educational Paradigms for Homeland
Security, 2005); and (b) the majority of homeland security programs are linked to three
primary content areas: emergency management, criminal justice, and public
administration, but also reside in political science, history, psychology, public health, law,
and other academic departments. In the case of public administration, this research study
varies from the literature in that only one research participant reported that their college
categorizes their graduate homeland security curricula as public administration (Center
for Homeland Defense and Security, 2014d, Supinski, 2011, 2012).
The vast majority (84.6%, n=44) of colleges' approach to graduate homeland
security curricula is multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary rather than unidisciplinary. As
was the case of undergraduate homeland security curricula, this is a significant departure
from what Friedman, Friedman, and Hampton-Sosa (2013) refer to as “academic
bigotry i.e. disciplinary elitism” that permeates colleges in direct opposition to an
otherwise open minded culture that opposes bigotry and intolerance (p.2). Again, it
seems that higher education homeland security academics have: (a) achieved one of the
essential goals of a liberal arts higher education, focusing on problems rather than
academic disciplines (Dewey, 1916); (b) identified substantive and theoretical links
between disciplines despite their fractal distinctions (Abbot, 2001); and (c) eschewed the
rigidity and narrow-mindedness of disciplinary elitism and are communicating across
disciplines, collaborating, and adapting to rapidly changing conditions inherent to the
modern world (Friedman, Friedman, & Hampton-Sosa, 2013). Homeland security
academics seem to be dissolving the semantic homeland security stovepipes that Bellavita
(2008) argued insisted on one worldview and impeded the strategic goal of a secure
homeland and may be a meta-discipline.
This study’s theoretical rationale, collaborative federalism (Clovis, 2006) found
that different levels of government held different perspectives on federalism. They must
aggregate, coordinate, and integrate their homeland security capabilities to ensure the
greatest level of national preparedness. Academic disciplines under the lens of homeland
security graduate curricula appear to have aggregated, coordinated, and integrated their
capabilities to prepare students for homeland security.
Colleges include numerous and varied topics in their graduate homeland security
curricula with terrorism (n=51, 98.1%), emergency management and preparedness each
at n=49 (94.2%), and critical thinking (n=48, 92.3%) topping a list of 21 topics (See Table
4.18). Moreover, participants report that their colleges offer or were considering offering
other topics not specified on the survey questionnaire that range from agricultural
biosecurity and food defense to military support of humanitarian assistance and
leadership and safety.
Despite the range and vastness of homeland security, colleges consistently agree
(85% or higher) that graduate homeland security curricula should consist of 11 topics that
include: terrorism, critical thinking, collaboration, intelligence, strategy, all-hazards,
critical infrastructure, emergency management, preparedness, risk management, and
cyber security. The majority (59% or higher) of colleges also agree on five other topics
that include: public administration/policy, resilience, national security affairs/international
affairs, immigration, and public health (See Table 4.14). This affirms the conclusion of
Bellavita and Gordon (2006) that the “discipline” of homeland security is actively
working to identify core ideas with which anyone who wishes to speak intelligently about
homeland security has to be conversant. Bellavita and Gordon also argue that the
homeland security discipline is in a pre-paradigm phase and that there is no “conceptual”
agreement about the range of topics that constitutes the field of study. They thought that
was a “good thing.” The data from these findings suggest that the homeland security
paradigm is evolving and that the large range of topics might well be a
“good thing.”
Significantly, terrorism, collaboration, intelligence, strategy, all-hazards, critical
infrastructure, emergency management, preparedness, risk management, cyber
security/IT, and law that are included in the vast number of research participants’ colleges
graduate homeland security curricula, (85% or higher) all play a prominent role in the
most recent homeland security policy guidance (U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
2013b, 2014a). Moreover, the inclusion of terrorism by all but one research participant’s
college mirrors current White House and DHS policy that clearly identifies
counterterrorism as the primary homeland security objective (Obama, 2014; U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, 2014a).
Cumulatively the percentage (32.7%, n=17) of participants that report that their
colleges’ graduate homeland security curricula is best described as Homeland Security
per se; (b) the percentage (15.4%, n=8) of college academic departments that located
graduate homeland security curricula that were best described by research participants as
Homeland Security per se; and (c) the percentage (19.2%, n=10) of faculty whose
academic background was best described by research participants as Homeland Security
per se suggests that homeland security is evolving as an academic discipline. It appears
that a sizable number of colleges and academics are accepting and converting to
homeland security in what Kuhn (1996) refers to as a new paradigm. This aligns with the
research that suggests the emergence of homeland security as a new, emerging, and
developing discipline (CHDS, 2008, 2011; Falkow, 2013; Palin, 2010; Recca, 2013;
Supinski, 2012). Furthermore, the above findings coupled with similar findings regarding
undergraduate homeland security curricula (Research question two) suggest that
homeland security as an academic discipline has reached what Gladwell (2000) referred
to as a tipping point, a critical mass of circumstances that set us on a new and unstoppable
course.
Significant variances between the way colleges develop their undergraduate and
graduate homeland security curricula are limited to the degrees that colleges categorize
their undergraduate and graduate homeland security as Homeland Security and
Emergency Management, Homeland Security and Criminal Justice, and Homeland
Security per se. In the aggregate (n=112), undergraduate (n=60) and graduate (n=52),
the vast majority (71.4%, n=80) of college homeland security curricula was categorized
as either Homeland Security and Emergency Management (24.1%, n=27), Homeland
Security and Criminal Justice (20.5%, n=23), or Homeland Security (26.8%, n=30).
Homeland Security and Emergency Management curricula are more likely to be
found in undergraduate programs, n=17 (28.3%) participants report that their colleges’
categorized their undergraduate homeland security curricula as Homeland Security and
Emergency Management and n=10 (19.2%) of participants report that their colleges
categorize their graduate homeland security curricula as Homeland Security and
Emergency Management.
Homeland Security and Criminal Justice curricula are slightly more likely to be
found in undergraduate programs, n=13 (21.7%) of participants report that their colleges
categorize their undergraduate homeland security curricula as Homeland Security and
Criminal Justice, and n=10 (19.2%) of participants report that their colleges categorize
their graduate homeland security curricula as Homeland Security and Criminal Justice.
Conversely, Homeland Security curricula are more likely to be found in graduate
programs; n=17 (32.7%) report that their graduate homeland security curricula is
categorized as Homeland Security, and n=13 (21.7%) of participants report that their
colleges categorize their undergraduate homeland security curricula as Homeland
Security.
Research question six. How do colleges ensure that their graduate homeland
security curricula remain current as homeland security needs change? Employing,
McCune’s (1986) curricula planning process, research question six focused on what
colleges actually do to keep their graduate homeland security curricula current as
homeland security needs change. The vast majority (78% or higher) review current
academic and government literature and policy; solicit student input/feedback; conduct
independent research; and attend conferences. The majority of colleges (51.9.7% or
higher) review the UAPI website for new course material and convene focus groups.
Study participants also report that their colleges’ employ other means ranging from
faculty are practitioners who maintain currency through training and networks, to the
occurrence of regular curriculum reviews that are conducted with program sponsors.
Varied means were reported as most important with the largest percentages of
research participants reporting that reviewing current government homeland security
policy directives and strategies (32.7%, n=17), reviewing current homeland security
academic literature (15.4%, n=8), and conducting independent research (15.4%, n=8) are
the most important. Graduate homeland security curricula were modified to varying
degrees since they were first offered with the vast majority (92.3%) being modified at
least somewhat. Ostensibly, colleges are adapting their graduate homeland security
curricula to meet the challenges of the dynamic and rapidly evolving homeland security
threat landscape (Worldwide Threat Assessment, 2014; U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, 2014a). There are no significant differences between the way colleges keep
their undergraduate and graduate curricula current.
Educating homeland security professionals. Collier (2013) argued that it was
time to recognize that the most recent approaches to undergraduate teaching and learning
ensure graduates have the substantive knowledge and professional skills which were in
the past mainly developed in graduate programs. Analyses of colleges’ undergraduate
and graduate homeland security curricula demonstrate that colleges are employing the
same or similar processes to develop, categorize, and keep their curricula current and are
offering the same or similar courses, albeit at different levels, as part of their
undergraduate and graduate homeland security curricula. This raises the questions: what
are the distinctions and purposes of undergraduate and graduate homeland security
curricula?
Undergraduate education lends itself to the liberalizing of students. Graduate
education lends itself to specialization, intensity, and preparing students for learned
professions (Opperman, 2011). Gardner and Shulman (2005) found that physicians,
lawyers, architects, and engineers are generally accepted as professionals. Nurses, social
workers, and teachers are generally considered to be professionals but less so than the
aforementioned first tier. Several other practitioners may also have some claim to
professional status. Professions are subject to their times, from the growing reach of new
technologies to fiscal realities. Palin (2010) found that homeland security may be an
emerging new profession. Claiming the core characteristics of a profession is how
homeland security could best serve the public interest. Gardner and Shulman (2005)
identified six characteristics of professionals:
• A commitment to serve in the interests of clients in particular and the welfare
of society in general;
• A body of theory or specialized knowledge with its own principles of growth
and reorganization;
• A specialized set of skills, practices, and performances unique to the
profession;
• The developed capacity to render judgments with integrity under conditions
of both technical and ethical uncertainty;
• An organized approach to learning from experience, both individually and
collectively, and thus growing new bodies of knowledge from the context of
practice, and;
• The development of a professional community responsible for the oversight
and monitoring of quality in both practice and professional education.
Through their seminal homeland security curricula initiative, Pelfrey et al. (2002)
identified 10 key disciplines that should be trained to respond to incidents involving
weapons of mass destruction: emergency management agencies, emergency medical
services, firefighters, governmental administrators, hazardous materials personnel, law
enforcement, public health, health care, public safety communications, and public works.
Each of these disciplines is represented in the homeland security enterprise. All should
be trained and educated to prevent/mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and help the nation
recover from homeland security events that do occur. Each discipline, to varying degrees,
fulfills Gardner and Shulman’s (2005) professional criteria.
As members of the homeland security enterprise, practitioners at all levels may be
faced with homeland security versions of what Krulak (1999) referred to as three block
wars wherein strategic corporals make critical decisions that decide the outcomes. Three
block wars are tactical engagements with strategic implications. Strategic corporals are
entry-level and first-line supervisors that are trained to make critical decisions. The
heroic and tactical actions and decisions made by numerous first responders during the
events of Superstorm Sandy in 2012 and the Boston Marathon terror attacks in 2013
demonstrate clearly that members of the homeland security enterprise can, and do make
critical decisions that decide the outcomes (U.S. Department of Homeland Security
2013a, 2013b, 2013c, 2014a, 2014b).
Homeland security’s strategic corporals, entry-level and first-line supervisors,
require the knowledge and professional skills that were once reserved for mid-level
managers and executives. For most members of the homeland security enterprise, the
requisite knowledge and skills and professionalization will come from organizational
training and undergraduate education. As Pelfrey and Kelley (2013) suggest, graduate
level homeland security education is designed for practitioners in leadership or
administrative positions.
Limitations
Despite efforts to minimize the gaps and limitations to this study, they did exist.
This research obtained responses by surveying the entire population of UAPI members in
the United States who were identified as faculty at a U.S. college. The Internet-based
survey was administered to the entire population and that resulted in a voluntary return
rate of n=86 (14.6%). Although not uncommon for Internet-based surveys to have
response rates of less than 20%, an increase on this study’s return rate of 14.6% would
provide a more representative sample (Witmer, Colman, & Katzaman, 1999). Moreover,
the sample size (n=86) did not lend itself to inferential statistics that might provide
significant analyses of the relationships between variables and particularly between
(a) faculty academic backgrounds, (b) colleges’ regional locations, and (c) the year that
colleges first developed their curricula with the development of the curricula.
The survey population was limited to a sample from a specific organization. Only
faculty that were members of the UAPI were asked to take part in this study. Faculty was
defined here as Professors, Associate Professors, Assistant Professors, Specialist
Professors, Lecturers, Instructors, and Chairpersons (department), Program Coordinators,
Directors, Managers, and Adjunct Professors. College administrators, consultants,
coordinators, and learning management systems specialists are not included in this study.
The results of this study may be generalized on a larger scale. However, the
researcher recommends that future surveys include college administrators and what Oliva
and Gordon (2013) referred to as curriculum workers –curriculum planners, consultants,
coordinators, and professors of curriculum as each may, to varying degrees, approve,
modify, mold, shape, and tailor curricula (Oliva & Gordon, 2013).
Recommendations
There is no consensus definition of homeland security (Bellavita, 2008; Reese,
2013, 2014) and no clear guidelines for colleges to develop, categorize, and ensure that
their homeland security curricula remain current as homeland security needs change. The
current homeland security threat environment (Worldwide Threat Assessment, 2014)
merits undergraduate and graduate homeland security curricula that will provide students
with the attitudes, values, beliefs, knowledge, skills, and abilities to secure the homeland.
Recommendations resulting from this study include a national college homeland security
conference, a national U.S. Homeland Security Academy, the establishment of a doctoral
level graduate program at CHDS, and future research.
National college homeland security conference. Colleges that offer homeland
security curricula should assemble to: (a) develop an academic definition of homeland
security; (b) develop core and model undergraduate and graduate homeland security
curricula; and (c) identify homeland security curricula smart practices. Smart practices
are distinguished from best practices in that smart practices describe interesting ideas
embedded in some practice, while best practices suggests that research and empirical
evidence prove that the practices are best. Smart-practice research emphasizes that there
is something clever inherent in a practice. It is this cleverness that the researcher must
analyze, characterize in words, and appraise as to its applicability to the local situation
(Bardach, 2009). See Collier (2013) for a similar recommendation of a homeland
security college conclave.
Developing an academic definition of homeland security is a prerequisite to
developing core and model homeland security curricula. A consensus definition of
homeland security might help to determine what has to be done to actually secure the
homeland. See Smith (2005), Pelfrey and Pelfrey (2009), and Preston, Armstrong, and
McCoy (2010) for foundational academic definitions of homeland security.
Core and model undergraduate and graduate homeland security curricula will
provide colleges with clear guidelines to develop and keep their curricula current. The
curricula should represent the combined sense of the homeland security enterprise. The
conference should establish a working group to create a national survey that asks
members of the enterprise to identify what attitudes, values, beliefs, knowledge, skills,
and abilities are necessary to prepare homeland security practitioners for the current and
future homeland security threat landscape. The curricula should be informed by the
survey.
The conference should identify homeland security curricula instructional smart
practices. The research (Polson, Persyn, & Cupp, 2010; Preston, Armstrong, & McCoy,
2010) showed that colleges were testing and implementing a wide range of homeland
security curricular methods. Methods that demonstrate considerable value should be
shared so that other colleges may adapt, scaled and measured to their unique needs, those
curricular methods that might help prepare students for homeland security. See Pelfrey
and Kelley (2013) for a similar recommendation. The academic definition of homeland
security, the core and model homeland security curricula, and the smart practices should
be made available to homeland security educators on the UAPI or other suitable website.
U.S. homeland security academy. The U.S. Homeland Security Academy would
provide competitive, service-oriented education to homeland security aspirants. It would
be modeled on the U.S. military academies that require service obligations.
Similar to the proposed Federal Homeland Security Undergraduate University
(DiGiacomo, 2010) and the proposed U.S. Public Service Academy (House of
Representatives Bill 1671, 2007; Senate Bill 960, 2007), students would earn credits
toward a bachelors’ degree. The curriculum would include homeland security related
courses with a focus on leadership and civic and service-oriented education. Unlike U.S.
military academies whose service obligations are U.S. military specific, the U.S.
Homeland Security Academy would offer service opportunities at the federal, state, local,
and tribal government levels. In addition, certain service opportunities would be
available in the private sector. Considering the inclusion and recent emphasis on
publicprivate partnerships within the homeland security enterprise (U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, 2014), Academy graduates that satisfy their service commitment in
the private sector would be serving the best interests of the homeland security enterprise.
Private sector service commitments would, however, require explicit guidance and
appropriate oversight.
Doctoral level graduate program. CHDS, with the support of Congress and
DHS, should establish a doctoral level graduate program that will provide the homeland
security enterprise with evidence-based research that helps prevent/mitigate threats and
identify effective preparedness, response, and recovery capabilities and practices.
CHDS’ Out of the Classroom and Into the World program and Applied Research
Exemplars (Center for Homeland Defense and Security, 2014e) provide rich examples of
real-world applications of theory to practice. This study identified at least 13 homeland
security related doctoral programs (Center for Homeland Defense and Security. 2014d).
Each program, however, is grounded in other disciplines and especially criminal justice,
emergency management, public administration, and management. A doctoral program
grounded in homeland security specifically and based upon the CHDS program Out of
the Classroom and into the World would focus on homeland security specific problems.
The doctoral program would develop and test theories that explain and predict
phenomena, and apply new knowledge to critical concerns.
Additional research. The homeland security curricula process is inherently
complex, variant, ramified, and not always transparent. Therefore, the study’s survey did
not capture all possible elements of college homeland security curricula and further
research is warranted. This research did not identify experiential and research elements
of homeland security curricula. Each may play a significant role in the curricula process
and are worthy of future research. Although this study’s survey afforded participants the
opportunity to provide other answers and comments, the quantitative methodology did
not allow for follow-up questions that may have provided greater insights. Future
iterations of this study or other college homeland security curricula surveys should
consider follow up qualitative interviews of willing participants.
Conclusion
The American people have come to value the set of activities that comprise
homeland security. Prevention, preparedness, response, mitigation, recovery, and
consequence management activities significantly contribute to quality of life. Once
aspirational goals, they are now expectations, if not requirements. Education is a potent
and durable contributor to enhancing homeland security (Pelfrey & Kelley, 2013).
Education is one of the most optimistic endeavors of mankind. At the core of education
is curriculum.
This study focused on the policies and practices that colleges use to develop,
categorize, and ensure that their homeland security curricula remain current as homeland
security needs change. The means to do so were variant, ramified, and not always
transparent. The study used a quantitative Internet-based survey issued to faculty at
colleges that offered homeland security curricula. All faculty were members of the
CHDS University Agency Partnership Initiative (UAPI). The survey asked participants to
provide demographic data, and to respond to questions related to the development,
categorization, and ensuring that college homeland security curricula remain current as
homeland security needs change. The survey instrument was developed using the
research on the literature including policies and practices in use by colleges in the United
States.
As this was a new survey instrument, validity and reliability was established prior
to use. To establish validity and reliability a panel of four homeland security higher
education faculty members was used. The panel were given the initial survey as a pretest
and requested to evaluate the questions for validity and construct. The panelists then
returned the survey with written comments. The panel’s responses and comments were
reviewed and incorporated into a corrected survey. The test surveys were distributed to
the panelists in the same manner as the actual research participants to simulate actual
research conditions. The panelists were asked to complete the survey and to return it
electronically via Qualtrics an online survey tool. The data from this test survey were
analyzed and this revealed that the survey was mechanically sound. The survey was
redistributed to the same panel for retest and finalization of the survey. A test-retest
analysis (Test-1 and Test-2) revealed test-retest reliability.
After establishing reliability and validity, the Internet-based survey was issued to
the research participants, 587 faculty members at colleges in the United States that
offered homeland security curricula. All participants were also registered UAPI
members, an organization for homeland security educators and agencies. The survey
responses were returned electronically at a return rate of 14.6%. An analysis of the
response data was conducted using data analysis software. Descriptive statistics and
analysis of the quantitative data were used to assess the research questions and the
demographic data.
The analysis of the data determined that colleges use varied means to develop
their undergraduate and graduate homeland security curricula. The majority (50.9% or
higher) of colleges employ focus groups/advisory councils and adopt/modify CHDS
materials, and 38% or higher adopt/modify preexisting courses from their institutions,
UAPI (other than CHDS), and DHS course materials. Colleges use various means to
deliver their homeland security curricula with the vast majority (79.5%) delivering at
least part of the curricula on-line.
Colleges use various names to categorize their undergraduate and graduate
curricula. The vast majority (71.4%) categorize the curricula as Homeland Security per
se (26.8%), Homeland Security and Emergency Management (24.1%), or Homeland
Security and Criminal Justice (20.5%). The vast majority (83%) of colleges’ approach to
undergraduate and graduate curricula is multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary rather than
unidisciplinary.
Colleges use multiple and varied means to keep their undergraduate and graduate
homeland security curricula current. The vast majority (75% or higher) review current
academic and government literature and policy, solicit student input/feedback, review
UAPI website for new course material, and conduct independent research. College
undergraduate and graduate homeland security curricula are modified to varying degrees
with the vast majority (85.7%) being modified at least somewhat since they were first
offered.
The research participants drawn from the UAPI website were limited to faculty.
Further research on a larger scale will increase the generalizability of these results. It is
recommended that further studies include other curriculum workers as their roles in the
curricula process might provide further insights.
The recommendations resulting from this study include a national college
homeland security conference, a national U.S. Homeland Security Academy, the
establishment of a doctoral level homeland security program at CHDS, and future
research. Colleges are an integral component of the homeland security enterprise.
Common and core college homeland security curricula can, and must effectively prepare
current and future members of the enterprise to provide a homeland that is safe, secure,
and resilient.
