University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Examining the relationship between doctoral attrition and a redefined fatherhood: a gap analysis

(USC Thesis Other)

Examining the relationship between doctoral attrition and a redefined fatherhood: a gap analysis

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD 1

EXAMINING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD: A GAP ANALYSIS

by

Juan S. Garcia

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2018

Copyright 2018 Juan S. Garcia
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

2
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my wife and children. As any doctoral student knows, the
challenge of earning a doctorate requires a mountain of work, endless patience and resilience,
and the love and support of friends and family. Sarah, Daniel, and Emma have been the most
understanding, forgiving, and loving support network a husband/father could ask for; each of
them made sacrifices for this study, and I can only hope that it has produced something you can
be proud of. I love you (and our poor neglected dogs).
This dissertation is dedicated to my mother who, for such a large part of my life, was a
one-woman show as provider, nurturer, and everything else that we needed, wanted, hoped for,
and asked for. You set the bar high – I hope you, too, can be proud.
This dissertation is dedicated to Grandpa. You taught me integrity and work ethic, were
my voice of reason, and make me want to do and be better. You are – and forever will be – my
cornerstone.
Finally, to all those working fathers pursuing their doctorates and working “the third
shift.” I hope, in some small way, this helps you find a way to cross that finish line.

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

3
Acknowledgements
First, I would like to give heartfelt thanks to my dissertation chair, the incomparable Dr.
Melora Sundt, for her support, guidance, and insight. You demonstrated saint-like patience as I
revised (endlessly) every section, chart, and table – and sent almost every revision to you for
feedback. I am grateful for the all the encouragement, energy, and time that you so willingly
gave (not only to me but to anyone in need). I appreciate you.
Thank you to the other members of my committee – Dr. Kimberly Ferrario and Dr. Kathy
Hanson. Dr. Ferrario, you were with me that very first class, when the idea for this study was just
a citation-heavy 10-page paper in need of shape and direction. Dr. Hanson, you were with me
when things began to get “real” and I needed that extra push to believe I was on the right track
and this beast could be slain. Thank you, both.
Finally, to my colleagues in Cohort 3 – this has been a remarkable journey. I was so
impressed at the start of this program by your titles, resumés, and credentials. Hearing some of
you speak in class, I wondered how I could ever hope to keep up. Three short years later, I am
even more amazed by the fact that those titles, resumés, and credentials cannot begin to describe
how supportive, inspiring, and incredible some of you really are. I will forever be proud to have
been a part of this group of game changers and visionaries, upsetters and innovators – this group
of changemakers. Thanks for letting me come along for the ride. #NoDoctorsDown

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

4
Abstract
This study applies the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework to better understand the
influences negatively affecting doctoral completion rates. The purpose of this study was to
understand the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors impacting working fathers’
ability to achieve their performance goal of graduating on time from their doctoral program. The
mixed methods approach of the study utilized a parallel sequential design, as quantitative survey
and qualitative interview data were collected one after another and from the same pool of
participants (with a purposeful sampling chosen for qualitative interviews chosen to represent the
population to be examined). Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted upon survey results to
identify central tendencies and nominal data reflecting participants’ feelings and observations.
Interviews were coded in a multiphase approach, with the assignment of a priori codes developed
with input from the literature. Findings indicate multiple knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences present that leave doctoral students vulnerable to attrition. Doctoral
students and working fathers pursuing their doctorates demonstrated similarities in risk, with
working fathers found to be at increased risk due to the added strain of remaining engaged as
fathers during their doctoral studies. This study begins to bridge a gap between the two bodies of
research regarding doctoral attrition and the evolving role of fathers and contributes to a new line
of work examining steps to be taken to improve doctoral completion rates of an at-risk
population.

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

5
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
Abstract 4
List of Tables 9
List of Figures 11

Chapter One: Overview of the Study 15
Introduction of the Problem 15
Organizational Context and Mission 18
Organizational Goal 19
Background of the Problem 20
Doctoral Attrition 20
Changes in Fatherhood 25
Importance of the Evaluation 30
Stakeholders and Stakeholders’ Performance Goals 31
Stakeholder for the Study 32
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions 33
Definitions 33
Organization of the Study 34

Chapter Two: Literature Review 35
Conceptual Framework 35
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences 37
Knowledge and Skills 37
Motivation 45
Organizational Influences 51
Conclusion 68

Chapter Three: Methodology 70
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions 70
Conceptual and Methodological Framework 70
Assessment of Performance Influences 73
Knowledge Assessment 75
Motivation Assessment 76
Organization Assessment 77
Participating Stakeholders 80
Data Collection 80
Survey Sampling 80
Interview Sampling 83
Document Analysis 84
Data Analysis 84
Credibility and Trustworthiness 85
Validity and Reliability 86
Triangulation 87
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

6
Self-Reflection and Clarification of Researcher Bias 87
Presentation of Discrepant Information 88
Role of the Investigator 88
Ethics 88

Chapter Four: Results and Findings 90
Validation 91
Stakeholders 93
Survey Sampling 93
Interview Sampling 97
Results and Findings for Knowledge Influences 98
Understanding Balance is a Challenge 98
Knowing What They Want to Accomplish 104
Understanding the Effects of Role-Overload 106
Understanding the Costs of Poor Work-Life Balance 108
Utilizing Personal Competencies 109
Monitoring Risk Factors 112
Summary of Results and Findings for Knowledge Influences 116
Results and Findings for Motivation Influences 116
Intrinsic Interest 117
Prioritizing Academic Work 119
Believing They are Capable of Success 134
Believing It is Worth It 136
Summary of Results and Findings for Motivation Influences 142
Results and Findings for Organization Influences 142
Scaffolding Dissertation Writing Skills 143
Supporting Students’ Sense of Identity 150
Monitoring Relationships with Dissertation Chairs 155
Social Integration 161
Program Design and Structure 167
Curricular Content 176
Communication 181
Meeting Expectations 187
Financial Support 191
Categorical Conditions 194
Time-to-Degree (TTD) 198
Summary of Results and Findings for Organization Influences 202
Summary 202

Chapter Five: Recommendations with Integrated Evaluation Plans 205
Recommendations for Addressing Validated KMO Influences 205
Knowledge Component Overview 205
Knowledge Recommendations 206
Metacognitive Recommendations 207
Motivation Component Overview 208
Expectancy-Value Theory (EVT) 208
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

7
Motivation Recommendations 209
EVT – Attainment-value recommendations 209
EVT – Cost recommendations 211
Organizational Component Overview 211
Cultural Models 211
Cultural Settings 212
Organizational Recommendations 212
Monitoring Relationships with Dissertation Chairs 213
Social Integrations 214
Communication 215
Financial Support 216
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 216
Implementation and Evaluation Framework 216
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations 218
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators 219
Level 3: Behavior 220
Level 2: Learning 222
Level 1: Reaction 225
Evaluation Tools 226
Data Analysis and Reporting 227
Summary 229
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach 230
Limitations 231
Future Study 233
Conclusion 235

References 237

Appendix A: Survey Instrument Protocol – Sample Group 250

Appendix B: Survey Reminder – Sample Group 257

Appendix C: Request for Interview Participation – Purposefully Sampled 258
Population

Appendix D: Interview Protocol – Purposefully Sampled Population 259

Appendix E: Information/Facts Sheet for Exempt Non-Medical Research 263

Appendix F: Quantitative Survey Item Summaries 265

Appendix G: Quantitative Survey Results 280

Appendix H: Quantitative Survey Results – Purposefully Sampled Population 284

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

8
Appendix H: Sample Post-Asynchronous Module Survey Measuring 288
Kirkpatrick’s Levels 1 & 2

Appendix I: Sample Blended Evaluation Measuring Kirkpatrick Levels 1 – 4 289

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

9
List of Tables
Table 1: Predictions for Workplace Mistreatment at Work as a Function of 28
Gender and Childcare

Table 2: Organizational Mission, Global Performance Goal, and Stakeholder 31
Performance Goal

Table 3: Assumed Knowledge and Skill Influences on the Doctoral Attrition 44
Rate of Working Fathers

Table 4: Assumed Motivation Influences on the Doctoral Attrition Rate of 51
Working Fathers

Table 5: Assumed Organizational Influences on the Doctoral Attrition Rate 66
of Working Fathers

Table 6: Sources of Assumed Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational 73
Influences

Table 7: Assumed Knowledge Influences and Method of Assessment 75

Table 8: Assumed Motivation Influences and Method of Assessment 76

Table 9: Assumed Organizational Influences and Method of Assessment 77

Table 10: List of Assumed KMO Influences 92

Table 11: Survey Participants’ Employment Status 95

Table 12: Survey Participants’ Marital Status 95

Table 13: Survey Participants’ Parental Status 96

Table 14: Interview Participant Data 97

Table 15: Assumed Knowledge Influences 98

Table 16: Assumed Motivation Influences 116

Table 17: Survey Items Assessing OL Students’ Time Use and Prioritizing 119

Table 18: Assumed Organization Influences 142

Table 19: Complete List of Influences and Determination of Validation 203

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

10
Table 20: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 206

Table 21: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 209

Table 22: Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations 212

Table 23: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal 219
Outcomes

Table 24: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, and Methods for Working Fathers 220
Pursuing their Doctorates

Table 25: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors of Working Fathers 221
Pursuing their Doctorates

Table 26: Components of Student Progression Plan (SPP) 224

Table 27: Components to Measure Reactions to the Student Progression 225
Plan (SPP)

Table 28: Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for Internal Reporting and 228
Accountability
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

11
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Doctorate Degrees Conferred, 1976-77 through 2012-13 16

Figure 1.2: How Fathers See Their Responsibilities to Their Children 26

Figure 1.3. Fathers’ Time Off After Most Recent Birth/Adoption 29

Figure 2.1: Relationship between Knowledge and Skills, Motivation, and 36
Organizational Influences as they Affect Performance

Figure 2.2: Fathers Now Experiencing More Work-Life Conflict Than Mothers 38

Figure 3.1: Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Process Model 72

Figure 3.2: Visual model for mixed methods sequential explanatory design 82
procedures

Figure 4.1: Survey Participants’ Age Distribution 93

Figure 4.2: Survey Participants’ Gender Distribution 94

Figure 4.3: Survey Participants’ Cohort Distribution 94

Figure 4.4: Survey Participants’ Parental Status Distribution 96

Figure 4.5: Male Survey Participants’ Parental Status Distribution 96

Figure 4.6: Survey Results for Q8 – How challenging has it been balancing 99
your doctoral studies with work, family and other commitments?

Figure 4.7: Working Fathers’ Survey Results for Q8 – How challenging has it 99
been balancing your doctoral studies with work, family and other commitments?

Figure 4.8: Survey Results for Q9 – Approximately how many hours per week 120
do you dedicate to your doctoral studies?

Figure 4.9: Working Fathers’ Survey Results for Q9 – Approximately how 121
many hours per week do you dedicate to your doctoral studies?

Figure 4.10: Survey Results for Q10 – Since starting my doctoral program, 121
time with my family has:

Figure 4.11: Working Fathers’ Survey Results for Q10 – Since starting my 122
doctoral program, time with my family has:

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

12
Figure 4.12: Survey Results for Q11 – Since starting your doctoral program, 123
approximately how many hours per week do you spend engaged with your
family?

Figure 4.13: Working Fathers’ Survey Results for Q11 – Since starting your 124
doctoral program, approximately how many hours per week do you spend
engaged with your family?

Figure 4.14: Survey Results for Q12 – Since starting my doctoral program, 125
the amount of time I spend fulfilling professional/work duties has:

Figure 4.15: Working Fathers’ Survey Results for Q12 – Since starting my 125
doctoral program, the amount of time I spend fulfilling professional/work
duties has:

Figure 4.16: Survey Results for Q13 – Since starting your doctoral program, 126
approximately how many hours per week do you spend fulfilling your
professional/work duties?

Figure 4.17: Working Fathers’ Survey Results for Q13 – Since starting your 127
doctoral program, approximately how many hours per week do you spend
fulfilling your professional/work duties?

Figure 4.18: Survey Results for Q14 – Since starting my doctoral program, 127
the amount of time I spend on commitments other than work and family has:

Figure 4.19: Working Fathers’ Survey Results for Q14 – Since starting my 128
doctoral program, the amount of time I spend on commitments other than
work and family has:

Figure 4.20: Survey Results for Q15 – Since starting your doctoral program, 129
approximately how many hours per week do you spend on commitments
other than work and family?

Figure 4.21: Working Fathers’ Survey Results for Q15 – Since starting your 129
doctoral program, approximately how many hours per week do you spend
on commitments other than work and family?

Figure 4.22: Survey Results for Q16a – I believe I am capable of successfully 135
balancing work, school, family, and my other responsibilities

Figure 4.23: Working Fathers’ Survey Results for Q16a – I believe I am 135
capable of successfully balancing work, school, family, and my other responsibilities

Figure 4.24: Survey Results for Q16b – Time spent studying will improve 137
my chances of successfully completing my courses
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

13
Figure 4.25: Working Fathers’ Survey Results for Q16b – Time spent studying 137
will improve my chances of successfully completing my courses

Figure 4.26: Survey Results for Q16c – Sacrificing time otherwise spent with 138
family, friends, or on myself to have more time for my academic studies is
worth it

Figure 4.27: Working Fathers’ Survey Results for Q16c – Sacrificing time 139
otherwise spent with family, friends, or on myself to have more time for my
academic studies is worth it

Figure 4.28: Survey Results for Q16d – My doctoral program provides 143
sufficient training regarding how to conduct research for the dissertation
writing process

Figure 4.29: Working Fathers’ Survey Results for Q16d – My doctoral 144
program provides sufficient training regarding how to conduct research for
the dissertation writing process

Figure 4.30: Survey Results for Q16e – My doctoral program monitors 156
whether students have productive relationships with their dissertation chairs

Figure 4.31: Working Fathers’ Survey Results for Q16e – My doctoral program 156
monitors whether students have productive relationships with their dissertation chairs

Figure 4.32: Survey Results for Qq17a – My doctoral program provides 162
opportunities to interact socially with my peers and classmates

Figure 4.33: Working Fathers’ Survey Results for Qq17a – My doctoral 163
program provides opportunities to interact socially with my peers and classmates

Figure 4.34: Survey Results for Q17b – My doctoral program provides 164
opportunities to interact socially with my professors and advisors

Figure 4.35: Working Fathers’ Survey Results for Q17b – My doctoral 164
program provides opportunities to interact socially with my professors and advisors

Figure 4.36: Survey Results for Q17c – My doctoral program’s being 169
offered online is a good fit for the students enrolled in the program

Figure 4.37: Working Fathers’ Survey Results for Q17c – My doctoral 169
program’s being offered online is a good fit for the students enrolled in
the program

Figure 4.38: Survey Results for Q17d – My doctoral program’s being 170
offered in a cohort model is a good fit for the students enrolled in the program
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

14
Figure 4.39: Working Fathers’ Survey Results for Q17d – My doctoral 170
program’s being offered in a cohort model is a good fit for the students
enrolled in the program

Figure 4.40: Survey Results for Q17e – The curricular content of my 177
doctoral program is appropriate and applicable

Figure 4.41: Working Fathers’ Survey Results for Q17e – The curricular 178
content of my doctoral program is appropriate and applicable

Figure 4.42: Survey Results for Q17f – My doctoral program communicates 181
important information to me accurately and in a timely manner

Figure 4.43: Working Fathers’ Survey Results for Q17f – My doctoral program 182
communicates important information to me accurately and in a timely manner

Figure 4.44: Survey Results for Q18c – Overall, my doctoral program has 188
met my expectations

Figure 4.45: Working Fathers’ Survey Results for Q18c – Overall, my doctoral 188
program has met my expectations

Figure 4.46: Survey Results for Q18a – My doctoral program is supportive of 192
students dealing with financial hardship

Figure 4.47: Working Fathers’ Survey Results for Q18a – My doctoral program 192
is supportive of students dealing with financial hardship

Figure 4.48: Survey Results for Q18b – I believe it is possible to earn my 198
doctorate in a reasonable amount of time through this program

Figure 4.49: Working Fathers’ Survey Results for Q18b – I believe it is 199
possible to earn my doctorate in a reasonable amount of time through this
program

Figure 5.1: The Kirkpatrick Model (1959) 217

Figure 5.2: The New World Kirkpatrick Model 217

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

15
CHAPTER ONE
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction to the Problem
According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the number of
doctoral degrees conferred by U.S. colleges and universities has nearly doubled over the last 30
years. During the 2012-2013 academic year, 175,038 doctoral degrees were conferred; this is a
sharp increase compared to the 91,218 conferred during the 1976-1977 academic year (U.S.
Department of Education, 2014; see Figure 1.1). Despite this increase in earned doctorates,
attrition in doctoral programs remains historically high. Approximately 50% of all doctoral
students fail to earn their degree, and that number has remained constant for the last 50 years
(Allan & Dory, 2001; Grasso, Barry, & Valentine, 2009; Jairam & Kahl, 2012; Lovitts, 2001;
Smith, Maroney, Nelson, Abel, & Abel, 2006; Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012; Stallone,
2011); Spaulding and Rockinson-Szapkiw’s research (2012) found that the attrition rate for
education programs is higher than any other discipline – with some studies estimating the
attrition rate for doctorates of education to be at least 50% and as high as 70%. But universities
can no longer afford to be inefficient in times of economic uncertainty, allowing high attrition
rates to leave the existence of doctoral programs – as well as the faculty and staff who operate
them – at risk.
At the same time, a new wave of research indicates that (over the last 10 – 15 years),
working fathers have been facing increasing and unprecedented levels of conflict in their lives as
they redefine their roles as fathers. In a 2016 study of almost 2,000 fathers, nearly two-thirds
(64%) believed that a father should be a financial provider for the family, even if he is an
engaged caregiver (Heilman, B., Cole, G., Matos, K., Hassink, A., Mincy, R., Barker, G., 2016).
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

16
With most fathers now consider it their responsibility to both care for their children and earn
money to support them, traditional breadwinning responsibilities are merging with caregiving
responsibilities to redefine what it means to be a father (Harrington, Van Deusen, & Humberd,
2011). As a result, the inability of working fathers to find a healthy work-life balance (WLB) is
leading to increased stress levels, emotional exhaustion, a sense of role-overload, and worsening
health (Evans, Carney, & Wilkinson, 2013;
Fig 1.1. Doctorate Degrees Conferred by Post-Secondary Institutions, 1976-77 through 2012-13

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 2014
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

17
Greenhaus, Collins, & Shaw, 2003; Hughes & Bozionelos, 2007; McLaughlan & Muldoon,
2014; Ladge, Humberd, Watkins, & Harrington, 2015; Raiden & Raisanen, 2013). Despite the
costs of their unhealthy WLB, working fathers continue to be among the least-studied
demographic in the extensive and on-going WLB research (Buzzanell & Duckworth, 2009;
Gatrell, Burnett, Cooper, & Sparrow, 2013; McLaughlan & Muldoon, 2014; Munn, 2013; Raiden
& Raisanen, 2013; Wada, Backman, & Forwell, 2015).
Previous doctoral degree completion studies have primarily examined typical residential
doctoral programs (Ph.D.) – programs in which students typically enroll full-time and work in
research labs or elsewhere on campus, if they work at all (Allan & Dory, 2001; Pauley,
Cunningham, & Toth, 1999; Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012; Stallone, 2011).
Professional doctorates, like the one that is the subject of this study, are more likely than Ph.D.
programs to attract working professionals (Pauley, Cunningham, & Toth, 1999; Spaulding &
Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012). For doctoral programs like the Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) in
Organizational Leadership (pseudonym) offered by University X (pseudonym), doctoral
retention and completion may prove to be a concern. Designed for leaders in both the public and
private sector, the Ed.D. in OL is a professional degree designed for working individuals in
leadership positions and is delivered primarily through an online learning management system
(LMS). With online doctoral programs demonstrating a 10 – 20% higher attrition rate than their
on-ground counterparts (Ivankova & Stick, 2007; Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012), and
professional degrees among programs with the highest levels of attrition overall, the Ed.D. in OL
may prove to be a perfect storm for doctoral attrition by way of a redefined fatherhood.

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

18
Organizational Context and Mission
University X is a private, not-for-profit research university founded in the late 1800s with
its main campus located in the western half of the United States (University X, n.d.-a)
1
. The
University is controlled by a Board of Trustees and university administration. The university
administration consists of a president, a provost, several vice-presidents, a treasurer, a chief
information officer, and an athletic director.
During the 2014-2015 academic year, there were nearly 19,000 students enrolled in four-
year undergraduate programs at University X. The University also enrolled more than 23,000
graduate and professional students (University X, n.d.-b). In June 2015, the University conferred
more than 5,000 bachelor’s degrees and over 9,000 advanced degrees (University X, n.d.-h). Of
the advanced degrees conferred, nearly 1,500 were doctoral degrees, with approximately 60%
being classified as doctor’s degrees of professional practice (University X, n.d.-i). Multiple
rankings list University X among the top-tiered universities of the United States (University X,
n.d.-f).
University X’s School of Education (SOE) is a graduate school offering seven master’s
degree programs, three Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) programs, and one Ph.D. program
(University X, n.d.-c). Ranked by U.S. News and World Report among the best U.S. graduate
schools of education (U.S. News and World Report, 2017), the SOE strives to improve learning
at all levels by embracing the significance of racial, ethnic, linguistic, and cultural diversity,
while bearing in mind the challenges posed by issues such as poverty, density, mobility, and
immigration status (University X, n.d.-d).

1
Complete citations withheld to protect the anonymity of the university.
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

19
The Ed.D. in Organizational Leadership (OL) is designed for individuals who currently
hold or are seeking leadership positions within colleges and universities, K–12 schools and
systems, private firms, nonprofits and government organizations (University X, n.d.-e).
Delivered through a blend of online and face-to-face instruction, the OL program is designed to
allow students to continue working full-time while pursuing their degree. Students examine how
learning occurs in formal and informal settings, examine effective strategies for facilitating
organizational learning, and learn to create systems that produce more effective, adaptable and
competitive organizations (University X, n.d.-e).
Organizational Goal
The assumed/aspirational goal of University X’s Ed.D. in OL program is a 100%
completion rate of all admitted students eight academic terms/three years after their initial
enrollment in the program (for the purpose of this study, the three-year/eight-term/43-unit course
plan for students granted advanced standing by way of a previously-earned Master’s degree was
referenced; University X’s SOE offers a second variation of the OL doctoral program, requiring
60 units for students admitted without a Master’s degree).
Launched within the last five years, the doctoral program’s first cohort completed its
program in 2017. Successful completion of the program includes a successful preliminary review
during the third academic term, a qualifying exam/proposal defense during the fifth academic
term, and a dissertation defense during the final academic term of the program. A grade point
average (GPA) of 3.0 must be maintained throughout the program; a student whose graduate
GPA falls below 3.0 for any one semester is placed on academic probation and is subject to
immediate dismissal at the discretion of the academic program until the student’s overall
graduate GPA rises above 3.0 (University X Ed.D. in OL Student Guidebook, 2015, p. 21). Each
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

20
cohort of the OL program enrolls between 60-75 students. Completion rates for the three
cohorts preceding the start of this study – January 2015 (with a program end date of August
2017), May 2015 (with a program end date of December 2017), and August 2015 (with a
program end date of May 2018) – were not available at the time of this study’s completion.
Background of the Problem
Doctoral Attrition
The doctoral degree – often referred to as “the pinnacle of education”, “the preeminent
level of study”, and “the capstone of graduate education” – is pursued by nearly 100,000 new
students each year in the U.S. (Jairam & Kahl, 2012; Pauley, Cunningham, & Toth, 1999; Smith
et al., 2006; Wao & Onwuegbuzie, 2011). The phenomenon of doctoral attrition is puzzling
given that “paradoxically, the most academically capable, most academically successful, most
stringently evaluated, and most carefully selected students in the entire higher education system
– doctoral students – are the least likely to complete their chosen academic goals” (Golde, 2000,
p. 199). Today, it remains a mystery how 40,000 doctoral students drop out of their program
each year and 50% of doctoral students fail to earn their degree (Allan & Dory, 2001; Grasso,
Barry, & Valentine, 2009; Jairam & Kahl, 2012; Smith et al., 2006; Spaulding & Rockinson-
Szapkiw, 2012; Stallone, 2011). The highest rates of attrition come in the first two years; attrition
spikes again later as 25% of those who drop out choose to do so after completing their
coursework but before finishing their dissertation (Allan & Dory, 2001; Dunn, 2014; Stallone,
2011). Of those who do persist, only 41% complete their degree program within 7 years, with
57% taking up to ten years to earn their degree (Brill, Balcanoff, Land, Gogarty, & Turner,
2014). And while growth in the number of online degree programs has increased accessibility to
doctoral programs, it has also potentially worsened the degree completion rate as online doctoral
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

21
programs report an attrition rate 10 – 20% higher than traditional on-the-ground programs
(Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012).
Student retention has been one of the most widely studied areas of research in higher
education (Metz, 2004; Tinto, 2006). The research literature now spans more than 40 years, with
evolving theories and research resulting in a better understanding of the factors that influence
both student attrition and persistence (Tinto, 2006). Despite an intensified focus on improving
student persistence, substantial gains in student retention have been hard to find. While some
institutions have been able to facilitate substantial improvements in their completion rates, many
have not. The national rates of student persistence and attrition are largely unchanged over the
last five decades (Tinto, 2006).
When the issue of student retention first appeared 40 years ago, student attrition was
typically viewed through the lens of psychology (Tinto, 2006). Student retention was considered
a reflection of student competencies, skills, and motivation. Those who failed to persist were
considered less able, less motivated, and/or less willing to fight for the honor and privilege of a
degree (Lovitts, 2001; Tinto, 2006). Students failed – not institutions; the literature now refers to
this as blaming the victim (Lovitts, 2001; Tinto, 2006).
Views of student retention began to shift in the 1970s. Through a broader lens examining
how individuals interact with their surroundings, theories on student retention began considering
(and later making explicit connections with) the student’s environment (i.e. the institution) as
part of the decision to persist or not (Metz, 2004; Tinto, 2006). Key to this model was the
concept of integration and patterns of engagement between the student and other members of the
institution (Tinto, 2006). This shift facilitated the “age of involvement” (Tinto, 2006). Research
(most notably that of Tinto, Spady, Astin, Pascarella, and Terenzini) reinforced the importance
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

22
of student engagement and connected it to several student outcomes – one of which was
student retention.
Tinto is among the most often cited and associated with student persistence research
(Metz, 2004). As described by Metz (2004), the origins of Tinto’s work began with his
collaboration with Cullen (1973) which produced a theoretical model of attrition and persistence
that included: A) pre-entry attributes (prior schooling and family background); b)
goals/commitment (student aspirations and institutional goals); c) institutional experiences
(academics, faculty interaction, co-curricular engagement, peer interaction); d) integration
(academic and social); e) goals/commitment (intentions and external commitments; f) outcome
(departure decision – graduate, transfer, dropout) (Metz, 2004). The academic and social
integration variables from his 1973 collaboration formed the foundation for Tinto’s 1975 model,
and his subsequent inclusion of additional environmental variables was adapted from Van
Gennep’s (1960) rites of passage theory (Metz, 2004). Tinto’s extension of Gennep’s rites of
passage theory into higher education affirmed the belief that it was a student’s responsibility to
navigate through the higher education system and acclimate to a specific environmental setting.
An individual’s failure to acclimate was a long-time focus of Tinto’s studies identifying reasons
for student attrition (Metz, 2004).
Tinto’s (1975) student departure theory incorporated the six components from his earlier
collaboration with Cullen, suggesting that students arrive at college with certain expectations and
aspirations. The integration (or lack thereof) into the college environment affects student
outcomes, Tinto (1975) concluded. The influence of institutional variables (faculty relationships,
peer relationships, social integration) helped shape the student’s progression through school.
Astin (1975, 1985) supported Tinto’s findings by learning that the level and intensity of student
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

23
involvement in the institutional environment affected students and their potential and
willingness to persist (Metz, 2004).
In 1980, John Bean developed a causal model of student attrition based on the theoretical
models previously proposed by Astin, and Tinto, among others (Metz, 2004). His study applied
organizational behavior theory to student persistence and attrition from institutions of higher
education. By applying the theoretical concept of job turnover to postsecondary education, Bean
suggested the reasons for employee attrition could be applied to the student attrition in higher
education settings (Metz, 2004). In a follow-up study, Bean (1981) suggested that student
attrition was affected by a) student background variables; b) interaction by students within the
institution; c) environmental variables (finances, family support); d) the presence of attitudinal
variables (a subject evaluation of perceived self-satisfaction with the institution); and e) student
intention (Metz, 2004).
Bean’s work built upon the work of Tinto and Astin by integrating academic variables,
student intent, goals, expectations, and external and internal environmental factors into a revised
model of persistence (Metz, 2004). Several other researchers also began investigations into the
influences on student attrition and persistence. Pascarella and Terenzini (1980) expanded the
works of Spady, Tinto, Astin, and Bean, with social integration forming the basis for their
theories on student intent and persistence (Metz, 2004). Pascarella and Terenzini (1980) in
another study examined the interactions and interrelationships between students and faculty –
finding that the amount of time spent with faculty (both in and out of the classroom) strongly
influenced student intent and persistence (Metz, 2004).
The research of Bean, Pascarella, and Terenzini brought to light areas of weakness in
Tinto’s 1975 model of persistence (Metz, 2004; Tinto, 2006). Tinto’s 1987 revisions to his
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

24
previous model identified five main theoretical bases for understanding the evolving nature of
student persistence research. Those bases were psychological, societal, economic, organizational,
and interaction factors (Metz, 2004). But researchers felt that Tinto’s work was still flawed.
Tierney (1992) critiqued Tinto’s work for being drawn completely from the experiences of
traditional age students. In addition, Tierney (1992) contended that by not individualizing results
from institutional specific data, Tinto’s generalizability of findings may not be plausible (Metz,
2004). While Tinto stated that student attrition is “value-neutral” (Tierney, 1992, p.609), Tierney
asserted that the concept could not be applied equally to all individuals in all settings and that
Tinto’s theory failed to adequately address specific examples that could be related to non-
traditional elements in higher education (Metz, 2004). Tierney indicated that Tinto’s theory
reflected limited understanding and appreciation of the minority element in higher education
settings and how these populations tend to be ostracized from mainstream identity (Metz, 2004).
Tinto acknowledged that specific segments of the student population were ignored by his
research, including adults and students attending non-residential academic programs (Metz,
2004; Tinto, 2006).
Researchers have concluded that it is, in hindsight, clear to see that early studies of
student retention lacked depth and detail. Many early works drew exclusively from quantitative
studies of largely residential university programs and students of majority backgrounds (Tinto,
2006). As such, early research findings failed to recognize the experiences of students in
institutions other than four-year universities or of students of different gender, race, ethnicity,
income, and orientation (Tinto, 2006). Since then, the study and analysis of student retention has
again shifted and the understanding of the experience of students of different backgrounds has
been greatly enhanced (as well as the understanding of how a broader array of external factors –
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

25
cultural, economic, social, and institutional – affect student retention) (Tinto, 2006).
Researchers have come to understand how student retention differs in different institutional
settings (residential versus non-residential, at two-year, four-year and graduate school levels,
etc.) (Metz, 2004; Tinto, 2006).
Current studies in the ongoing search of how to improve retention in different settings
and for different types of students have begun to shift again – now focusing less on the obstacles
to persistence but more on “what works” (Tinto, 2006, p.5).
Changes in Fatherhood
In the U.S., the 1940s and 1950s were characterized by very clear and established gender
roles. Men managed family finances, provided the sole family income, and established their
identity to the world by working. Women managed the home, raised the children, and ensured
that all behind-the-scenes needs of the family were addressed. In the 1960s and 1970s, a
significant shift occurred as increasing numbers of women with children joined the workforce
(Daipuria & Kakar, 2013; Gambles, Lewis, & Rapoport, 2006; Gatrell, Burnett, Cooper, &
Sparrow, 2013). With that, the discussions regarding work-life balance (WLB) were built around
concerns over how the growing number of working mothers in the workforce would affect home
and life structure (Daipuria & Kakar, 2013; Gatrell, Burnett, Cooper, & Sparrow, 2013; Munn,
2013; Wada, Backman, & Forwell, 2015). The emergence of ‘two career couples’ as a dominant
lifestyle in society was the most significant societal change in recent U.S. history (Gatrell,
Burnett, Cooper, & Sparrow, 2013), and studies regarding WLB became a mainstay of
organizational research.
But, in recent decades, another evolution has begun to take place as men’s views of their
roles as fathers have changed. Father involvement has evolved from simple measures (such as a
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

26
father’s absence or presence, or their fulfillment of the ‘earning as caring’ ideology) to a
multidimensional framework (Castillo, Welch, and Sarver, 2013; Duckworth & Buzzanell, 2009;
U.S. Council of Economic Advisors, 2014; Wada, Backman, & Forwell, 2015). As Figure 1.2
illustrates, a significant majority of fathers see their responsibilities to their children as caring for
them and earning money to support them, suggesting that traditional breadwinning
responsibilities are combining with caregiving responsibilities in the image of what it means to
be a father today (Duckworth & Buzzanell, 2009; Harrington, Van Deusen, & Humberd, 2011).
Thus, the ideology and practice of fatherhood have expanded to include being more emotionally
Figure 1.2. How Fathers See Their Responsibilities to Their Children

Source: Harrington, B., Van Deusen, F., & Humberd, B., 2011
present for their children, being more involved in caregiving, establishing and maintaining
emotional connections with children, engaging in playtime, optimizing couples’ management of
family time, sharing domestic responsibilities, and contributing to local and other communities
(Duckworth & Buzzanell, 2009; Gatrell, Burnett, Cooper, & Sparrow, 2013; Harrington, Van
Deusen, & Humberd, 2011; Ladge, Humberd, Watkins, & Harrington, 2015; Rehel & Baxter,
2015; Wada, Backman, & Forwell, 2015).
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

27
As a result, fathers have more than doubled their time doing domestic work/chores
since 1965 (Parker & Wang, 2013), nearly tripled the amount of time spent with their children
since 1965 (Parker & Wang, 2013; Rehel & Baxter, 2015), and 53% of fathers say that they
share childcare responsibilities equally with their partners (Parker & Wang, 2013). One in five
fathers are identified as the primary caregiver of preschool-aged children when the mother is
employed, and the number of homes with a stay-at-home dad and a working mom has doubled in
the last 25 years. The number of families with children under the age of 18 that are father-only
has increased seven-fold in just the last 40 years (Furman & Stevenson, 2014; U.S. Council of
Economic Advisors, 2014). Harrington, Van Deusen, & Humberd (2011) write:
“[Fathers today] feel that being a father is not about being a hands-off economic
provider. It’s about paying attention, nurturing, listening, mentoring, coaching, and most
of all, being present. It’s also about changing diapers, making dinner, doing drop-offs and
pick-ups, and housecleaning. And if that seems as if we are redefining dad, that’s correct,
with one small exception. We’re not doing the redefining, the dads are” (p. 4).
Fathers are changing more diapers, cooking more meals, and reprioritizing the demands
of work, increasingly adding more family responsibilities to their daily activities (Anaya, L.,
Glaros, A., Scarborough, I., & Tami, N., 2009). As a result, today’s “new fathers” are far less
likely to have a healthy WLB as they fight decades-old Parsonian gender role expectations and
redefine the paternal role at home (Duckworth & Buzzanell, 2009; Gatrell, Burnett, Cooper, &
Sparrow, 2013; Kurtzleben, 2013; Ladge, Humberd, Watkins, & Harrington, 2015; Raiden &
Raisanen, 2013). Men are now facing the same clash of social ideals that women first
encountered in the 1960s and 1970s – how does one be a good parent and a good worker?
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

28
(Duckworth & Buzzanell, 2009; Harrington et al., 2015; Ladge, Humberd, Watkins, &
Harrington, 2015).
Working fathers are spending more time on childcare and housework but have not
reduced their paid work hours by a commensurate amount (Parker and Wang, 2013; U.S.
Council of Economic Advisors, 2014), resulting in a 71% increase in work-life conflict reported
by working fathers in just one generation’s time (U.S. Council of Economic Advisors, 2014).
Fathers are now more likely to report difficulties balancing work and family than mothers – 59%
to 45%, respectively (Furman & Stevenson, 2014; Gatrell, Burnett, Cooper, & Sparrow, 2013).
Work-life conflicts experienced by caregiving fathers are only aggravated by the fact that they
are among the most mistreated categories (often ignored, excluded, teased or insulted, provided
less assistance, or passed over for promotion), according to a 2013 study by Berdahl and Moon.
Table 1
Predictions for Workplace Mistreatment at Work as a Function of Gender and Childcare
Child Caregiving Male Employee Female Employee
No Children Good worker but mediocre
man
Good worker but failed
woman
Somewhat disrespected Respected but very disliked
Moderate mistreatment High mistreatment
Low Caregiving Good worker and good man Mediocre worker and bad
woman
Respected Somewhat disrespected and
disliked
Low mistreatment Moderate to high mistreatment
High Caregiving Bad worker and failed man Bad worker but good woman
Disrespected Disrespected but liked
High mistreatment Moderate mistreatment
Source: Berdahl, J. & Moon, S., 2013
As Table 1 shows, the study found that fathers who did relatively high amounts of childcare and
domestic chores were labeled as “failed” men. High caregiving fathers were also found to suffer
a “fatherhood penalty” by means of not-man-enough harassment and were regularly suspected of
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

29
having “split devotions between work and family and seen as unreliable and incompetent” by
their supervisors (p. 348).
If long-term outcomes – such as raises and promotions – are based upon perceptions of
an employee’s dedication to work, the penalty against caregiving fathers then takes an
economical and professional form as well (Berdahl & Moon, 2013). Thirty-six percent of
caregiving parents, and 49% of parents with children 18 years of age or younger, believe that
they have been passed over for a promotion because of their perceived split dedication between
family and work (U.S. Council of Economic Advisors, 2014). Despite 86% of working fathers
taking off one week or less after a recent child’s birth or adoption (see Figure 1.3; Harrington,
B., Van Deusen, F., & Fraone, J., 2013; Harrington, Van Deusen, & Humberd, 2011) and 80% of
fathers stating that job security is extremely important to them (Parker & Wang, 2013), “new
Figure 1.3. Fathers’ Time Off After Most Recent Birth/Adoption

Source: Harrington, B., Van Deusen, F., & Fraone, J., 2013
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

30
fathers” are left feeling marginalized, stigmatized, and fearful of repercussions for wanting to
be good fathers. “Given these dynamics, it is no surprise that men today are experiencing more
conflict around their work and family roles than ever before” (Ladge, Humberd, Watkins, &
Harrington, 2015, p.153).
Importance of the Evaluation
Universities with high attrition rates waste limited resources such as faculty time and
effort, departmental resources, and institutional resources. In the case of universities receiving
government support, state and/or federal resources may also be wasted (Allan & Dory, 2001;
Lovitts, 2001). “Whether or not a student graduates, each and every doctoral student represents a
substantial investment in terms of time, intellectual resources and public and private dollars.
When students graduate, they move out into various professional domains as representatives of
their university, with their accomplishments reflecting on the university… When [doctoral]
students fail to graduate, there is little to no return on these investments” (Grasso, Barry, &
Valentine, 2009, p. 6). A high attrition rate may also be perceived by both future students and the
general public to be an indication of the university’s inability to meet doctoral students’ needs
(Pauley, Cunningham, & Toth, 1999); universities can no longer afford to be inefficient in times
of economic uncertainty. Ultimately, Lovitts (2001) finds, high attrition rates put the existence of
doctoral programs – and the faculty and staff who operate them – at risk.
But high doctoral program attrition rates are costly for both universities and the students
they serve (Allan & Dory, 2001; Grasso, Barry, & Valentine, 2009; Lovitts, 2001). While
students may gain significant knowledge, they must bear the financial costs (not only those
incurred as tuition and fees, but sometimes also the costs of relocating family or sacrificing a
job), psychological costs (loss of self-esteem, feelings of failure), and opportunity costs (their
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

31
efforts, if directed elsewhere, may have yielded greater returns) (Allan & Dory, 2001; Grasso,
Barry, & Valentine, 2009; Lovitts, 2001). Failure to complete their doctoral program can
ultimately leave students with psychological and physiological damages, may cause family
turbulence, and could result in massive debt with limited career potential (Grasso, Barry, &
Valentine, 2009; Lovitts, 2001).
Stakeholders and Stakeholders’ Performance Goals
Multiple stakeholders existed for this study given their vested interests in the success of
University X’s Ed.D. in OL program. Stakeholders included University X administration and
leadership (on behalf of the university), the SOE’s OL faculty and staff, and students enrolled in
the Ed.D. in OL program. Table 2 presents University X’s organizational mission and global
Table 2
Organizational Mission, Global Performance Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals
University X Mission
The mission of University X is to develop human beings and society by cultivating and
enriching both the human mind and spirit. The University accomplishes this through
teaching, research, creation, and public service.
Organizational Global Goal
By May 2020, 100% of students admitted to University X’s Ed.D. in OL program
will complete their doctoral program eight academic terms
from the time of initial enrollment in the program.
University Administration
and Leadership Goal
By May 2018, the University
will commission a self-study to
determine the degree to which
its programs are affected by
doctoral attrition and the
reasons why.
OL Faculty and Staff
Goal
By May 2019, 100% of
faculty and staff will
implement all practices
identified as positively
affecting doctoral retention
100% of the time.
OL Student Goal

By May 2020, 100% of
students who are fathers
will implement all
strategies identified as
positively affecting
doctoral retention 100%
of the time.
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

32
performance goal, as well as stakeholder performance goals for its administration, OL faculty
and staff, and OL students. As a doctoral program offered by a top-rated, private research
university, the success of the Ed.D. in OL program could directly affect the reputation of
University X in both the public and private sectors. Furthermore, with the SOE ranked by U.S.
News and World Report among the best U.S. graduate schools for programs in education and
deriving 95% of its operational budget from student tuition (University X, n.d. – j), lackluster
results in the university’s first online Ed.D. program could adversely affect the overall reputation
of the SOE, the OL program, and its faculty. Finally, OL students – with a vested interest in a
return on investment (ROI) in the forms of knowledge and experience, as well as mentoring,
networking, and professional development – served as primary stakeholders and were central to
this study.
Stakeholder for the Study
The stakeholder group of focus for this study was OL students, specifically those OL
students who are working fathers. Although a complete analysis would have involved research
and examination of all stakeholder groups and their roles in achieving the organizational
performance goal, it was important to examine whether working fathers pursuing their doctorate
are at an increased risk of doctoral attrition. Working fathers – as a substantial portion of both the
US workforce and the pool of organizational leaders who comprise the OL student body – are a
significant, yet understudied, demographic; if they are, indeed, at greater risk for doctoral
attrition, the results could alter how universities design their doctoral programs and invest their
resources in supporting measures.

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

33
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to understand the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational (KMO) factors impacting working fathers’ ability to achieve their performance
goal of graduating on time from their doctoral program. The analysis focused on problems
caused by knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational gaps centered around a key
stakeholder, students of the Ed.D. in OL program (specifically, those who are working fathers).
The analysis began with a review of current literature discussing doctoral attrition, followed by
an examination of the challenges faced by today’s working fathers as they redefine the paternal
role in child raising, culminating in determining whether working fathers enrolled in the Ed.D. in
OL program were at an increased risk of doctoral attrition.
The corresponding questions guiding this study were the following:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational causes influencing the ability
of doctoral students who are fathers to complete their academic programs?
2. What are the recommended solutions for closing the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational gaps affecting working fathers’ ability to earn their doctorates?
Definitions
Doctoral attrition: Premature student departure from an academic program scheduled to
culminate in a doctorate.
Doctoral persistence: Persistence is commitment to an activity over a course of time and in the
face of distraction (Clark & Estes, 2008, Rueda, 2011). Doctoral persistence, then, is resiliency
in response to adversity encountered during doctoral studies.
Doctorate: Any of the several degrees of the highest rank awarded by a university or college,
such as the Ph.D., Ed.D., or equivalent.
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

34
Work-life balance: The ability of individuals to successfully pursue their work and non-work
lives, without undue pressures from one undermining the satisfactory experience of the other
(Raiden & Raisanen, 2013, p. 899).
Organization of the Study
This study consists of five chapters to understand the KMO factors impacting working
fathers’ ability to achieve their performance goal of graduating on time from their doctoral
program. This chapter provided fundamental background information and context regarding
doctoral attrition and changes to the archetypical notions of fatherhood. The mission and goals of
University X were introduced, as was the Ed.D. in OL program. Stakeholders and the initial
concept of the gap analysis model were also introduced. Chapter Two provides a review of the
literature specific to doctoral attrition influencers as well as the current literature surrounding the
discussion of poor work-life balance and fathers’ role-overload. Chapter Three details the
assumed knowledge and skills, motivational factors, and organizational influences to be
examined. The chapter then outlines the methodology of the study, as it relates to participants,
data collection, and analysis. Chapter Four presents the findings and results of data collection, as
well as interpretation of the collected data. Finally, Chapter Five further discusses the findings
and results as a means of identifying appropriate evidence-based recommendations rooted in the
literature for University X to consider implementing alongside its Ed.D. in OL program.
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

35
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
This literature review examines factors influencing working fathers’ ability to complete
the Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) in Organizational Leadership (OL) from University X. The
review begins with an overview of Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework, the
conceptual framework through which the literature was examined. Following this, the literature
review outlines common trends and findings among the learning, motivation, and organizational
theory literature as well as the research literature. Finally, the literature review presents
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational (KMO) factors most often cited in the
literature and likely to influence working fathers’ ability to complete the University X Ed.D. in
OL.
Conceptual Framework
This study utilized Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis methodology as its framework
for examining the problem of practice. Gap analysis is a systematic, analytical approach to
performance assessment and improvement that helps clarify organizational goals and identifies
reasons for the gap between the actual and aspired performance levels within an organization
(Clark & Estes, 2008). According to Clark and Estes (2008), organizations are better served by
identifying the root cause(s) of performance shortcomings before deciding upon the performance
strategies or programs to be used for improvement (Clark & Estes, 2008). For that reason, the
gap analysis process begins by culling a list of assumed performance influencers from learning,
motivation, and organizational theory as well as from research literature. Influences are then
validated using a combination of surveys, interviews, observations, and analysis of key
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

36
documents. Evidence-based solutions rooted in the research are then recommended and
evaluated after the study.
Figure 2.1. Relationship Between KMO Influences as They Affect Performance
Issues related to knowledge and skills are sorted per Krathwohl’s (2002) four categories
of knowledge: 1) factual, 2) conceptual, 3) procedural, and 4) metacognitive. Motivation
indexes of performance and goal achievement are: 1) active choice (when the mere intention to
pursue a goal is replaced by action), 2) persistence (once started, continuing in the face of
distraction), and 3) mental effort (the determining of how much mental effort to invest once a
goal has been chosen and one continues to persist in the face of distraction) (Clark & Estes,
2008, Rueda, 2011). Components/influencers of the motivational indexes include self-efficacy,
attributions, goal orientation, and expectancy-value theory. Finally, the organizational
influences on performance are examined, including but not limited to: resources (availability and
management), processes and procedures, workplace culture, and workplace climate (inclusive of

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

37
interpersonal relationships in the workplace, a hierarchy of command, the approach to
organizational success, and performance recognition).
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational (KMO) Influences
Knowledge and Skills
Research shows that high doctoral student attrition rates are not the result of any single
factor but the result of multiple factors interacting at the same time, generally categorized as
either student-related factors or institutional factors (Brill et al., 2014; Jairam & Kahl, 2012;
Lovitts, 2001; Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012; Stallone, 2011). At the same time,
working fathers are facing unprecedented levels of conflict as they combat poor work-life
balance (WLB), juggling the evolving role of fathers with the demands of work and daily life
(see Figure 2.2). The result is today’s working fathers experiencing increased stress levels,
emotional exhaustion, a sense of role-overload, and worsening health (Evans, Carney, &
Wilkinson, 2013; Greenhaus, Collins, & Shaw, 2003; Hughes & Bozionelos, 2007; McLaughlin
& Muldoon, 2014; Ladge, Humberd, Watkins, & Harrington, 2015; Raiden & Raisanen, 2013).
Clark and Estes (2008) concluded, “it is necessary to determine whether people know
how (and when, what, why, where, and who) to achieve their performance goals… [because]
people are often unaware of their own lack of knowledge and skills or reluctant to disclose
weaknesses” (p. 44). In the case of working fathers with the knowledge and skills necessary to
assess their risk for doctoral attrition, working fathers studying in the OL program would then be
able to determine how to best navigate (or manage) influences that may evolve into contributing
risk factors to doctoral attrition.

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

38
Figure 2.2. Fathers Now Experiencing More Work-Life Conflict Than Mothers

Source: Harrington, B., Van Deusen, F., & Humberd, B., 2011
Knowledge influences. In his revision of the original Bloom’s Taxonomy, Krathwohl
(2002) divided the Knowledge dimension into four categories: factual knowledge, conceptual
knowledge, procedural knowledge, and a recently added metacognitive knowledge. Factual
knowledge addresses the basic elements that a student would learn to become acquainted with a
subject (terminology, basic details or elements). Conceptual knowledge is concerned with the
relationships between elements, enabling them to function together (i.e. knowledge of
classifications and categories, principles and theories). Procedural knowledge is knowing how to
do something and may include subject-specific skills, techniques, or procedures. Metacognitive
knowledge, adding a distinction that was not widely recognized at the time of the original
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

39
taxonomy’s creation, involves knowledge of cognition as well as awareness and knowledge of
one’s own cognition.
This study evaluated the knowledge and skills that working fathers studying in the OL
program need to assess their risk for doctoral attrition and, in turn, manage any influences that
may evolve into contributing risk factors to their doctoral attrition. Each of the knowledge
influences identified in this study was cataloged by knowledge type and discussed as such.
Having an end-goal – as well as knowing that the balancing act between doctoral studies, family
obligations, and outside relationships will be a significant challenge – demonstrates factual
knowledge. Awareness and understanding of the influences on doctoral attrition demonstrate
conceptual knowledge. Understanding how to utilize personal competencies during doctoral
studies requires procedural knowledge. Understanding why and how changes in the role of
today’s working father may place OL doctoral students at higher risk for attrition demonstrates
conceptual knowledge, and reflection upon one’s own risk factors (as part of creating an action
plan to combat the chances of doctoral attrition) develops metacognitive knowledge.
Students understand that balancing doctoral studies with family responsibilities, and
other relationships, is a significant challenge (factual knowledge). Research has found that
balancing doctoral studies with family and work relationships is a challenge for doctoral students
across all disciplines (Allan & Dory, 2001; Brill et al., 2014; Grasso, Barry, & Valentine, 2009;
Smith et al., 2006; Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012; Stallone, 2011).
Family obligations, deemed to be a moderate interference in completing courses and
qualifying exams (Allan & Dory, 2001), are frequently mentioned as reason for increased time-
to-degree (TTD) and doctoral attrition rates (Allan & Dory, 2001; Brill et al., 2014; Grasso,
Barry, & Valentine, 2009; Smith et al., 2006; Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012; Wao &
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

40
Onwuegbuzie, 2011). Family duties can be a source of enormous stress when combined with
degree requirements. Time devoted to classes, study, and research takes away time usually
available to family members. About one in five (19%) of working fathers say they feel guilty
about not being “present” enough with their children. Guilt, worry, anxiety, and anger persist as
students try to balance the limited amount of available time for family and school (Smith et al.,
2006). The doctoral student frequently questions whether he is spending enough time with his
children, spouse, parents, or studies. Stress quickly becomes a constant and, too often,
destructive force (Smith et al., 2006).
When doctoral students are employed outside of the academic setting, demands on time,
energy, and commitment intensify (Smith, Maroney, Nelson, Abel, & Abel, 2006). The demands
of full-time employment further limit the amount of time available for family, research, and
studies (Allan & Dory, 2001; Smith et al., 2006; Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012). In a
survey of departed doctoral students, Lovitts (2001) found that 70% cited personal reasons and
research by Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw (2012) found that doctoral students felt least
satisfied with their ability to juggle work and family with their overall workload.
Students know what they want to accomplish by enrolling in a doctoral program
(factual knowledge). Pintrich’s (2003) work found that “students who are self-regulating, in
other words those who set goals or plans, and try to monitor and control their own cognition,
motivation, and behavior in line with these goals are more likely to do well in school” (p. 677).
Having a clear and established goal at the onset of a task or challenge directly affects motivation
and, in the case of doctoral students, doctoral persistence (Pintrich 2003, Spaulding &
Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012; Wao & Onwuegbuzie, 2011; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Having
specific reasons and goals for pursuing a doctorate help solidify an “unwavering dedication to
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

41
doctoral completion [that] is a necessity for every doctoral candidate” (Brill et al., 2014, p.
28). It is important, according to Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw (2012), to “identify reasons to
persist when challenges come and have clear and compelling reasons to continue” (p. 213).
Specific, proximal, and challenging (but attainable) goals promote both self-efficacy and
improved performance (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Without taking the step to establish a primary
goal, all attempts to positively affect performance are “like traveling in the dark to an unknown
destination through dangerous territory” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 22-23).
Students understand the negative effects of role-overload on their ability to achieve
their academic goals (conceptual knowledge). Doctoral students face enormous demands upon
their time, energy, intelligence, endurance, patience, and organizational skills – all of which
heighten their stress levels (Jairam & Kahl, 2012; Smith et al., 2006). Jairam and Kahl’s (2012)
study examining doctoral program support systems and the stress-buffer hypothesis concluded
that the highest levels of stress are experienced due to the interaction of multiple and persistent
stressors, as opposed to a single event. Furthermore, the study found that doctoral students are
significantly more stressed than the general population, with their stress primarily being
attributed to their needing to combine the academic demands of their graduate program with the
demands from the work and non-work domains of their lives. Researchers have found that
working fathers, already battling increasing rates of conflict in their daily lives, are consistently
demonstrating increased stress levels, emotional exhaustion, a sense of role-overload, and
worsening health (Evans, Carney, & Wilkinson, 2013; Greenhaus, Collins, & Shaw, 2003;
Hughes & Bozionelos, 2007; McLaughlan & Muldoon, 2014; Ladge, Humberd, Watkins, &
Harrington, 2015; Raiden & Raisanen, 2013).
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

42
Students understand the relationship between poor work-life balance and conditions
such as: burn-out; increased cognitive difficulties; and reduced levels of health, energy, and
well-being (conceptual knowledge). A 2017 study of more than 3,600 doctoral students found
that approximately one-third of doctoral students are at risk of having or developing a common
psychiatric disorder, like depression (Pain, 2017). According to the survey, 51% of respondents
had experienced at least two symptoms of poor mental health in recent weeks, indicating
psychological distress. Additionally, 32% reported suffering from at least four symptoms in that
same time frame, which was more than twice the prevalence among highly educated groups.
Some known consequences of chronic psychological stress for students are frustrated learning,
inhibited concentration, and reduced motivation and perseverance. Additionally, consequences of
chronic stress can include being unhappy or depressed, loss of sleep/poor sleep, a weakened
immune system, and greater susceptibility to illness (Pain, 2017; Smith et al., 2006). Research
finds that increasing numbers of working fathers are reporting issues related to: hypertension
(18% of working fathers), obesity (10%), diabetes (15%), frequent headaches (21%), as well as
issues with joint pain and eye/vision problems (Daipuria & Kakar, 2013), and 11.6% of fathers
suffer from “high burnout” (meaning they feel exhausted, less productive, less competent, and
emotionally withdrawn) (Roskam I., Raes, M., and Mikolajczak, M., 2017).
In the workplace, the symptoms of role-overload manifest themselves as: lower job
satisfaction, lower organizational commitment, reduced work effort, reduced performance,
increased absenteeism, increased turnover, increased stress and burnout, increases in cognitive
difficulties, and reduced levels of general health, energy, and well-being (Beauregard & Henry,
2009; Daipuria & Kakar, 2013; Darcy, McCarthy, Hill, & Grady, 2011; Gatrell, Burnett, Cooper,
& Sparrow, 2013; Greenhaus, Collins, & Shaw, 2003; Malik, Wan, Dar, Akbar, & Naseem,
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

43
2014; Maxwell, 2005). One wonders, Smith et al. (2006) posited, when the weight will prove
too much to bear; with half of all doctoral students failing to earn their degree, it appears the
realities of doctoral attrition may be bleaker than many are willing to accept.
Students know how to utilize effective personal competencies (stress management
methods, coping skills, support systems, time management skills, organizational skills, etc.)
(procedural knowledge). The ability to effectively manage and cope with the challenges of a
doctoral program is strongly correlated with doctoral persistence (Spaulding & Rockinson-
Szapkiw, 2012). Having and utilizing an effective support system is significant to doctoral
persistence, as it helps moderate the effects of stress (Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012).
Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw (2012) determined that stress management skills may be
especially important for candidates enrolled in education doctorate programs, given that
educators generally already have a hectic daily schedule and a fair amount of daily stresses
before engaging with their academic work. Doctoral candidates who are proactive in their studies
are more likely to persist (Allan & Dory, 2001; Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012), and
time management was identified in a survey of doctoral students as a required skill set for
successful completion of a doctorate (Brill et al., 2014).
Students monitor the risk factors and stress levels that may contribute to their doctoral
attrition (metacognitive knowledge). Working fathers pursuing a doctorate need to assess and
monitor the risk factors for attrition present in their lives, identify which (if any) are reason for
concern, and establish how to manage them successfully. Several negative WLB influencers
associated with working fathers can also be found in doctoral attrition research, including the
effects of consistently elevated stress levels, emotional exhaustion, the cost of poor WLB due to
a sense of role-overload, and declining health (Beauregard & Henry, 2009; Daipuria & Kakar,
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

44
2013; Darcy, McCarthy, Hill, & Grady, 2011; Evans, Carney, & Wilkinson, 2013; Greenhaus,
Collins, & Shaw, 2003; Hughes & Bozionelos, 2007; Malik, Wan, Dar, Akbar, & Naseem, 2014;
Maxwell, 2005; McLaughlin & Muldoon, 2014; Ladge, Humberd, Watkins, & Harrington, 2015;
Raiden & Raisanen, 2013). The preclusion of fathers from WLB policies is a contributing factor
to fathers’ inability to find a healthy WLB (Gatrell, Burnett, Cooper, & Sparrow, 2013). WLB
policies are commonly built around assumptions that fathers neither need nor desire access to
WLB support measures (Gatrell, Burnett, Cooper, & Sparrow, 2013). Such gendered definitions
of parenting roles are inequitable to fathers who may not share their parental responsibilities
according to Parsonian expectations and fails to recognize the evolution of fatherhood. This
perpetuates the stigma present in organizational culture that penalizes working fathers who step
outside gendered expectation lines and share the caregiving responsibilities of their children.
As shown in Table 3, each of these knowledge influences has been categorized by
knowledge type. While this synthesis of key knowledge influences on working fathers enrolled
in the OL program may be a good start to assessment and evaluation of risk factors that can lead
to doctoral attrition, research indicates that examining knowledge-based needs is not enough to
accomplish goals – motivation, too, must be examined and analyzed if the components of
knowledge are to be translated into results (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Table 3
Assumed Knowledge and Skill Influences on the Doctoral Attrition Rate of Working Fathers
Assumed Influences General Literature
Knowledge
Factual Students understand that balancing
doctoral studies with family
responsibilities, and other
relationships, is a significant challenge
Allan & Dory, 2001; Brill et al.,
2014; Grasso, Barry, & Valentine,
2009; Lovitts, 2001; Smith et al.,
2006; Spaulding & Rockinson-
Szapkiw, 2012; Stallone, 2011;
Wao & Onwuegbuzie, 2011
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

45
Factual Students know what they want to
accomplish by enrolling in a doctoral
program
Brill et al., 2014; Clark & Estes,
2008; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002;
Pintrich, 2003; Spaulding &
Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012; Wao &
Onwuegbuzie, 2011; Wigfield &
Eccles, 2000
Conceptual Students understand the negative
effects of role-overload on their ability
to achieve their academic goals

Evans, Carney, & Wilkinson, 2013;
Greenhaus, Collins, & Shaw, 2003;
Hughes & Bozionelos, 2007; Jairam
& Kahl, 2012; Ladge, Humberd,
Watkins, & Harrington, 2015;
McLaughlan & Muldoon, 2014;
Raiden & Raisanen, 2013; Smith et
al., 2006
Conceptual Students understand the relationship
between poor work-life balance and
conditions such as: burn-out; increased
cognitive difficulties; and reduced
levels of health, energy, and well-being
Beauregard & Henry, 2009;
Daipuria & Kakar, 2013; Darcy,
McCarthy, Hill, & Grady, 2011;
Gatrell, Burnett, Cooper, &
Sparrow, 2013; Greenhaus, Collins,
& Shaw, 2003; Malik, Wan, Dar,
Akbar, & Naseem, 2014; Maxwell,
2005; Smith et al., 2006
Procedural Students know how to utilize effective
personal competencies (stress
management methods, coping skills,
support systems, time management
skills, organizational skills, etc.)
Allan & Dory, 2001; Brill et al.,
2014; Spaulding & Rockinson-
Szapkiw, 2012
Metacognitive Students monitor the risk factors and
stress levels that may contribute to
their doctoral attrition
Beauregard & Henry, 2009;
Daipuria & Kakar, 2013; Darcy,
McCarthy, Hill, & Grady, 2011;
Evans, Carney, & Wilkinson, 2013;
Gatrell, Burnett, Cooper, &
Sparrow, 2013; Greenhaus, Collins,
& Shaw, 2003; Hughes &
Bozionelos, 2007; Ladge, Humberd,
Watkins, & Harrington, 2015;
Malik, Wan, Dar, Akbar, &
Naseem, 2014; Maxwell, 2005;
McLaughlan & Muldoon, 2014;
Raiden & Raisanen, 2013

Motivation
Motivation is “the process whereby goal-directed activity is instigated and sustained”
(Rueda, 2011, p. 38). There are three common indicators that define and influence an
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

46
individual’s motivation: active choice, persistence, and mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008;
Rueda, 2011). Active choice is choosing to pursue one goal instead of another. Persistence is
commitment to an activity over a course of time and in the face of distraction. Mental effort
refers to the work required to generate new learning or knowledge (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda,
2011). Examining the role of motivation is important since, “just because someone knows how to
do something, doesn’t mean that they want to do it or will do it” (Rueda, 2011, p. 38). The aim of
this motivation gap analysis is to determine if working fathers pursuing University X’s Ed.D. in
OL are properly motivated to earn their doctoral degrees.
The literature review focuses on both doctoral attrition and the evolving role of today’s
fathers. Much of the research examines influences affecting doctoral student motivation
(specifically persistence and mental effort), and commonly categorized the factors as either
student-related factors (demographics, attributes, motivation, coping skills, etc.) or as institution-
related factors (program design and structure, curriculum, expectations and communication,
etc.).
The aim of this section is to discuss two motivational influences based on the literature
and to examine them through the lens of a motivational theory. The first motivational influence
is working fathers studying in the OL program need to possess an intrinsic interest in pursuing,
and see the value of completing, their doctoral program; this corresponds with expectancy-value
theory. The second influence is working fathers studying in the OL program need to believe they
are capable of successfully balancing their work, school, and life responsibilities – allowing them
to successfully complete their doctorate; this corresponds with self-efficacy theory.
Expectancy-Value Theory. Research by Eccles (2006) and Pintrich (2003) determined
that expectancy-value theory stands upon four core attributes that affect an individual’s
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

47
motivation: intrinsic interest, attainment value or importance, utility value or usefulness, and
cost. Intrinsic interest refers to the gratification derived from doing a task; attainment value
relates to the importance of doing well on a task; utility value refers to the worth a task holds as
part of ambitions/goals; cost is the investment a person must commit to complete a task
(regarding both priorities and effort) (Wigfield & Cambria, 2010).
Eccles (2006) found that activating personal interest, through opportunities for choice and
control, could increase motivation. Furthermore, expanding on Battles’ (1965,1966) work,
Eccles also found that higher expectations for success can positively influence motivation
(Wigfield & Cambria, 2010, p. 39). Motivation is also positively influenced when a task is
perceived as means to an end (rather than an end itself). If working fathers studying in the OL
program possess an intrinsic interest in pursuing, and see the value of completing, their doctoral
program then their motivation to earn their doctorate can be expected to increase.
Self-Efficacy Theory. Research by Bandura and Pajares defined self-efficacy as the
confidence one has in his ability to complete a certain task (Eccles, 2006). Pajares (2006) found
that learning and motivation are enhanced when learners expect to be successful. With close,
concrete, and challenging goals, learners can increase self-efficacy and motivation (Pajares,
2006). Bandura (2000) concluded that self-efficacy is critical if a person or team is to operate
effectively. Pintrich’s research (2003) highlighted that, while individuals may be motivated in
different ways, self-efficacy allows for persistence in motivation. If working fathers pursuing a
doctorate believe they are capable of successfully balancing their work, school, and life
responsibilities – allowing them to complete their doctorate – then their motivation to complete
the coursework and doctorate are positively influenced.

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

48
Assumed motivation influences
Students need to possess an intrinsic interest in pursuing, and see the value in
completing, their doctoral program. Pauley, Cunningham, and Toth (1999) found that most
doctoral program drop-outs reported having inadequate motivation to complete their program or
earn their degree. Though reasons for pursuing a doctorate are varied, candidates who are both
personally and professionally motivated are most likely to persist (Spaulding & Rockinson-
Szapkiw, 2012). Personal motivations are typically associated with personal achievement,
personal goals, enjoying a challenge, and desiring a title. Professional motivations typically
include factors associated with career advancement, increasing marketability, increasing
credibility, as well as being recognized for a promotion or raise (Spaulding & Rockinson-
Szapkiw, 2012). While professional incentives may be compelling reasons to begin the degree,
they are (on their own) likely not sustainable. It is personal (intrinsic) motivations that are
considered the most likely to carry a doctoral student to a degree (Allan & Dory, 2001; Brill et
al., 2014; Grasso, Barry, & Valentine, 2009; Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012; Wao &
Onwuegbuzie, 2011).
Students prioritize academic work and dedicate sufficient time to studying and
research. Research indicates that 60% of doctoral students found time management and
balancing life obligations challenging, reporting that it was “nearly impossible” to balance the
responsibilities of life against the expectations of being a doctoral student (Brill et al., 2014;
Jairam & Kahl, 2012). As a byproduct of the challenges doctoral candidates face balancing
family with work and school, failure to dedicate sufficient time to studying and academic
research has been found to be a negative influence upon doctoral completion. Role-overload
creates a framework for time constraints, preventing doctoral students from adequately attending
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

49
to their academic program and coursework (Allan & Dory, 2001; Brill et al., 2014; Smith et
al., 2006). Underestimating the effort required by doctoral work (i.e. taking one’s work too
lightly) has also been identified as a cause for doctoral students failing to prioritize their
academic work (Allan & Dory, 2001). Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw’s (2012) qualitative
study of 76 individuals who had successfully earned a doctorate in education found that
“personal sacrifice was a significant part of each participant’s journey to degree completion” (p.
206).
Students believe they are capable of successfully balancing their work, school, and life
responsibilities. Evidence from a variety of longitudinal and cross-sectional studies in different
domains has confirmed that when individuals believe they have the capacity to succeed in
activities then they are more likely to engage in them, persist in the face of difficulties, and do
well on those activities (Wigfield & Cambria, 2010; Wigfield & Cambria, 2015; Wigfield &
Eccles, 2000). Students’ expectancies for success and beliefs about their ability are among the
strongest psychological predictors of performance (Pintrich, 2003; Wigfield & Cambria, 2015).
“Efficacy beliefs help determine how much effort people will expend on an activity, how long
they will persevere when confronting obstacles, and how resilient they will prove in the face of
adverse situations – the higher the sense of efficacy, the greater the effort, persistence, and
resilience” (Pajares, 1996, p. 544).
Because people must believe that they can produce desired effects (and forestall
undesired ones) by their actions, lowered self-efficacy is essentially the result of a person
attributing his inability to cope with a stressful situation to internal personality traits, rather than
to other external causes (Bandura, 2000; Jairam & Kahl, 2012).This commonly leads doctoral
students to progressed withdrawal and isolation – which, in turn, allows self-efficacy to continue
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

50
dropping and leaving the individual increasingly vulnerable to self-doubt and attrition (Brill et
al., 2014). For this reason, it is imperative for working fathers pursuing a doctorate to believe
that they are capable of successfully balancing their work, school, and life responsibilities
(which, in turn, would contribute to a healthier WLB, increased self-efficacy, and improved
motivation to earn their doctorates).
Students believe that foregoing other activities to create more time for academic work
is worth it. An individual’s valuing of an activity is a significant influence upon his choice about
whether to continue the activity (Clark & Estes, 2008; Wigfield & Cambria, 2010). When
students value something, they are more likely to engage in the activity; if the activity is
considered as having too great a cost, they are less likely to engage or persist (Wigfield &
Cambria, 2015).
Cost refers to what the individual must sacrifice to complete a task, as well as the
anticipated effort necessary. Cost is especially important to choice, as choice is influenced by
both negative and positive task characteristics (all choices are assumed to have costs associated
with them because one choice generally eliminates other options) (Wigfield & Cambria, 2010;
Wigfield & Eccles, 2000; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002).
Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw (2012) found that doctoral candidates are faced with
considerable decisions regarding the choices they must make between their doctoral studies and
other aspects of life. Time with spouses, children, and friends is greatly compromised, and opting
out of important events to attend to coursework or to work on the dissertation is to be expected.
Doctoral candidates, they continue, should also be prepared to sacrifice sleep, reduce job
responsibilities, and forfeit or significantly limit hobbies and leisure activities (Spaulding &
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

51
Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012). Despite the theoretical importance of cost, it has been the least
studied of the different components of subjective values (Wigfield & Cambria, 2010).
Table 4
Assumed Motivation Influences on the Doctoral Attrition Rate of Working Fathers
Assumed Influences General Literature
Motivation
Expectancy-
Value Theory –
Intrinsic Interest
Students need to possess an intrinsic
interest in pursuing, and see the value
in completing, their doctoral program
Allan & Dory, 2001; Pauley,
Cunningham, and Toth, 1999;
Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw,
2012; Wao & Onwuegbuzie, 2011
Expectancy-
Value Theory –
Attainment
Value
Students prioritize academic work and
dedicate sufficient time to studying and
research
Allan & Dory, 2001; Brill et al.,
2014; Jairam & Kahl, 2012; Smith
et al., 2006; Spaulding &
Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012; Wao &
Onwuegbuzie, 2011
Self-Efficacy
Theory
Students believe they are capable of
successfully balancing their work,
school, and life responsibilities
Bandura, 2000; Brill et al., 2014;
Jairam & Kahl, 2012; Pajares, 1996;
Pintrich, 2003; Wigfield &
Cambria, 2010; Wigfield &
Cambria, 2015; Wigfield & Eccles,
2000
Expectancy-
Value Theory –
Cost
Students believe that foregoing other
activities to create more time for
academic work is worth it
Clark & Estes, 2008; Eccles &
Wigfield, 2002; Spaulding &
Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012;
Wigfield & Cambria, 2010;
Wigfield & Cambria, 2015;
Wigfield & Eccles, 2000

Organizational Influences
After knowledge and motivation, organizational influences are the third and final
potential cause for performance gaps. Even if individuals possess all the required knowledge and
skill with top-tier motivation, performance goals can still prove elusive if there are inadequate
organizational processes or insufficient material resources in place (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda,
2011). The following review examines literature focused on the institutional-related influences
affecting working fathers’ chance of succumbing to doctoral attrition. The assumed influences
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

52
discussed herein were examined as causal pieces to the overall culture of University X’s OL
program, contributing as either a piece of the cultural model or cultural setting.
The assumed organizational influences to be validated include the assumption that
doctoral students are adequately trained and prepared for dissertation writing and research, the
increased challenges faced by doctoral students who are employed full-time, the effects of the
program design and structure, and the impact of program content and design. Additional
organizational influences to be validated include the effect of communication from
administration to students, social integration, the relationship between student and dissertation
chair (DC), and the effects of students’ expectations not being met.
Cultural models and cultural settings
Per Rueda (2011), culture and cultural processes are notoriously difficult to identify and
define for multiple reasons: first, they are not always visible; second, much of what is considered
cultural knowledge is automated for those actively engaged in the cultural setting; third, they
involve values that are relative. Nevertheless, Rueda determined, culture and cultural processes
can be used to describe not only individuals but organizations as well.
While the term “culture” is often mistakenly used referencing an individual’s surface
features (such as ethnicity or race), literature recommends considering culture to be dynamic,
ever-evolving, and constantly in negotiation. We, therefore, are not born with culture but
continually create (and re-create) it daily (Rueda, 2011). In that vein of thought, Gallimore and
Goldenberg (2011) introduced the term “cultural models” to refer to the shared mental schema or
normative understanding of how the world works (or should work). While culture is generally
thought of as pertaining to only individuals, cultural models can be used to characterize
organizations, corporate settings, classrooms, as well as individuals (Rueda, 2011). Cultural
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

53
models are dynamic and are so familiar that they are often invisible and unnoticed by those
who hold them (Rueda, 2011). In a school or organization, the cultural model frames the ways in
which the organization is structured, including its values, practices, policies, and procedures
(Rueda, 2011).
While cultural models provide insight to the unseen aspects of an organization, Gallimore
and Goldenberg (2011) also provide the term “cultural setting” to account for the more visible,
concrete, and measurable aspects of a social context. Cultural settings are the who, what, when,
where, why, and how of the routines that constitute everyday life (Rueda, 2011). This, ultimately,
creates a reciprocal relationship between cultural models and cultural settings, as cultural settings
can impact an individual’s behavior, but that individual’s cultural model then selects a response
(which, in turn, impacts the cultural setting).
Assumed organizational influences
The organization sufficiently scaffolds student skills related to conducting research for
the dissertation writing process. Multiple studies have identified doctoral students’ training (or
lack thereof) regarding how to conduct research and write a dissertation to be a significant
institutional influence upon doctoral completion (Allan & Dory, 2001; Amrein-Beardsley,
Zambo, Moore, Buss, Perry, Painter, & Puckett, 2012; Brill et al., 2014; Lovitts, 2001).
Challenges have been associated with identifying a motivating and researchable topic, forming a
dissertation committee, dissecting statistics, and learning the analytical aspects of the writing
process (Lovitts, 2001; Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012). Additionally, the change from
instructor-led coursework to the autonomous, self-directed dissertation writing process may
prove a difficult transition (Allan & Dory, 2001; Amrein-Beardsley, Zambo, Moore, Buss, Perry,
Painter, & Puckett, 2012; Lovitts, 2001; Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012). Although
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

54
faculty and advisors may provide some direction and support, the general expectation is that
doctoral students will independently develop and execute a significant research project by
exercising initiative and managing time (Allan & Dory, 2001; Lovitts, 2001).
This factor may prove to be especially relevant to doctoral students pursuing an Ed.D., as
many Ed.D. programs commonly operate on a faster timeline to degree completion than Ph.D.
programs. Ed.D. students must, therefore, make an even faster transition from structured
coursework to unstructured dissertation work (West, Gokalp, Pena, Fischer, & Gupton, 2011).
The organization has processes and resources in place to support students’ sense of
identity, self-efficacy. It is imperative that doctoral students remember identities are not static
objects, something to be acquired, or a status to be attained; though issues of identity may be
more salient at some points of life than others, identity is constantly being renegotiated during
peoples’ lives – as are its derivatives (Amrein-Beardsley, Zambo, Moore, Buss, Perry, Painter, &
Puckett, 2012). An identity-based perspective allows an individual to view his doctoral program
as more than simply acquiring new knowledge; the process of matriculating is a personal
transformation and evolution that allows for new opportunities and claims about who a person is
and what he can accomplish as a professional (Amrein-Beardsley, Zambo, Moore, Buss, Perry,
Painter, & Puckett, 2012).
The organization has processes in place to monitor the degree to which students have
productive relationships with their dissertation chairs. The relationship between a doctoral
student and DC/advisor is the only influence mentioned prominently in studies concerning both
doctoral student retention and doctoral student attrition. The focus of approximately 15% of the
research done in doctoral studies, the relationship between a DC and doctoral student is not only
significant but is also “one of the most important [relationships] – if not the single most critical
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

55
[relationship]” a doctoral student develops during a doctoral degree program (Devos,
Boudrenghein, Van der Linden, Azzi, Frenay, Galand, & Klein, 2016).
The DC plays a central role in the doctoral student experience, as the DC may provide
subject matter knowledge, knowledge of the research and writing process, clarification regarding
department and program expectations, and increase the student’s academic integration; as such, it
is clear as to how the relationship between the DC and doctoral student is a critical predictor for
degree completion (Brill et al., 2014; Devos, Boudrenghein, Van der Linden, Azzi, Frenay,
Galand, & Klein, 2016; Golde, 2005; Grasso, Barry, & Valentine, 2009; Pauley, Cunningham, &
Toth, 1999; Smith et al., 2006; Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012; West, Gokalp, Pena,
Fischer, & Gupton, 2011). The most successful DCs have been found to participate frequently in
meetings with their advisees, spend more hours per week reaching out to advisees, and help with
commissions beyond the dissertation (such as job searches, networking, and co-authoring journal
articles) (Grasso, Barry, & Valentine, 2009, Ivankova & Stick, 2007).
Conversely, an incompatible advising relationship may lead to a sense of program
mismatch and isolation, miscommunication or problems with committee members, and could
result in increased TTD; these, in turn, leave the doctoral student with low levels of academic
integration and more susceptible to attrition (Allan & Dory, 2001; Brill et al., 2014; Golde, 2005;
Jairam & Kahl, 2012; Lovitts, 2001; Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2011; Spaulding & Rockinson-
Szapkiw, 2012; Wao & Onwuegbuzie, 2011). Surveys of students who left their doctoral
programs before earning a degree commonly cited a lack of guidance or supervision from their
DCs during the dissertation writing process and/or a lack of encouragement and support from
their DCs as factors in the decision to leave (Allan & Dory, 2001).
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

56
The organization ensures that students are provided adequate opportunities for
social integration. Social integration – feeling a sense of connection and community with faculty
and peers – is an important factor in doctoral persistence (Devos, Boudrenghein, Van der Linden,
Azzi, Frenay, Galand, & Klein, 2016; Grasso, Barry, & Valentine, 2009; Lovitts, 2001; Pauley,
Cunningham, & Toth, 1999; Smith et al., 2006; Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012;
Stallone, 2011; West, Gokalp, Pena, Fischer, & Gupton, 2011). The absence of a sense of
community detaches students from one another and from faculty, leaving students with less
support from their peers, increased levels of self-doubt about progress and the ability to finish the
dissertation, and more likely to leave the program prematurely (Brill et al., 2014; Golde, 2005;
Lovitts, 2001; Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2011; Smith et al., 2006; Stallone, 2011). Having a sense of
community is associated with mutual interdependence, as well as feelings of belonging, trust,
and dedication to the community (Smith et al., 2006; Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012).
The presence (or absence) of supportive relationships with fellow doctoral students and
faculty is particularly important during the dissertation writing phase (which tends to be a
solitary and socially isolating process), as social support offers a sense of refuge to students by
reducing stress and feelings of isolation (Jairam & Kahl, 2012; Lovitts, 2001; Pauley,
Cunningham, & Toth, 1999; Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012; Stallone, 2011). The level
of faculty guidance and interaction can also create a shift in program culture that can positively
affect levels of student engagement (Goenner & Snaith, 2004; Stallone, 2011; Lovitts, 2001;
West, Gokalp, Pena, Fischer, & Gupton, 2011). Increased academic integration results in greater
acquisition of knowledge and development of skills (Smith et al., 2006; Spaulding & Rockinson-
Szapkiw, 2012).
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

57
Peer support is also critical; research shows that a lack of peer support drastically
impedes students’ efforts to earn their doctorate (Allan & Dory, 2001; Grasso, Barry, &
Valentine, 2009; Jairam & Kahl, 2012; Pauley, Cunningham, & Toth, 1999; West, Gokalp, Pena,
Fischer, & Gupton, 2011). Successful doctorate graduates credit the support they received from
their colleagues, particularly via knowledge sharing, as central to their success (Amrein-
Beardsley, Zambo, Moore, Buss, Perry, Painter, & Puckett, 2012). Students in distance programs
like the OL program often experience enhanced feelings of isolation because of low levels of
socialization and interaction with peer and faculty (Allan & Dory, 2001; Spaulding &
Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012).
The organization ensures that the program design and structure are amenable to the
lifestyle of its doctoral students (distance/online program vs. traditional, cohort model,
scheduling flexibility, etc.). Program design and structure substantially shape a doctoral
student’s experience (Allan & Dory, 2001; Ivankova & Stick, 2007; Smith et al., 2006;
Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012). Structure, defined as the nature and arrangement of
curriculum tasks and resources, has been frequently cited by both faculty and students as having
major influence on both student persistence and overall TTD (Wao & Onwuegbuzie, 2011).
Specific to professional Ed.D. programs, there is ongoing debate regarding whether the
pedagogical strategies and curricular goals should follow those of traditional Ph.D. programs or
venture on a different path to better prepare students for professional practice (Amrein-
Beardsley, Zambo, Moore, Buss, Perry, Painter, & Puckett, 2012).
One of – if not the – most studied aspect of doctoral program design and structure is the
utilization of a cohort model. Programs utilizing cohort models have become associated with
higher levels of doctoral persistence (Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012; Stallone, 2011), as
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

58
the cohort design combats isolation by providing interaction with peers, fostering connectivity,
and creating a sense of belonging and community (Brill et al., 2014; Spaulding & Rockinson-
Szapkiw, 2012; West, Gokalp, Pena, Fischer, & Gupton, 2011). In some programs, cohorts are
comprised of students who begin at the same time, while other programs cluster students
according to research topics/dissertation themes (West, Gokalp, Pena, Fischer, & Gupton, 2011).
A growing area of research regarding doctoral program design is examining the use of an
online learning platform (commonly referred to as a learning management system, or LMS) for
content delivery. Students are generally attracted to online doctoral programs by the ability to
study with minimal restrictions on location or time, allowing them to maintain work and family
schedules better than if they were required to attend courses on campus (Ivankova & Stick,
2007). The asynchronous format is often considered a positive influencer upon matriculation
(Ivankova & Stick, 2007). Despite growing enrollments, online programs typically demonstrate
10-20% higher rates of attrition than traditional, residential doctoral programs (Rockinson-
Szapkiw, 2011; Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012).
Across all doctoral programs, studies have found that students have fewer difficulties
completing a dissertation when their doctoral program initiates research early in the coursework
(Grasso, Barry, & Valentine, 2009). Providing ample opportunities for autonomous,
asynchronous learning has proven key to doctoral student success; the more time was available
for self-study, the higher the rate of graduation 5-8 years later (Amrein-Beardsley, Zambo,
Moore, Buss, Perry, Painter, & Puckett, 2012; Schmidt, Cohen-Schotanus, van der Molen,
Splinter, Bulte, Holdrinet, & van Rossum, 2010). Conversely, programs that rely primarily on
lectures for instruction are found to have a negative relationship with graduation rates (Schmidt,
Cohen-Schotanus, van der Molen, Splinter, Bulte, Holdrinet, & van Rossum, 2010).
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

59
Program rigidity (fixed course offerings, inflexible course scheduling, limited research
topics or acceptable research paradigms, etc.) can become a serious obstacle to doctoral student
persistence, as students may perceive the program as either indifferent or out of touch and
consider that reason to leave (Smith et al., 2006). Doctoral programs with regular monitoring and
mid-course adjustments see more positive student outcomes and a decrease in students’
depressive symptoms (Brill et al., 2014).
The organization ensures that the curricular content is appropriate for its student body
(accounting for adult learning needs, relevant material, etc.). The curricular content of a
program commonly factors in doctoral attrition (Brill et al., 2014; Ivankova & Stick, 2007).
Being able to understand and anticipate the ‘roadmap’ allows students to have a stronger sense of
control and has been found to positively affect student experience (Ivankova & Stick, 2007;
Lovitts, 2001). Programs that account for learning styles and the needs of adult learners have
demonstrated higher persistence and completion rates (Ivankova & Stick, 2007; Spaulding &
Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012; West, Gokalp, Pena, Fischer, & Gupton, 2011; Wao & Onwuegbuzie,
2011).
Curricula that incorporate activating instruction (rather than relying solely on lectures for
instruction) contribute to higher rates of completion (Schmidt, Cohen-Schotanus, van der Molen,
Splinter, Bulte, Holdrinet, & van Rossum, 2010; Wao & Onwuegbuzie, 2011). Classroom
activities – such as collaborative learning, group discussions, presentations, group projects, and
other methods of active learning– foster social and academic integration (Schmidt, Cohen-
Schotanus, van der Molen, Splinter, Bulte, Holdrinet, & van Rossum, 2010). Surveys from
doctoral students who have successfully completed their doctoral programs showed that students
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

60
came to appreciate when instructors found innovative ways to teach the material (Amrein-
Beardsley, Zambo, Moore, Buss, Perry, Painter, & Puckett, 2012; Wao & Onwuegbuzie, 2011).
Programs’ investing time in designing curriculum that is relevant and flexible to their
students’ needs is positively related to student outcomes (Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw,
2012; Wao & Onwuegbuzie, 2011; West, Gokalp, Pena, Fischer, & Gupton, 2011). Doctoral
programs that included time for self-study and made sure students used self-study time
effectively through study assignments, problems to be understood and solved, and other means
of engagement saw increased graduation rates (Amrein-Beardsley, Zambo, Moore, Buss, Perry,
Painter, & Puckett, 2012; Schmidt, Cohen-Schotanus, van der Molen, Splinter, Bulte, Holdrinet,
& van Rossum, 2010; West, Gokalp, Pena, Fischer, & Gupton, 2011).
This teaching of independent time management can also benefit students another way, as
persistence increases in programs that recognize the challenges associated with transitioning
from structured coursework to unstructured dissertation writing by building a connection
between coursework and the skills needed to execute the dissertation (Spaulding & Rockinson-
Szapkiw, 2012). Successful doctoral program graduates have indicated that learning about
research practices through a curriculum centered on action research provided them with the
experiences and time necessary to hone their craft (Amrein-Beardsley, Zambo, Moore, Buss,
Perry, Painter, & Puckett, 2012; West, Gokalp, Pena, Fischer, & Gupton, 2011). Student
dissatisfaction related to academic progress can stem from dissatisfaction with course sequencing
and/or a lack of practical application of knowledge learned during coursework (Wao &
Onwuegbuzie, 2011).
The organization has procedures in place to communicate necessary information to
students accurately and in a timely manner. When a graduate program has a weak
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

61
communication system in place, it commonly results in students not understanding what
doctoral study entails, how the processes of the doctoral program work, or how to navigate the
program effectively – leaving students more likely to depart from the program without a degree
(Brill et al., 2014; Lovitts; 2001; Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2011; Smith et al., 2006; Spaulding &
Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012; Stallone, 2011; Wao & Onwuegbuzie, 2011).
Upon entering a doctoral program, doctoral students can find materials confusing and
failing to provide adequate information about how to finish earning the degree; this can prove to
be a considerable issue as the doctoral program is unlike any other academic experience and
requires intellectual resolve, withstanding sometimes-heavy psychological demands, and
managing independent research (Brill et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2006). When students move
through a program that fails to satisfactorily answer their questions or respond to their expressed
needs, they become frustrated, can experience a sense of helplessness, feel disconnected from the
program, and may begin to question whether the program is a proper match for their plans and
goals (Smith et al., 2006). When students perceive a mismatch between their goals and the
program, or when they lack adequate information about a process and expectations (especially in
a series of occurrences), they are more likely to withdraw from the program (Lovitts, 2001;
Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012).
Within the classroom, a common symptom of poor communication is when students feel
that programs have not provided enough (or any) training on how to conduct research or write a
dissertation (Allan & Dory, 2001; Lovitts, 2001). Eighty percent of graduates expressed a desire
for more direct instruction on data analysis and better guidelines for managing the dissertation
(Amrein-Beardsley, Zambo, Moore, Buss, Perry, Painter, & Puckett, 2012). Degree completers
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

62
demonstrated a better ability to describe instructor and program expectations than did non-
completers (Grasso, Barry, & Valentine, 2009; Lovitts, 2001).
The organization reasonably meets students’ expectations of the program. Many
doctoral students begin their coursework with false expectations concerning the realities of
graduate school; as a result, the discrepancies between students’ expectations and the reality they
encounter can lead to a level of disappointment strong enough to considerably influence doctoral
attrition (Grasso, Barry, & Valentine, 2009; Ivankova & Stick, 2007; Wao & Onwuegbuzie,
2011).
Even if the discrepancy between expectation and reality is not great enough to cause full
departure from the program, student expectations regarding coursework, the program, and its
policies have been found to affect doctoral persistence (Allan & Dory, 2001; Ivankova & Stick,
2007; Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012). When student expectations were met, it was
rarely noted; when not (particularly in a series of events or occurrences), students tended to
question if there was an academic mismatch between their goals and the selected program
(Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012). Academic mismatch is an incongruity between what
the doctoral student wanted or expected from the program and what the program is preparing
them to do (Ivankova & Stick, 2007; Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012). When students’
perception of an academic mismatch reaches a certain level, they are more likely to withdraw
from the program (Lovitts, 2001; Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012).
Academic mismatch and unmet expectations can be averted by ensuring communication
tools are comprehensive and current (orientation materials, student and program handbooks,
advising materials, etc.) (Lovitts, 2001; Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012).
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

63
The organization reasonably supports and accommodates students facing financial
hardship. Challenges related to finances are considered a significant influence on the decision to
leave a doctoral program prematurely and has been cited as such for decades (Allan & Dory,
2001; Brill et al., 2014; Grasso, Barry, & Valentine, 2009; Lovitts, 2001; Pauley, Cunningham,
& Toth, 1999; Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012, Stallone, 2011; West, Gokalp, Pena,
Fischer, & Gupton, 2011). Lovitts (2001) found that 20% of doctoral students in her study cited
financial reasons for their program departure.
Financial pressures can become overwhelming to the point of requiring doctoral students
to find (or maintain) full-time employment. In turn, the demands of full-time employment tend to
interfere with time needed for coursework or dissertation writing (thereby extending TTD and
further contributing to the decision to leave the program early) (Allan & Dory, 2001).
Irrespective of program type, students who self-finance are less likely to persist through the end
of their program (Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012). As most students earning an
educational doctorate continue to be employed full-time while enrolled full-time (West, Gokalp,
Pena, Fischer, & Gupton, 2011), Ed.D. students may also need to make investments into hiring
supplemental childcare, help with domestic duties, assistance with data analysis, or an editor
(Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012).
Universities have demonstrated an effort to improve doctoral attrition and retention rates
by offering increasing amounts and means of financial support (Brill et al., 2014). University-
sponsored fellowships and assistantships have been found to increase persistence and decrease
TTD (Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012).
The organization is responsive to categorical conditions that may affect student
persistence and attrition (student age, gender, race, ethnicity, marital status, parental status,
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

64
etc.). Examination of an organization’s response to categorical differences among its student
body is germane to discussions regarding doctoral attrition because, until very recently,
American universities were designed to educate a clientele that was overwhelmingly composed
of young white males from the middle and upper classes (Tierney, 1992). While recent research
on doctoral attrition has begun to step away from blaming the victim (Tierney, 1992; Tinto,
2006), many models of integration have done little more than inserted non-mainstream
populations into a dominant culture’s framework operating within dominant culture norms
(Tierney, 1992). A program that strives to lessen attrition by finding ways to better integrate
students – without ever considering who is being integrated or how it is to be done – essentially
rejects the categorical conditions that it is attempting to embrace (Tierney, 1992).
Demographic variables correlated to doctoral persistence include age, gender, ethnicity,
and marital status (Lovitts, 2001; Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012; Wao & Onwuegbuzie,
2011). Men have been found more likely to complete their degree than women, older Caucasian
students more likely to graduate than older minority students, and married students more likely
to persist than unmarried students (Gardner, 2009; Lovitts, 2001; Spaulding & Rockinson-
Szapkiw, 2012).
Despite these findings, two-thirds of faculty consider the core reasons for doctoral
student attrition to be inadequacies on the part of the student (Lovitts, 2001). In his study of
graduate education, Berelson (1960) found that a majority of the faculty and administrators he
interviewed regarding doctoral attrition attributed the issue to student problems, including the
student’s lack of ability to do the work, lack of proper motivation, and/or lack of financial
resources. In both Lovitts’ (2001) and Berelson’s (1960) studies, then, faculty and administrators
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

65
placed the entire blame for doctoral attrition squarely on the shoulders of the departed student
and attributed no responsibility to the program or institution (Gardner, 2009).
This perspective is largely unchanged over the course of the last 40 years, as evidenced
by many doctoral programs still placing greater emphasis on academic admissions criteria
(assuming more rigorous academic admission criteria will result in lowered rates of attrition)
while leaving researchers to continue examining the influences of demographic factors (gender,
ethnicity, and age) and psychological factors (career goals, financial situation, and motivation)
on doctoral attrition (Goenner & Snaith, 2004; Lovitts, 2001; Stallone, 2011).
Rather than defining doctoral attrition as a problem with students, Tierney (1992)
asserted it may be better to think of the institution as the one having the problem. The problem,
he posited, may be better defined not as an individual or group’s lack of integration and
assimilation but as an institution’s inability to accept differences, embrace differences, and
operate in a multifaceted setting. Universities, he concluded, must recognize the identities of
their minority groups, consider how institutionally-sponsored interventions function within a
variety of different contexts that exist for a variety of different populations, and consider
themselves multicultural entities where differences are highlighted and celebrated (Tierney,
1992).
The program’s assignments are structured such that doctoral students can complete
their program in a reasonable amount of time (TTD). A substantial number of studies have
worked to identify and examine the factors contributing to TTD (the measure of the length of
time that students take to complete their degree program,), as it has become a growing concern
among students, faculty, and universities alike (Wao & Onwuegbuzie, 2011). Wao (2010) found
that prolonged TTD is associated with increased institutional costs, delayed entry into the
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

66
workforce, and a reduction of incoming-earning years (thus, diminishing the calculated
benefits of degree attainment). Additionally, prolonged TTD is demoralizing to enrolled doctoral
students, discouraging them from working towards program completion (Wao, 2010). Thus,
students, universities, and society at large are all affected when the doctorate is not completed in
a timely manner (Wao, 2010).
Obscured by doctoral attrition statistics is how many of the doctoral students who fail to
earn their degree abandoned their effort after investing between 6 to 12 years into their program
(Wao & Onwuegbuzie, 2011). TTD has been found to vary more systemically by discipline of
study than any other variable (Wao & Onwuegbuzie, 2011). Education degrees have consistently
experienced the longest TTD over time, compared to other degrees in other fields (Wao, 2010;
Wao & Onwuegbuzie, 2011). Furthermore, over the years, there has been a significant increase
in TTD in the field of education. In the 25-year time span between 1983 and 2008, the median
number of years required to earn a graduate degree in education increased from 11.7 to 12.7,
compared to the decrease from 8.2 to 7.7 across all fields (Wao, 2010; Wao & Onwuegbuzie,
2011).
Table 5
Assumed Organizational Influences on the Doctoral Attrition Rate of Working Fathers
Assumed Influences General Literature
Organizational
The organization sufficiently scaffolds
student skills related to conducting
research for the dissertation writing
process
Allan & Dory, 2001; Amrein-
Beardsley, Zambo, Moore, Buss,
Perry, Painter, & Puckett, 2012;
Brill et al., 2014; Lovitts, 2001;
Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw,
2012; West, Gokalp, Pena, Fischer,
& Gupton, 2011
The organization has processes and
resources in place to support students’
sense of identity, self-efficacy
Amrein-Beardsley, Zambo, Moore,
Buss, Perry, Painter, & Puckett,
2012
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

67
The organization has processes in
place to monitor the degree to which
students have productive relationships
with their dissertation chairs
Allan & Dory, 2001; Brill et al.,
2014; Devos, Boudrenghein, Van
der Linden, Azzi, Frenay, Galand,
& Klein, 2016; Golde, 2005;
Grasso, Barry, & Valentine, 2009;
Ivankova & Stick, 2007; Jairam &
Kahl, 2012; Lovitts, 2001; Pauley,
Cunningham, & Toth, 1999;
Rockinson – Szapkiw, 2011; Smith
et al., 2006; Spaulding &
Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012; Wao &
Onwuegbuzie, 2011; West, Gokalp,
Pena, Fischer, & Gupton, 2011
The organization ensures that students
are provided adequate opportunities for
social integration

Allan & Dory, 2001; Amrein-
Beardsley, Zambo, Moore, Buss,
Perry, Painter, & Puckett, 2012;
Brill et al., 2014; Devos,
Boudrenghein, Van der Linden,
Azzi, Frenay, Galand, & Klein,
2016; Goenner & Snaith, 2004;
Golde, 2005; Grasso, Barry, &
Valentine, 2009; Jairam & Kahl,
2012; Lovitts, 2001; Pauley,
Cunningham, & Toth, 1999;
Rockinson – Szapkiw, 2011; Smith
et al., 2006; Spaulding &
Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012; Stallone,
2011; West, Gokalp, Pena, Fischer,
& Gupton, 2011
The organization ensures that the
program design and structure are
amenable to the lifestyle of its doctoral
students (distance/online program vs.
traditional, cohort model, scheduling
flexibility, etc.)
Allan & Dory, 2001; Amrein-
Beardsley, Zambo, Moore, Buss,
Perry, Painter, & Puckett, 2012;
Brill et al., 2014; Grasso, Barry, &
Valentine, 2009; Ivankova & Stick,
2007; Rockinson – Szapkiw, 2011;
Schmidt, Cohen-Schotanus, van der
Molen, Splinter, Bulte, Holdrinet, &
van Rossum, 2010; Smith et al.,
2006; Spaulding & Rockinson-
Szapkiw, 2012; Stallone, 2011;
Wao & Onwuegbuzie, 2011; West,
Gokalp, Pena, Fischer, & Gupton,
2011
The organization ensures that the
curricular content is appropriate for its
student body (accounting for adult
Amrein-Beardsley, Zambo, Moore,
Buss, Perry, Painter, & Puckett,
2012; Brill et al., 2014; Ivankova &
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

68
learning needs, relevant material, etc.) Stick, 2007; Lovitts, 2001; Schmidt,
Cohen-Schotanus, van der Molen,
Splinter, Bulte, Holdrinet, & van
Rossum, 2010; Spaulding &
Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012; Wao &
Onwuegbuzie, 2011; West, Gokalp,
Pena, Fischer, & Gupton, 2011
The organization has procedures in
place to communicate necessary
information to students accurately and
in a timely manner
Allan & Dory, 2001; Amrein-
Beardsley, Zambo, Moore, Buss,
Perry, Painter, & Puckett, 2012;
Brill et al., 2014; Grasso, Barry, &
Valentine, 2009; Lovitts, 2001;
Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2011; Smith et
al., 2006; Spaulding & Rockinson-
Szapkiw, 2012; Stallone, 2011;
Wao & Onwuegbuzie, 2011
The organization reasonably meets
students’ expectations of the program
Allan & Dory, 2001; Grasso, Barry,
& Valentine, 2009; Ivankova &
Stick, 2007; Lovitts, 2001;
Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw,
2012; Wao & Onwuegbuzie, 2011
The organization reasonably supports
and accommodates students facing
financial hardship
Allan & Dory, 2001; Brill et al.,
2014; Grasso, Barry, & Valentine,
2009; Lovitts, 2001; Pauley,
Cunningham, & Toth, 1999;
Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw,
2012; Stallone, 2011; West, Gokalp,
Pena, Fischer, & Gupton, 2011
The organization is responsive to
categorical conditions that may affect
student persistence and attrition
(student age, gender, race, ethnicity,
marital status, parental status, etc.)
Berelson, 1960; Gardner, 2009;
Goenner & Snaith, 2004; Lovitts,
2001; Spaulding & Rockinson-
Szapkiw, 2012; Stallone, 2011;
Tierney, 1992; Wao &
Onwuegbuzie, 2011
The program’s assignments are
structured such that doctoral students
can complete their program in a
reasonable amount of time (TTD)
Wao, 2010; Wao & Onwuegbuzie,
2011

Conclusion
This study examined knowledge and skill, motivation, and organizational (KMO)
influences on working fathers pursuing their doctorate to determine if working fathers pursuing a
doctorate are at an increased risk of doctoral attrition. Literature exploring the causes of doctoral
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

69
attrition as well as recent changes in the role of fathers was presented. The assumed KMO
influences affecting working fathers’ chances of successfully completing their doctoral program
were highlighted and verified against theories and related literature. The assumed KMO
influences included:
• All four categories of knowledge (factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive)
• Expectancy-value and self-efficacy theories of motivation
• Organizational cultural models relating to the root causes of doctoral attrition
• Organizational cultural settings relating to procedures, processes, and resources
Each of the assumed KMO influences on performance outlined in this chapter was examined
through the methodology outlined in Chapter Three of this study. The assumed influences were
evaluated using a sequential mixed methods approach, relying on surveys, interviews, and
document analysis for data collection. Data analysis included descriptive statistics from the
quantitative measures and thematic coding of the qualitative data gathered. The validation
process is reviewed further in Chapter Three.
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

70
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to understand the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational (KMO) influences impacting working fathers’ ability to achieve their performance
goal of graduating on time from their doctoral program. While a complete analysis would have
focused on all stakeholders, the stakeholder group of focus in this analysis was working fathers
enrolled in University X’s Ed.D. in OL program. Specifically, this study focused on what
working fathers pursuing an Ed.D. in OL know (and do not know), what they value and why,
what they have confidence in doing, and what they need to succeed. The gap analysis model by
Clark and Estes (2008) was the conceptual framework for this study examining risk factors as
they relate to KMO gaps.
As such, the questions guiding this study were:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational causes influencing the ability
of doctoral students who are fathers to complete their academic programs?
2. What are the recommended solutions for closing the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational gaps affecting working fathers’ ability to earn their doctorates?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
Maxwell (2013) stated that the conceptual framework of a study – the system of
concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and theories that supports and informs the study – is
primarily a conception (or model) of what the researcher plans to examine, and why (p. 39).
Explaining that a conceptual framework is “constructed, not found” (p. 41, emphasis in original),
Maxwell outlined the four main sources of information that contribute to the creation of a
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

71
conceptual framework: 1) the researcher’s experiential knowledge, 2) existing theory and
research, 3) the researcher’s pilot and exploratory research, and 4) thought experiments (p. 44).
The ultimate function of a conceptual framework is to inform the rest of the study’s design –
helping assess and refine the study’s goals, developing realistic and relevant search questions,
selecting appropriate research methods, and identifying any potential validity threats to the
study’s conclusions (pg. 39). To answer the two questions guiding this study, two constructs –
doctoral program design and work-life balance – were examined to better understand the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational causes influencing doctoral students’ ability to earn
their doctorate.
This study utilized Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework, a systemic, analytic
conceptual framework that uses a problem-solving approach to improve performance and
achieve goals. The framework assists in the establishment of intelligent goals, the quantifying
and/or qualifying of the gap between aspirational goals and actual performance and guides the
prescription of an appropriate plan of action to close those performance gaps. The framework
then repeats the process to adjust to changing conditions and to identify any new/additional
performance gaps. The gap analysis process is divided into six steps, as shown in Figure 2.3.
The Clarke and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework allows for the use of several
different approaches to both gather and analyze data. Quantitative methods (surveys, closed
interviews, examination of secondary data), qualitative methods (surveys, interviews, focus
groups, observations), and mixed methods (which combine the tools and processes of the two)
are all viable options. This was an explanatory sequential mixed methods study, as it began by
conducting a survey, analyzing the results, and then building on those results further with follow-
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

72
up interviews. The approach is considered explanatory as qualitative data is gathered after the
Figure 3.1. Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Process Model

Source: Clark and Estes (2008)
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

73
initial quantitative data to explain the results and is sequential in that the research phases are
one after another (as opposed to simultaneous). Data analysis included descriptive statistics from
the quantitative measures and thematic coding of the qualitative data gathered.
Assessment of Performance Influences
In Chapter Two, six knowledge, four motivation, and 11 organizational influences were
identified from either the learning, motivation, and organizational theory literature or the
research literature.
Table 6
Sources of Assumed Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences.
Assumed Influences on Working Fathers’ Ability to Complete a Doctorate
Source Knowledge and Skills Motivation Organizational Barriers
Learning,
Motivation, and
Organizational
Theory
Students know what
they want to
accomplish by
enrolling in a doctoral
program.

Students believe they
are capable of
successfully balancing
their work, school, and
life responsibilities.

Students believe that
foregoing other
activities to create
more time for academic
work is worth it.

Research
Literature
Students understand
that balancing doctoral
studies with family
responsibilities, and
other relationships, is a
significant challenge.

Students understand
the negative effects of
role-overload on their
ability to achieve their
academic goals.

Students need to
possess an intrinsic
interest in pursuing,
and see the value in
completing, their
doctoral program.

Students prioritize
academic work and
dedicate sufficient time
to studying and
research.
The organization
sufficiently scaffolds
student skills related to
conducting research for
the dissertation writing
process

The organization has
processes and resources
in place to support
students’ sense of
identity, self-efficacy

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

74
Students understand
the relationship
between poor work-
life balance and
conditions such as:
burn-out; increased
cognitive difficulties;
and reduced levels of
health, energy, and
well-being

Students know how to
utilize effective
personal competencies
(stress management
methods, coping skills,
support systems, time
management skills,
organizational skills,
etc.).

Students monitor the
risk factors and stress
levels that may
contribute to their
doctoral attrition
The organization has
processes in place to
monitor the degree to
which students have
productive relationships
with their dissertation
chairs.

The organization
ensures that students
are provided adequate
opportunities for social
integration.

The organization
ensures that the
program design and
structure are amenable
to the lifestyle of its
doctoral students
(distance/online
program vs. traditional,
cohort model,
scheduling flexibility,
etc.).

The organization
ensures that the
curricular content is
appropriate for its
student body
(accounting for adult
learning needs, relevant
material, etc.).

The organization has
procedures in place to
communicate necessary
information to students
accurately and in a
timely manner.

The organization
reasonably meets
students’ expectations
of the program.
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

75
The organization
reasonably supports and
accommodates students
facing financial
hardship.

The organization is
responsive to
categorical conditions
that may affect student
persistence and attrition
(student age, gender,
race, ethnicity, marital
status, parental status,
etc.).

The program’s
assignments are
structured such that
doctoral students can
complete their program
in a reasonable amount
of time (TTD).

Knowledge Assessment
Table 7 describes the six assumed knowledge influences related to the influences that
impact working fathers’ ability to complete their doctoral degrees. The table includes a
description of how these assumed influences were assessed through survey and interviews.
Table 7
Assumed Knowledge Influences and Method of Assessment
Assumed Influence Method of Assessment
Knowledge
Factual Students understand that balancing
doctoral studies with family
responsibilities, and other
relationships, is a significant challenge
Survey and Interview
Examples: How challenging has it
been balancing your doctoral
studies with work, family, and other
commitments? (Likert scale)

How difficult has it been for you to
balance work, family, school, and
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

76
other commitments?
Students know what they want to
accomplish by enrolling in a doctoral
program
Interview
Example: What do you hope to
accomplish by earning a doctorate?
Conceptual Students understand the negative
effects of role-overload on their ability
to achieve their academic goals

Interview
Examples: How would you define
“role-overload”?

What do you think some of the
symptoms of role-overload would
be?
Students understand the relationship
between poor work-life balance and
conditions such as: burn-out; increased
cognitive difficulties; and reduced
levels of health, energy, and well-being
Interview
Example: What do you think some
of the symptoms of role-overload
would be?

Do you think that you have suffered
any of these consequences?
Procedural Students know how to utilize effective
personal competencies (stress
management methods, coping skills,
support systems, time management
skills, organizational skills, etc.)
Interview
Example: What are some of the
personal competencies a person
must possess to be a successful
doctoral student?
Metacognitive Students monitor the risk factors and
stress levels that may contribute to
their doctoral attrition
Interview
Example: Do you think that you
have suffered any of the
consequences?

Motivation Assessment
Table 8 describes the four assumed motivational influences related to working fathers’
ability to complete their doctoral degrees. The table includes a description of how these assumed
influences were assessed through survey and interviews.
Table 8
Assumed Motivation Influences and Method of Assessment
Assumed Influence Method of Assessment
Motivation
Expectancy-
Value Theory –
Intrinsic Interest
Students need to possess an intrinsic
interest in pursuing, and see the value
in completing, their doctoral program
Interview
Examples: What were your reasons
for initially considering a doctorate?

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

77
What do you hope to accomplish
by earning a doctorate?
Expectancy-
Value Theory –
Attainment
Value
Students prioritize academic work and
dedicate sufficient time to studying and
research
Interview and Document Analysis
Examples: Approximately how
many hours per week do you
dedicate to your doctoral studies?

How important do you think it is to
prioritize academic work and
dedicate sufficient time to research
and studies?
Self-Efficacy
Theory
Students believe they are capable of
successfully balancing their work,
school, and life responsibilities
Survey
Example: I believe I am capable of
successfully balancing work,
school, family, and my other
responsibilities (Likert scale)
Expectancy-
Value Theory –
Cost
Students believe that foregoing other
activities to create more time for
academic work is worth it
Survey and Interview
Examples: Sacrificing time
otherwise spent with family,
friends, or on myself to have more
time for my academic studies is
worth it (Likert scale)

How do you feel about the impact
that your doctoral studies have on
other aspects of your life?

Do you feel those sacrifices have
been worth it?

Organization Assessment
Table 9 describes the 11 assumed organizational influences related to working fathers’
ability to complete their doctoral degrees. The table includes a description of how these assumed
influences were assessed through survey and interviews.
Table 9
Assumed Organizational Influences and Method of Assessment
Assumed Influence Method of Assessment
Organizational
The organization sufficiently scaffolds
student skills related to conducting
Survey, Interview, and Document
Analysis
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

78
research for the dissertation writing
process
Examples: My doctoral program
provides sufficient training
regarding how to conduct research
for the dissertation writing process.
(Likert scale)

How important is it for your
doctoral program to provide training
in how to conduct research for the
dissertation writing process?
The organization has processes and
resources in place to support students’
sense of identity, self-efficacy

Survey and Document Analysis
Example: I believe I am capable of
successfully balancing work,
school, family, and my other
responsibilities (Likert scale)
The organization has processes in
place to monitor the degree to which
students have productive relationships
with their dissertation chairs
Survey, Interview, and Document
Analysis
Examples: My doctoral program
monitors whether students have
productive relationships with their
dissertation chairs. (Likert scale)

How important is it for doctoral
programs to monitor the degree to
which students have positive and
productive relationships with their
dissertation chairs?
The organization ensures that students
are provided adequate opportunities for
social integration

Survey, Interview, and Document
Analysis
Examples: My doctoral program
provides opportunities to interact
socially with my peers and
classmates. (Likert scale)

My doctoral program provides
opportunities to interact socially
with my professors and advisors.
(Likert scale)

How important is it for doctoral
programs to provide opportunities
for social engagement and
integration for their students?
The organization ensures that the
program design and structure are
amenable to the lifestyle of its doctoral
Survey, Interview, and Document
Analysis
Examples: My doctoral program’s
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

79
students (distance/online program vs.
traditional, cohort model, scheduling
flexibility, etc.)
being offered online is
appropriate/suitable for the lifestyle
of its students. (Likert scale)

My doctoral program’s being
offered in a cohort model is
appropriate/suitable for the lifestyle
of its students. (Likert scale)

To what degree was program design
relevant to your choosing your
doctoral program?
The organization ensures that the
curricular content is appropriate for its
student body (accounting for adult
learning needs, relevant material, etc.)
Survey, Interview, and Document
Analysis
Examples: The curricular content
of my doctoral program is
appropriate and applicable. (Likert
scale)

How important is curricular content
to student persistence?

Do you believe that the program
design is appropriate for the student
body?
The organization has procedures in
place to communicate necessary
information to students accurately and
in a timely manner
Survey, Interview, and Document
Analysis
Examples: My doctoral program
communicates important
information to me accurately and in
a timely manner. (Likert scale)

How important is it for your
doctoral program to communicate
necessary information accurately
and in a timely manner?
The organization reasonably meets
students’ expectations of the program
Survey and Interview
Examples: To what degree has your
doctoral program met your
expectations? (Likert scale)

How important is it for a doctoral
program to meet the expectations of
its students?
The organization reasonably supports
and accommodates students facing
Survey and Document Analysis
Example: My doctoral program is
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

80
financial hardship supportive and accommodating of
students dealing with financial
hardship. (Likert scale)
The organization is responsive to
categorical conditions that may affect
student persistence and attrition
(student age, gender, race, ethnicity,
marital status, parental status, etc.)
Interview and Document Analysis
Example: How important is it for a
doctoral program to be sensitive to
the categorical conditions that may
affect student success (age,
ethnicity, marital status, parental
status, etc.)?
The program’s assignments are
structured such that doctoral students
can complete their program in a
reasonable amount of time (TTD)
Survey, Interview, and Document
Analysis
Examples: I believe it is possible to
earn my doctorate in a reasonable
amount of time through this
doctoral program. (Likert scale)

How important is it that your
doctorate can be earned in a
reasonable amount of time?

Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder group of focus for this study consisted of students enrolled in the
University X Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) in Organizational Leadership (OL) program.
Specifically, working fathers currently pursuing their Ed.D. in OL were the purposefully
sampled population.
Data Collection
The mixed methods approach of this study utilized a parallel sequential mixed sampling
design (as defined by Johnson and Christenson, 2015), as the quantitative survey and qualitative
interviews data were collected one after the other (sequential) from the same pool of participants
(parallel) specifically chosen to represent the population to be examined (purposeful).
Survey Sampling
Criterion 1. Participant must be currently enrolled in the OL program, Cohorts 1 – 3.
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

81
Survey recruitment and rationale. The initial phase of data collection consisted of a
quantitative survey. The survey was offered to all OL students currently enrolled in Cohorts 1- 3,
which spanned the program start dates of January 2015, May 2015, and August 2015. The survey
was sent to all students enrolled in the Ed.D., not just fathers, for two reasons. First, having a
baseline against which the responses of fathers can be compared helped provide context for
fathers’ knowledge, motivation, and organization issues. Second, the survey was used to identify
students who are also fathers as this information is not collected by the institution. This
approach constituted a purposeful sampling because individuals or cases were selected that
provided the information needed to address the purpose of the research (Johnson & Christenson,
2015). Offering the survey to all members of Cohorts 1-3 maximized the probability of an
appropriate sample size and the dataset available for analysis. Access to cohort email distribution
lists and to students via social media platforms allowed a link to the online survey to be
distributed with relative ease. No incentive for responding to the survey was provided.
Survey instrumentation and fielding. The doctoral student survey was created using the
Qualtrics online survey application and was open to respondents for two weeks. The survey was
distributed via email by the OL Ed.D. program office, utilizing listservs for each cohort. An
email explaining the purpose of the study with a link to the survey was sent to all eligible
subjects on those lists. Appendix A contains the survey instrument protocol. After the first
week, a reminder email was sent to all participants; Appendix B contains the text of the reminder
message. Once the survey was closed at the end of the second week, potential respondents were
no longer able to access the survey.

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

82
Figure 3.2. Visual model for mixed methods sequential explanatory design procedures

Phase Procedure Product

• Web-based survey
(N=168)
• Participants currently
enrolled in the OL
doctorate program
• Qualtrics software

• Numeric data
• Data screening
• Data coding

• Descriptive statistics,
missing data, linearity,
normality, outliers

• Purposeful selection of
interview participants
• Refine interview
questions

• Finalized list of interview
candidates (N=16)
• Finalized interview
protocol
• Doctoral students in the
OL program who are also
working fathers (N=14)
• Semi-structured, open-
ended interviews
• Documents

• Transcribed interviews
for analysis
• Import transcripts
• Coding and thematic
analysis
• Theme development

• Emergent themes

• Interpretation and
explanation of results
• How Quantitative results
explains Qualitative
findings
• Discussion
• Implications
• Future research
• Recommendations

Integration of
Quantitative and
Qualitative Results
Case Selection
Interview Protocol
Development

Quantitative
Data Collection
Quantitative
Data Analysis
Qualitative
Data Collection
Qualitative
Data Analysis
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

83
Interview Sampling
Criterion 1. Participant must have completed the survey described above.
Criterion 2. Participant must be a father of at least one child 18 years of age or younger.
Criterion 3. Participant must be employed full-time.
Interview recruitment and rationale. The second phase of data collection consisted of
semi-structured qualitative interviews with working fathers pursuing their Ed.D. in OL at
University X. On the survey was an opportunity for students to volunteer to participate in an
interview by providing their contact information. Potential interviewees were the subset of all
Ed.D. in OL students who responded to the survey and are fathers of at least one child 18 years
of age or younger. This sample provided perspective from the stakeholder of focus, allowing for
in-depth questions on subject matter directly related to the research questions of the study.
Participants were selected at random from survey participants meeting the three criteria.
Randomly selected interviewees were contacted initially via email until 12-15 agreed to
participate in interviews (either in-person or via LMS). Interviews were conducted
approximately 3-4 weeks after administration of the survey.
Interview instrumentation and fielding. The interview protocol was designed to serve as
an extension and triangulation of the survey questions, providing a more in-depth examination of
the assumed influencers and their contexts. Questions were open-ended, with additional probing
questions in case the interview participant needed prompting during the interview. Interviews
were conducted in English. Each interview lasted approximately 40 minutes and began with a
standard interview protocol that included obtaining permission to record the interview for
transcription and coding later. Two copies of the interviews, as well as their transcription and
coding, were stored on a password-protected laptop as well as a secured cloud-based location.
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

84
Once the study was accepted by the university, all copies of interviews, transcripts, and
identifiable information were destroyed. Appendix C contains the text of the invitation that was
sent to the OL students randomly selected from survey participants meeting the three criteria.
The interview protocol is included in Appendix D.
Document Analysis
The third phase of data collection for this study was document analysis. These
documents encompassed formal policies and procedures by University X and the School of
Education (SOE) as well as any relevant documents developed within the OL program.
Additionally, the researcher examined the structure of the OL curriculum. The OL Governance
Committee and administration provided all relevant documents and information to the researcher
for examination.
Data Analysis
Data analysis is the process of making sense of the data by consolidating, synthesizing,
and interpreting participants’ responses to see if/how it aligns with the literature (Merriam,
2009). Data analysis for this mixed methods study included review and interpretation of surveys,
interviews, and pertinent artifacts/documents. The process and results of this analysis are
presented in Chapter Four of this study to determine which (if any) of the assumed influences
presented in this study were validated and, in Chapter Five, were used to determine appropriate
research-based recommendations.
For quantitative data, descriptive statistical analysis was conducted once all survey results
were submitted. A codebook was created for this portion of the data analysis process. The mean,
median, mode, and standard deviation were calculated (where applicable). Descriptive statistical
analysis was also utilized to reveal central tendencies and nominal data reflecting participants’
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

85
feelings and observations. Analysis of this initial phase of data collection provided important
information, allowing interviews to validate the assumed influences identified in this chapter
factor affecting the ability of doctoral students who are fathers to complete their academic
programs.
For qualitative data, data collection and data analysis were conducted concurrently.
Specifically, the analysis of each interview began following the interview; analytic memos were
written after each interview, documenting thoughts, concerns, and initial conclusions about the
data in relation to the study’s research questions. Interviews were transcribed and coded. The
coding process followed a multiphase approach, beginning with open coding and the assignment
of a priori codes developed in accordance with the 21 assumed KMO influences outlined earlier
in this chapter. The next phase consisted of the aggregation of a priori codes into analytic/axial
codes that guided the development and/or identification of pattern codes and themes. Patterns
and themes were used to examine the extent that each of the 21 assumed influences identified in
this chapter factor into the ability of doctoral students who are fathers to complete their academic
programs. Themes were compared with survey responses to validate the survey data. These
themes may also provide evidence for new KMO influences not initially found in research
literature or considered in the development of the study.
The final phase of the analysis was to use the artifact/document analysis to triangulate the
data collected from surveys and interviews to support the examination of the 21 assumed
influences identified in this chapter.
Credibility and Trustworthiness

The credibility and trustworthiness of findings yielded from qualitative research are often
called into question because results “are only trustworthy to the extent that there has been some
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

86
rigor in carrying out the study” (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016, p. 237). As such, multiple
strategies were employed to negate threats to, and increase, the credibility and trustworthiness of
this study’s qualitative findings. The data collection process included triangulation, as multiple
sources of data and methods of data collection were used to confirm emerging findings
(Maxwell, 2013; Merriam and Tisdell, 2016). Member checks were utilized, as participants could
review transcripts from interviews to ensure accuracy and avoid misinterpretation (Maxwell,
2013; Merriam and Tisdell, 2016). This study included a reflexive section accounting for the role
of the investigator, outlining potential researcher assumptions, biases, theoretical orientation, and
his relationship to the study (which may, or may not, influence the investigation) (Merriam and
Tisdell, 2016). Finally, findings included rich, thick descriptions with the intent of better
contextualizing the study and (in allowing readers to determine the extent to which their situation
matches the research context) improving the study’s level of transferability (Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam and Tisdell, 2016).
Validity and Reliability
Both validity and reliability are essential characteristics of a good assessment, and it is
difficult to have one without the other (Robinson Kurpius and Stafford, 2006). Though the
definition of validity is a much-discussed topic among researchers, for the purposes of this study,
validity refers to the accuracy with which a test measures what it is designed to measure
(Robinson Kurpius and Stafford, 2006; Salkind, 2017). Thus, as a product of inferences rather
than methods, validity is not proven based on the research methods used (Maxwell, 2013;
Robinson Kurpius and Stafford, 2006; Salkind, 2017). Furthermore, Maxwell (2013) found,
validity is relative and is “to be assessed in relationship to the purposes and circumstances of the
research, rather than being a context-independent property of methods or conclusions” (p. 121).
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

87
Salkind (2017) echoed the importance of context when establishing validity by stating that
“validity is always interpreted in light of the purpose of the test and should not be distorted for
alternative purposes” (p. 154).
Traditionally, reliability is defined as the extent to which research findings can be
consistently replicated (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016; Salkind, 2017). In simpler terms, reliability
refers to the trustworthiness or consistency of a test (Salkind, 2017). Establishing test reliability
can prove challenging, as it requires establishing to what degree error (of any kind) factored into
the results (Salkind, 2017).
Though sound and ethical methods and procedures do not guarantee validity or
reliability, they are essential to the process of eliminating validity threats and increasing the
reliability of findings (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013; Salkind, 2017). Like the qualitative
strategies utilized to enhance the researcher’s ability to assess the accuracy of findings (and
convince readers of that accuracy), the quantitative validation strategies incorporated in this
study included:
Triangulation
Triangulation refers to using different data sources of information to build a coherent
justification for themes. If themes are established by converging several sources of data or
perspectives from participants, then this process can be claimed as adding to the validity and
reliability of the study (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013).
Self-Reflection and Clarification of Researcher Bias
Self-reflection accounting for biases the researcher brings to the study and how the
interpretation of findings is shaped by background, such as gender, culture, history, and
socioeconomic origin (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam and Tisdell, 2016).
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

88
Presentation of Discrepant Information
By presenting information that contradicts the general perspective of an identified theme,
the researchers’ account becomes more realistic and more valid (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell,
2013).
Role of Investigator
The primary investigator (PI) was a doctoral candidate at the University of Southern
California (USC), pursuing an Ed.D. in Organizational Change and Leadership. The Ed.D. in
Organizational Change and Leadership is an online doctorate offered in a cohort model via the
2U platform and culminates in a capstone project (inclusive of a dissertation and defense). The
PI is employed full-time as Director of Operations for a privately-owned network of English
language schools with seven year-round and three summer-only school sites across the United
States. The PI is married and the father of a boy/girl set of twins (age 3 at the start of his
doctoral program).
Ethics
Merriam and Tisdell believed that “research focused on discovery, insight, and
understanding from the perspectives of those being studied offers the greatest promise of making
a difference in people’s lives” (2016, p. 1). This study, guided by its research questions and
conceptual framework, strove to be the type of research that Merriam and Tisdell reference. For
that reason, it was essential that the PI made ethical choices throughout the course of this study
to ensure valid and reliable findings.
To ensure the safety of participants, research plans for this study were submitted to the
University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) for review and approval.
The study abided by all rules, regulations, and guidelines set forth by the IRB. This study
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

89
consisted of a mixed methods approach, with data collected by both survey and interview. The
survey portion of data collection began with all participants being told that any information
collected via the online survey was kept anonymous and confidential throughout and after the
study. Additionally, participants were told that they may choose not to answer a question or to
completely discontinue the survey at any point, and without penalty. Individuals invited to the
interview portion of the study were provided with an information fact sheet outlining the purpose
of the study, the need for their consent, that their continued participation was voluntary, that all
information provided during the interview remained confidential, and that they could withdraw
from the study at any point without penalty. In accord with Glesne’s (2011) counsel, the PI
verbally articulated the conditions of the information fact sheet to ensure that participants were
aware of the purpose of the study, that their participation was voluntary, and that they could
withdraw from the study at any point. Prior to the start of each interview, the PI requested
permission to record the interview session. Participants were given the opportunity to review
transcriptions and their coding to ensure their responses were accurate and had not been
misinterpreted.
To minimize the risk of coercion, participants were not provided any type of incentive for
their participation.

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

90
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to understand the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational (KMO) influences impacting working fathers’ ability to achieve their performance
goal of graduating on time from their doctoral program. The analysis focused on problems
caused by KMO gaps centered around a key stakeholder, working fathers enrolled in the Ed.D. in
OL program at University X. The data collected may also prove useful for similar programs
attempting the address low retention rates among significant stakeholder groups.
The research questions that guided this gap analysis were:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational causes influencing the ability of
doctoral students who are fathers to complete their academic programs?
2. What are the recommended solutions for closing the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational gaps affecting working fathers’ ability to earn their doctorates?
The first research question intended to identify the potential KMO influences contributing to
consistently high doctoral attrition rates (with regards to how they may affect working fathers
pursuing their doctorates). The second research question intended to guide University X’s Ed.D.
in OL program (and others like it) in closing the validated performance gaps.
Potential KMO influences were culled from a comprehensive literature review and
categorized accordingly. Guided by the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework, multiple
sources of quantitative and qualitative data were collected to validate the assumed influences.
Specifically, survey, interview, and document analysis were utilized to understand KMO
influences affecting the ability of doctoral students who are fathers to complete their academic
programs. A survey was delivered to currently-enrolled OL students, and interviews were
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

91
conducted with participants who met the criteria of being a father with a child under the age of
18 and being employed full-time; document analysis was done concurrently with survey analysis
and interview administration.
This chapter presents the results of data collection, with key findings synthesized in the
categories of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. Data were analyzed and
triangulated to better understand the assumed KMO influences. Each section outlines the
assumed influences in which performance gaps were validated, those that were not, and any new
needs identified during the study. This chapter concludes with a summary of the influences with
validated performance gaps that were then used to determine recommended solutions outlined in
Chapter Five.
Validation
An influenced was deemed validated if either A) results or findings were consistent
across more than one data source (e.g. survey, interview, and/or document analysis) at a
threshold of at least 50%, or B) if less than 70% of the purposefully sampled stakeholder group
confirmed adequate support/attention given to the assumed influence in either the survey or
interview. An influence was determined to be partially validated if less than 70% of the
purposefully sampled stakeholder group confirmed adequate support/attention given to the
assumed influence in either the survey or interview but results from another data source
conflicted with these findings. The threshold of 50% across instruments was selected as the
validity point as the lower threshold compensates for the difference between survey and
interview participants. The 70% threshold for the purposefully sampled stakeholder group was
chosen as the validity point for a single assessment tool as it was higher than a majority of
respondents.
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

92
Table 10
List of Assumed KMO Influences.
Assumed Influence
Knowledge
Factual Students understand that balancing doctoral studies with family
responsibilities, and other relationships, is a significant challenge
Students know what they want to accomplish by enrolling in a doctoral
program
Conceptual Students understand the negative effects of role-overload on their ability to
achieve their academic goals
Students understand the relationship between poor work-life balance and
conditions such as: burn-out; increased cognitive difficulties; and reduced
levels of health, energy, and well-being
Procedural Students know how to utilize effective personal competencies (stress
management methods, coping skills, support systems, time management skills,
organizational skills, etc.)
Metacognitive Students monitor the risk factors and stress levels that may contribute to their
doctoral attrition
Motivation
Expectancy-Value
Theory – Intrinsic
Interest
Students need to possess an intrinsic interest in pursuing, and see the value in
completing, their doctoral program
Expectancy-Value
Theory –
Attainment Value
Students prioritize academic work and dedicate sufficient time to studying and
research
Self-Efficacy
Theory
Students believe they are capable of successfully balancing their work, school,
and life responsibilities
Expectancy-Value
Theory – Cost
Students believe that foregoing other activities to create more time for academic
work is worth it
Organizational
The organization sufficiently scaffolds student skills related to conducting
research for the dissertation writing process
The organization has processes and resources in place to support students’ sense
of identity, self-efficacy
The organization has processes in place to monitor the degree to which students
have productive relationships with their dissertation chairs
The organization ensures that students are provided adequate opportunities for
social integration
The organization ensures that the program design and structure are amenable to
the lifestyle of its doctoral students (distance/online program vs. traditional,
cohort model, scheduling flexibility, etc.)
The organization ensures that the curricular content is appropriate for its student
body (accounting for adult learning needs, relevant material, etc.)
The organization has procedures in place to communicate necessary information
to students accurately and in a timely manner
The organization reasonably meets students’ expectations of the program
The organization reasonably supports and accommodates students facing
financial hardship
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

93
The organization is responsive to categorical conditions that may affect student
persistence and attrition (student age, gender, race, ethnicity, marital status,
parental status, etc.)
The program’s assignments are structured such that doctoral students can
complete their program in a reasonable amount of time (TTD)

Stakeholders
The mixed methods approach of this study utilized a parallel sequential mixed sampling
design (as defined by Johnson and Christenson, 2015), as the quantitative survey and qualitative
interviews data were collected one after the other (sequential) from the same pool of participants
(parallel) specifically chosen to represent the population to be examined (purposeful).
Survey Sampling
Figure 4.1. Survey Participants’ Age Distribution

Of the 168 OL students sent the survey by University X’s OL Ed.D. program office, 70
(42%) completed the survey. The 70 participants who responded to the survey ranged from 28 to
67 years of age, with a median of 43.0 years and a mode of 37. Approximately 17% (12) of the
participants were 26-35 years of age, 39% (27) of the participants were 36-45 years of age, 21%
17.14%
38.57%
21.43%
17.14%
2.86% 2.86%
26-35 YEARS
OLD
36-45 YEARS
OLD
46-55 YEARS
OLD
56-65 YEARS
OLD
66+ YEARS
OLD
NO ANSWER
Survey Participants' Age Distribution
(n=70)
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

94
(15) were 46-55 years old, 17% (12) were 56 – 65 years old, and 3% (2) were 66 years old or
older; two participants chose not to provide their ages (see Figure 4.1). The participant pool was
47% (33) male and 53% (37) female. Surveys were sent to cohorts 1, 2, and 3 of the OL
program; cohort 1 accounted for 24% (17) of completed surveys, cohort 2 accounted for 33%
(23) and cohort 3 accounted for the final 43% (30).
Figure 4.2. Survey Participants’ Gender Distribution

Figure 4.3. Survey Participants’ Cohort Distribution

47%
53%
Survey Participants' Genders
(n=70)
Male Female
24%
33%
43%
Survey Participants' Cohort Distribution
(n=70)
Cohort 1 Cohort 2 Cohort 3
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

95
Most participants reported being employed full-time (91%/64 respondents), with 3%
(2) identifying as employed part-time, 3% (2) identifying as unemployed, 1% (1) identifying as
other, and one survey participant providing no response. Most participants reported being
married; 70% (49) identified as Married (25 male, 24 female). Approximately 16% (11) of
participants identified as Single (4 male, 7 female). An almost equal amount of the participant
pool was Divorced (13% - 4 male, 5 female). One participant (1%) selected Other for marital
status. A substantial number of participants reported having at least one child under the age of
18; 23% (16) of the female survey participants reported having at least one child under the age of
18, while 33% (23) of the male survey participants reported having at least one child under the
age of 18. Overall, 56% (39) of survey participants reported having at least one child under the
age of 18.
Table 11

Survey Participants' Employment Status (n=70)
Employed Full-Time

64
Employed Part-Time

2
Unemployed

2
Other

1
No Answer 1
Total

70

Table 12

Survey Participants' Marital Status (n=70)
Male Female Total
Married 25 24 49
Single 4 7 11
Divorced 4 5 9
Separated 0 0 0
Other 0 1 1

33 37 70
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

96
Table 13

Survey Participants' Parental Status (n=70)
Male with No Children

7
Male with Adult Child(ren) (18+)

3
Male with Child(ren) (<18)

23
Female with No Children

11
Female with Adult Child(ren) (18+)

8
Female with Child(ren) (<18)

16
No Answer 2
Total

70

Figure 4.4. Survey Participants’ Parental Status Distribution

Figure 4.5. Male Survey Participants’ Parental Status Distribution

26%
15%
56%
3%
Survey Participants' Parental Status
(n=70)
No Children
Adult Child(ren) (18+)
Child(ren) (<18)
No Answer
21%
9%
70%
Male Survey Participants' Parental Status
(n=33)
No Children
Has Adult Child(ren)
(18+)
Has Child(ren) (<18)
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

97
Interview Sampling
The second phase of data collection entailed interviewing a purposefully sampled
population taken from the pool of participants who responded to the initial survey. Of the 15
participants invited for interviews, all 15 accepted but one was ultimately unable to meet.
Fourteen interviews were conducted with individuals who were enrolled in the OL program,
employed full-time, and the father of at least one child 18 years of age or younger. Interviewees
ranged in age from 30 to 66, with a median of 42.9 years and mode of 49. 36% (5) of the
participants were under the age of 40, 57% (8) participants were 40-49 years of age, and 7% (1)
was 50 years old or older. A noteworthy number of participants (57 %, 8 of 14) reported having
multiple children under the age of 18. All but one of the 14 working fathers reported being
married (93%).
Table 14

Interview Participant Data. (N=14)

# Age Marital Status Number of Children Age(s)
1 46 Married 2 12, 15
2 30 Married 2 7, 11
3 42 Married 1 3
4 45 Married 1 4
5 49 Married 2 13, 16
6 41 Married 1 7
7 40 Married 2 6, 8
8 35 Married 3 7, 9, 11
9 35 Married 4 NB, 3, 5, 8
10 49 Married 2 2, 14
11 37 Single 1 16
12 66 Married 3 17, 22, 27
13 37 Married 2 3, 6
14 49 Married 1 15
NB = Newborn (<1month old)

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

98
Results and Findings for Knowledge Influences

Table 15 presents the assumed knowledge and skill influences.
Table 15
Assumed Knowledge Influences
Knowledge Assumed Influence
Factual Students understand that balancing doctoral studies with family
responsibilities, and other relationships, is a significant challenge
Students know what they want to accomplish by enrolling in a doctoral
program
Conceptual Students understand the negative effects of role-overload on their ability to
achieve their academic goals
Students understand the relationship between poor work-life balance and
conditions such as: burn-out; increased cognitive difficulties; and reduced
levels of health, energy, and well-being
Procedural Students know how to utilize effective personal competencies (stress
management methods, coping skills, support systems, time management
skills, organizational skills, etc.)
Metacognitive Students monitor the risk factors and stress levels that may contribute to their
doctoral attrition

Assumed Knowledge Influence 1: Students understand that balancing doctoral studies with
family responsibilities, and other relationships, is a significant challenge
Survey Results. This assumed influence was assessed by one Likert scale item on the
survey (Q8: How challenging has it been balancing your doctoral studies with work, family, and
other commitments?). The response scale was Extremely Challenging, Very Challenging,
Moderately Challenging, Slightly Challenging, and Not Challenging. The item yielded a
response rate of 98.57% (69 of 70).
Of the 69 responses submitted, 81% (58 of 69) responded that balancing doctoral studies
with family responsibilities and other relationships was either extremely or very challenging.
Three participants (4%) responded that balancing doctoral studies with family responsibilities
and other relationships was not challenging (see Figure 4.6 for full results).
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

99
Figure 4.6. Survey results for Q8: How challenging has it been balancing your doctoral
studies with work, family, and other commitments?

Figure 4.7. Working fathers’ survey results for Q8: How challenging has it been balancing your
doctoral studies with work, family, and other commitments?

Examining the results from surveys completed exclusively by working fathers with at least one
child under the age of 18, the results remained relatively similar. The response rate among the 23
26
32
7
1
3
E X T R E M E LY
V E R Y
M O D E R A T E
S LIG H T L Y
NOT
Q8: HOW CHALLENGING HAS IT BEEN
BALANCING YOUR DOCTORAL STUDIES
WITH WORK, FAMILY, AND OTHER
COMMITMENTS
(N=69)
7
12
2
0
2
E X T R E M E LY
V E R Y
M O D E R A T E
S LIG H T L Y
NOT
WORKING FATHERS' RESPONSES TO Q8:
HOW CHALLENGING HAS IT BEEN
BALANCING YOUR DOCTORAL STUDIES
WITH WORK, FAMILY, AND OTHER
COMMITMENTS
(N=23)
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

100
working fathers was 100%. Of the 23 responses submitted, 82% (19 of 23) responded that
balancing doctoral studies with family responsibilities and other relationships was either
extremely or very challenging. Two participants (9%) responded that balancing doctoral studies
with family responsibilities and other relationships was not challenging (see Figure 4.7 for full
results).
Interview Findings. This assumed influence was assessed by one semi-structured, open-
ended question (Q6: How difficult has it been for you to balance work, family, school, and other
commitments?). Findings generated by Q6 supported the survey results. Of the 14 interview
participants, 79% (11 of 14) responded that balancing doctoral studies with work, family, school,
and other commitments had proven difficult.
The most prevalent theme (mentioned by 4 of 14 interviewees) was the benefit of
family/spousal support in meeting the challenges of doctoral study in addition to the demands of
life.
I just knew that there were some things I was going to say “No” to, and I was okay with
that. There were some things that [my wife and I] were able to balance out. She's always
been very supportive of me and my schooling, and she knows that this is a piece of what
I need to do for my career. (Father 4)
Despite having the benefit of family/spousal support, not all fathers interviewed felt that the
sacrifice was a known entity at the start of the process.
My family's really taking it hard. They have done great things to let me do this degree
and to work on this school program, but they have really sacrificed as much or more
than I have. (Father 14)
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

101
Multiple fathers discussed their efforts to mitigate the time demands of their doctoral
studies on their time with family, and the challenges those efforts presented (with varying
results). As one stated:
At the very beginning, I got into the habit of doing my homework between 10 p.m. and
2 a.m. or 3 a.m. at night, pretty much every night during the week. I found that I was able
to keep up on the homework standpoint, I was able to have quality weekends and
somewhat-quality with my family most of the time. Then, from a work standpoint, I
was getting three or four hours of sleep. So, it was kind of enough – and I could get up and
go to work and have a productive 10-12-hour work day. (Father 5)
His efforts yielded a slightly different result from the alternative schedule a classmate implemented
early in his doctoral program:
I feel like it's become more difficult to balance with each subsequent year. In year one,
and maybe part of that was tied to my level of excitement about it, I realized I had to do
my school work early in the mornings. Being able to wake up at 4:30 a.m. and be at
Starbucks by 5:00 a.m. and put in two hours of school work before I actually go to work.
The longer the program goes on, that's harder and harder to do. (Father 8)
Multiple fathers reflected not only upon the challenge of balancing doctoral studies with
other responsibilities but also upon how the demands of the doctoral program made them
question or re-evaluate their priorities:
It's extremely difficult, I think. If I'm prioritizing what I'm trying to accomplish. The
doctoral program is something that is kind of ‘you have to do X, Y, and Z’ within a certain
time frame in order to get it done. So, in a way, that structure gives it a level of priority on
certain things. For example: if I wanted to go spend time with family – taking a drive to
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

102
San Francisco or up to the mountains to do a hike – but I had a paper, it's easier for the
paper to take priority because it's tangible, structured. It has a due date, versus the quality
time being open-ended. It's easy to deprioritize those things that are honestly, at the end of
the day, actually more important. But, because of the lack of structure and deadlines on
those, it's easy to deprioritize them. (Father 11)
And, in at least one father’s case, it made him completely re-evaluate his sense of personal
identity:
I can find specific cases in my life where work, family, exercise, personal enrichment, rest,
sleep, all of those things have taken a back seat to school. I can't think of a single time that
school took a back seat to anything else. That's a pretty bold statement considering the
intensity of our jobs. My job – for me, personally – is absolutely sacred. I will not do
anything to jeopardize that job because it's so important to me and how I identify with
myself. But there have been several times when I've pinched work a little bit and made a lot
of compromises to finish school, or to work within this degree program. I tell you, I have
really felt it and I was not prepared, in many cases, for the sacrifices I've had to make.
(Father 14)
The idea of making time for academic studies by shifting time previously dedicated to
professional/work duties was not uncommon, as the one father who stated that balancing school,
work, and family was not challenging spoke directly about how his professional duties had
received less attention than prior to the start of his Ed.D. program:
I really haven't had too much trouble balancing the workload. I've done well in all my
classes and dissertation work, to this point, is going well. In that respect, I've been able to
balance it. I think the one thing that I haven't ... I've devoted more attention to (my doctoral
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

103
program) than I have to my job. I haven't given like my job my full attention like I
would have. (Father 3)
One father made a candid admission of the emotional toll that came with trying to meet
the demands of all the domains of his life:
My wife may ask me, “How is it going with the program?” And I may just have to tell her,
“I’m hanging in there.” But I’m coming to a tipping point where I’m asking myself, “How
am I going to continue?” It's a lot of emotions you can go through – as a person, as a man,
as a husband, as a father – through this program. I would, at times, have to tell myself,
“You're in this for this purpose; don’t allow anything to sway you from your purpose.” So,
I have to pray that am able to make it through the next semester. If I were to quit, I'd be a
failure. [The degree is] not only for myself; I am setting an example for my children. And
my children know that I am going to become a doctor; if I do not attain that goal then I
have failed not only myself but my children. (Father 6)
Data gathered from the qualitative interviews expanded upon the findings of the survey,
supporting the hypothesis that students of the OL program (and, specifically, the working fathers
pursuing their Ed.D. in OL) understood that balancing doctoral studies with family responsibilities
and other commitments was a significant challenge.
Document Analysis Findings. This assumed influence was not assessed by document
analysis.
Influence Summary. With a majority of the stakeholder group of focus demonstrating
the necessary knowledge outlined in the research, it appeared that there was no knowledge gap
needing intervention. A gap in this assumed influence was, therefore, not validated.
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

104
Assumed Knowledge Influence 2: Students know what they want to accomplish by
enrolling in a doctoral program
Survey Results. This assumed influence was not assessed by survey.
Interview Findings. This assumed influence was assessed by one semi-structured, open-
ended question (Q2: What do you hope to accomplish by earning a doctorate?). Of the 14
interview participants, 93% (13 of 14) responded that they had a clear goal and/or idea of what
they wanted to accomplish by earning their doctorate.
Of those 13, 62% (8) stated definitively that the OL program and process of earning a
doctorate had reinforced their initial reasons for pursuing the degree. When asked if the process
of the doctoral program had caused them to reconsider their initial goals, Father 11 responded:
I would say those same goals are still there, and I'm still working to obtain a few of them. I
think if anything has shifted (it was) this underlying feeling that I was having in terms of,
even if I accomplish my goals that I originally set out for, [there’s] still something else
that I want to do.
Father 6 echoed the sentiment and explained how the mere process of pursuing his doctorate had
helped him take steps towards accomplishing his professional goal:
If anything, it only strengthened my goal to attain that next-level position. Having let
my administrators or superiors know that I am in a doctoral program has really, in a way,
opened doors – not only in my district but also in other school districts.
Approximately one-third of the interview participants said that, while still striving for
their initial goals, the knowledge and experience gained during the doctoral program had shifted
their focus or timeline. Among them was Father 9:
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

105
My reason for the program hasn't shifted, but my focus has, I think. I still want to teach
in [a] college, but I really love what I'm doing now. So, I want to teach full-time at my
high school while also teaching classes at a college or online, or something like that. [I
want to be a part of] preparing teachers for teaching, especially in an urban setting. There's
no instruction for teachers to learn how to teach in an urban setting.
The one participant without a clear sense of direction still verbalized an overarching goal, despite
his uncertainty in how he would accomplish it:
I originally thought I had a very clear idea of what I wanted to do after I completed the
degree. I had a job in mind, I had a type of business in mind and, really, the more I got into
this program the more I realized that there's a lot more that I could do – and, maybe, some
other things I want to explore. What do I hope to achieve from this degree? I hope very
much to change the world for the better. I don't know exactly how to describe it in any
more specific detail than that, but this degree has opened my eyes and showed me a bigger
world outside of my current job and I very much hope to do something useful with it.
(Father 14)
Overall, responses from fathers demonstrated an increased sense of ability and potential.
When I got into the program, what I found was that it started as this idea [for
performance improvement in the field of education]. I quickly found through my cohort
and the different people with different backgrounds and experiences and focuses, that
what I learned would – in terms of gap analysis and in that process of gap analysis and
really understanding organizations –really was applicable anywhere. My ultimate goal
has not changed (but) I feel that I have more opportunity and availability to me, should
I choose to do something else other than kind of climb this ladder of education. (Father 4)
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

106
Document Analysis Findings. This assumed influence was not assessed by
document analysis.
Influence Summary. With a majority of the stakeholder group of focus demonstrating
the necessary knowledge outlined in the research, it appeared that there was no knowledge gap
needing intervention. A gap in this assumed influence was, therefore, not validated.
Assumed Knowledge Influence 3: Students understand the negative effects of role-overload
on their ability to achieve their academic goals
Survey Results. This assumed influence was not assessed by survey.
Interview Findings. This assumed influence was assessed by one semi-structured, open-
ended question (Q4b: What do you think some of the symptoms of role-overload would be for a
doctoral student?). Of the 14 interview participants, 100% were able to list multiple negative
effects of role-overload that could adversely affect an individual’s ability to achieve their
academic goal. Interview participants noted that role-overload could contribute to: a
disconnection from coursework and/or classmates (contributing to a decreased interest in
attending class, completing assignments, meeting deadlines, participating in class, or reaching
out for assistance); increased procrastination; increased stress; sense of being overwhelmed;
fewer hours of quality sleep; decreased time with children and spouse (increasing a sense of guilt
or frustration); a sharp drop in energy (generally after a prolonged effort); increased frequency
in physical illness; increased tension at home, especially with the spouse or significant other;
decreased overall health and quality of life; and, ultimately, quitting/giving up (though not
necessarily quitting/giving up in the domain causing the most stress or only quitting/giving up in
one domain).
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

107
Of note was one father’s comments on the difficulty in recognizing effects
experienced first-hand, and how paying close attention to the feedback of others may be the only
way to realize that a change has occurred:
I don't know to what degree the person who's in it can recognize those symptoms, because
sometimes it's those external observations, right? We went to take family photos and my
son asked me – and he's older, he's like 15 – and he goes, "Hey, is your laptop going to be
in the picture?" I'm like, "Hmm, okay. That tells me something." If you're doing too much
school and not enough work, you might get in a feedback loop at work where you're getting
that message, "Hey, this is not going well," or, "These things are falling through the
cracks." At home, you might hear from a family member, "Hey, you know, you're not
present, you're not here." I think home is where you get the most immediate feedback – and
probably most unfiltered, raw feedback as well. (Father 1)
Document Analysis Findings. This assumed influence was not assessed by document
analysis.
Influence Summary. With all interviewed members of the stakeholder group of focus
demonstrating the necessary knowledge outlined in the research, it appeared that there was no
knowledge gap needing intervention. A gap in this assumed influence was, therefore, not
validated.
Assumed Knowledge Influence 4: Students understand the relationship between work-life
balance for working fathers and conditions such as burn-out, cognitive difficulties, and
reduced levels of health, energy, and well-being
Survey Results. This assumed influence was not assessed by survey.
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

108
Interview Findings. This assumed influence was assessed by one semi-structured,
open-ended question (Q4a: How would you define role-overload?). Of the 14 interview
participants, 100% were able to list multiple negative effects of role-overload (either physical,
emotional, or both), in addition to those listed in the preceding section for Assumed Knowledge
Influence 3. Negative physical effects of role-overload listed by interviewees included: a
noticeable shift in body weight (whether weight gain or loss, due to changes in diet and/or time
dedicated to physical activity), decreased energy levels, inability to maintain focus, increased
blood pressure, a weakened immune system, increased stress levels. Negative emotional effects
of role-overload listed by interviewees included: depression, sense of overwhelming
responsibility, apathy, increased irritability, lowered threshold for cognitive overload, and an
overall decrease in ability to focus.
Multiple interviewees noted that role-overload may cause, or be aggravated by, a
decrease in social engagement with friends and extended family. Father 10 outlined how some
sacrifices are to be anticipated during a doctoral program:
You're going to do some serious negotiations with your spouse, your family, your friends,
love of sports, whatever it might be. You're going to negotiate during this time period
[to determine] how you can actually be successful. So, there's sacrifices. You must be
willing to sacrifice.
Father 1 echoed Father 10’s sentiments regarding the need to make hard choices, as he reflected:
I didn't do as much stuff with my friends because it was hard to justify going out with my
friends when I was already stealing time from my family. I guess I view it as a necessary
sacrifice.
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

109
Of note, Father 11 commented that the specific effects of role-overload are likely
dictated by the area of life (work, family, school) that is creating the greatest sense of stress.
With the roles that men fulfill at home, work, and school all contributing to their overall identity,
he stated, it can be easy to fall into the trap of role-overload by trying to accomplish more in one
domain and dedicating more time and energy to that domain – but, as a result, having the other
areas of life suffer and/or fall behind, creates a never-ending cycle of playing catch-up and
constant state of physical and emotional fatigue.
Document Analysis Findings. This assumed influence was not assessed by document
analysis.
Influence Summary. With all interviewed members of the stakeholder group of focus
demonstrating the necessary knowledge outlined in the research, it appeared that there was no
knowledge gap needing intervention. A gap in this assumed influence was, therefore, not
validated.
Assumed Knowledge Influence 5: Students know how to utilize effective personal
competencies (stress management methods, coping skills, support systems, time
management skills, organizational skills, etc.)
Survey Results. This assumed influence was not assessed by survey.
Interview Findings. This assumed influence was assessed by two semi-structured, open-
ended questions (Q3a: What are some of the personal competencies a person must possess to be
a successful doctoral student? and Q3b: How important is it for a doctoral student to capitalize
on personal competencies or characteristics that could help him during his academic program?).
In response to Q3a, 100% of fathers interviewed identified strategies and competencies
needed to successfully navigate the challenges of a doctoral program. The list of strategies and
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

110
competencies offered included, but is not limited to: perseverance/grit; time-management
skills (inclusive of proactive planning and scheduling); self-regulation skills/being a self-starter;
ability to refer to your source of intrinsic motivation; ability to prioritize/address competing
demands; developing a support network among family and friends; flexibility/adaptability to
unexpected change; collaboration skills (with spouse/significant other at home to build stability
at home); recognize and optimize dead time (ex: listening to audio books during the drive to
work); and, finally, allow and accept imperfection/humility.
In response to Q3b, 100% said it was important to capitalize on skillsets present at the
onset of the program – though a majority also acknowledged that one benefit of a professional
doctorate was having classmates from a variety of backgrounds. As Father 7 stated:
I think [capitalizing on the strengths you bring with you to the program] is important. I
think that we were selected because of our backgrounds. And not only the skillset we
currently have, but what we also bring to the table from our life and work experiences.
So, I think that it is important to capitalize on that – but I also think it's important to at
least self-reflect and recognize where your efficiencies are and where you can grow.
Father 9 also commented on the benefit of program diversity allowing for the ability to develop
new skills and abilities from other professions and industries:
I think that's one of the things that's really intriguing about this program; because there's
such diversity, you can learn from so many different people. [You can] learn coping
mechanisms or other time management strategies that you wouldn't think of. If I were in a
traditional educational doctorate [program] with all teachers, I feel like we would
eventually all have the same ideas and the same perspective on change. But whenever you
are talking with somebody who is in the Air Force, or somebody who works for NASA, or
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

111
somebody who works in non-profit healthcare, they bring a different perspective that
you may not have.
Father 14 spoke to how the diversity not only gave students the chance to become better
professionals but also improved the overall quality of the academic program.
I think that's really an essential element of why this program is relevant and effective,
honestly. I think the diversity of our cohort in terms of experience, as well as expectations,
makes this a much more rich and unique program than a cookie cutter program where
everybody's looking to do the same thing at the end. We have such an amazing array of
students in our cohort who have different objectives post-degree. I find that fascinating.
The diversity of thought, the diversity of opinion and execution of these ideas is just ... (It)
is really impressive and I find that to be one of the most enriching parts of this
program.
In contrast, Father 1 acknowledged that while the opportunity to learn new skills was positive,
some students may have difficulty learning new skills.
I agree that there are some things that can be taught. I think you can learn time
management, right? I think that's something that you can learn, right? But I think having a
strong internal sense of perseverance, especially at our age [must already be in place]. I'm
almost 47. I'm not going to learn perseverance. I mean it's either there or it's not, you know
what I'm saying? I'm honestly just too damn old to learn a lot of things. But I think you can,
and I think there are things you can [still] learn, right? You can learn how to
compartmentalize. You can learn how to key in on those opportunities to do work or to
figure out, "Okay, I can do work here and I can do work here, but not here." I think it's a
mix.
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

112
Ultimately, one father reflected:
We learned in the program that leaders aren't born, that leaders are made. So, I think it's
important to be reflective and to say, "I know I do this well," and "I know this is something
I can use to push myself forward." (Father 13)
Document Analysis Findings. This assumed influence was not assessed by document
analysis.
Influence Summary. With all interviewed members of the stakeholder group of focus
demonstrating the necessary knowledge outlined in the research, it appeared that there was no
knowledge gap needing intervention. A gap in this assumed influence was, therefore, not
validated.
Assumed Knowledge Influence 6: Students monitor their risk factors and stress levels that
may contribute to doctoral attrition
Survey Results. This assumed influence was not assessed by survey.
Interview Findings. This assumed influence was assessed by two semi-structured, open-
ended questions (Q5: Do you believe that you may have demonstrated any of these symptoms?
and Q8: Since starting your doctoral program, how do you manage stress and maintain a sense of
work-life balance?).
In response to Q5, 9 of the 14 fathers interviewed declared having demonstrated
symptoms of role-overload. Most often, when asked to list the specific symptoms, the father
being interviewed repeated portions of the list of symptoms that he had provided as his answer to
Q4a and Q4b. The most frequently-cited symptom of role-overload was emotional stress related
to a decrease in time with family. Father 1 shared, “It was not uncommon to hear my wife say, ‘I
hate your school.’” Father 3 and Father 11 both reflected upon the effect their absences had on
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

113
their children, with Father 11 considering his cutback in engagement with his daughter a
primary reason for her drop in GPA at the end of her sophomore year in high school and Father 3
displaying a sense of guilt during his interview when he stated, “There’s no doubt that [my four-
year-old son] doesn’t get my full attention like he would have if I wasn’t doing the school work.”
Notably, one of the fathers who did not believe he demonstrated any symptoms appeared to
describe one in his response: “I mean, staying up until 12:30 a.m. for class, you’re tired the next
day. But I anticipate it and develop ways to cope with that. I don’t think I experience any of that
burnout, exhaustion, or being physically ill [like some do]. Short answer, No.”
Other symptoms of role-overload frequently cited by interviewed fathers included:
weight gain; elevated stress levels; decline in academic performance and/or quality of academic
work; deteriorated quality of health (due to sacrificing exercise regimens and/or poorer diet); and
decreased social activity with friends/community.
In response to Q8, 12 of the 14 fathers interviewed suggested strategies for stress
management. Among the most prevalent suggestions were:
Social engagement with classmates. “I think one of the things I've been fortunate enough
to have is an integral network people that were going through the same thing as I am. We have a
message group for our cohort, and one of the ways we manage our stress is by sharing some of
that. ‘Can you believe that we have to do XYZ?’ Or ‘I need help.’ So, it's communicating or
socializing with people that are going through the same thing you are.” (Father 7)
Turning to family for support. “I try to get as much time as I possibly can with my wife
and kids. And that's it. Their time for me is therapy. I love being with them. I love hanging with
them. I don't even care what we're doing, it doesn't matter. That time is sacred.” (Father 5)
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

114
Prioritizing physical exercise (with running being the most-cited form). “My normal
process is to go for runs on the weekends. Every Saturday, Sunday morning, go for a two-to-five-
mile run and I'll work things out, think about things, listen to an audiobook.” (Father 11)
Compartmentalizing. “[I] say, ‘I'm going to work really hard and be focused on being a
teacher for these next seven hours.’ Then whenever I get home, for those five hours I'm going to
focus on being a dad, and then be a husband, and then be a doctoral student. It's not always as
black and white as that, but I think by trying to leave (work at work), and being a doctoral student
at night, it's [worked for me]. (Father 9)
Prioritizing and maintaining lines. “For me, it's a matter of prioritizing things that are
absolutely important. What are the things that you have to have? What can you let slide? What can
you let go? Over the last two years, we've developed this internal rhythm in my family that Friday
nights I will be there. Every other night, every other weekend, whatever, I'll sacrifice that – but I
won't let go of Friday nights.” (Father 14)
Being mindful of how time was spent, and with whom. “[I’ve] tried to make time once
every other month to go out with my wife for a date night. When I wasn't doing work, I wasn't
doing work and I was with my kids. Try to be present, right? That's what the [coursework on]
mindfulness says. If I'm doing my work, I'm doing my work. But if I'm with my kids, I'm with my
kids. I'm not checking email, I'm not looking at research or doing things on the fly. It was trying to
be completely present in what I was doing. (Father 13)
Of interest was one father’s response in which he was keenly aware of multiple coping strategies
despite stating that he used none of them effectively:
I can tell you things I should do that I don't do. I should be exercising more, but I'm not.
I should be eating better, but I'm not. I should be way more active, but I'm not. Those
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

115
things probably fall under that sacrifice umbrella as well. I'm looking forward to
[returning to] that when it's over, that I can sort of get back into better shape and that
kind of thing. I don't know if I practice any real techniques, other than just going with the
flow. It sounds like an alcoholic when I think about it because I really do take it one
day at a time. That's how I approach [my doctoral] work. It's just week-by-week, class-by-
class, assignment-by-assignment. I just don't let myself get bogged down with the whole,
big picture. Maybe that's a stress reduction technique. I don't know. (Father 3)
Of note was, whether jokingly or not, several interviewees mentioned alcohol as a coping
mechanism. One father blatantly said that one of his methods of managing stress was, “Lots of
boozing. You can quote me on that. It's at certain points that you just say, ‘Everything's going to
stop, and you need a couple drinks’” (Father 7). Finally, one interviewed father mentioned turning
to faith and prayer.
Document Analysis Findings. This assumed influence was not assessed by document
analysis.
Influence Summary. Five of the 14 interviewed members of the stakeholder group of
focus did not recognize the presence of risk factors that may contribute to their doctoral attrition.
While it was possible that the five individuals had found a way to mitigate all risk factors for
attrition, it was unlikely. This 36% of the stakeholder group of focus failing to recognize risk
factors present in their lives represented a substantial knowledge gap and indicated a need for
intervention. A gap in this assumed influence was, therefore, validated.
Summary of Results and Findings for Knowledge Influences
Overall, working fathers pursuing their doctorates demonstrated considerable knowledge
regarding: the challenges of balancing doctoral studies with other sections of life; role-overload
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

116
and its potential effects upon them and their academic studies; and the skillsets most likely to
contribute to the completion of a doctoral program. The singular area in which the stakeholder
group of focus demonstrated limited awareness was in the self-monitoring of risk factors and
stress levels that may contribute to their doctoral attrition. Though able to catalog a litany of risk
factors and symptoms of role-overload, more than one-third of the working fathers interviewed
failed to recognize or indicate the presence of any risk factors or symptoms in their lives, leaving
them vulnerable to those risk factors derailing their academic progress and chances for degree
completion.
Results and Findings for Motivation Influences
Table 16 presents the assumed motivation influences.
Table 16
Assumed Motivation Influences
Motivation Assumed Influence
Expectancy-Value Theory
– Intrinsic Interest
Students need to possess an intrinsic interest in pursuing, and see
the value in completing, their doctoral program
Expectancy-Value Theory
– Attainment Value
Students prioritize academic work and dedicate sufficient time to
studying and research
Self-Efficacy Theory Students believe they are capable of successfully balancing their
work, school, and life responsibilities
Expectancy-Value Theory
– Cost
Students believe that foregoing other activities to create more time
for academic work is worth it

Assumed Motivation Influence 1: Students need to possess an intrinsic interest in pursuing,
and see the value in completing, their doctoral program
Survey Results. This assumed influence was not assessed by survey.
Interview Findings. This assumed influence was assessed by one semi-structured, open-
ended question (Q1: What were your reasons for initially considering a doctorate?). Of the 14
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

117
interview participants, 100% were able to provide a reason for pursuing a doctorate (with
many fathers providing multiple reasons).
Half of the 14 interview participants stated that their interest in earning a doctorate was
related to their careers (advancement, improved compensation, etc.). Father 6 explained how
earning a doctorate was part of his long-term career plan:
[My motivation for pursuing a doctorate was to] get the promotion and be able to move
up into a leadership position in the administration of our school district. [In] the K-12
system, it is favorable to have your doctorate, especially if you want to move up to the
district office and take over one of the leadership roles at the macro level.
A variety of personal reasons (“I always wanted a doctorate,” to keep learning and to
grow, etc.) accounted for more than 50% of the cataloged motives for pursuing a doctorate. As
Father 12 stated:
It's something I've wanted to do. I have three graduate degrees, so I love learning. I love
going to school. In fact, since I was in 7th grade, I've always gone to summer school. There
were periods of time (obviously) when I was just working full-time ... But I just love
school, so I thought I'd continue to go back and do degree programs, and I thought, "Maybe
a doctorate might be in order."
For numerous fathers, the rationale for the doctorate was not singular, as their purpose in
earning a terminal degree was a combination of goals. Father 1, for instance, echoed Father 6’s
consideration of future employment but was also in search of vindication:
There were probably two main reasons. Number one was career-oriented: to put myself in a
better position down the road, if I wanted to retire a little earlier and maybe do consulting
work or to increase my marketability. Reason number two was very personal: I was a
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

118
horrible student in high school. I didn't do very well, and I think being a Latino male
had something to do with it. There was an image of just not being academically
successful, and so [with the doctorate] I wanted to challenge myself to achieve a high
level of academic rigor for myself. Just [to] sort of prove something to myself, I think.
Two fathers made mention of pursuing a doctorate either for their children or as modeling
for their children. Father 13’s personal motivation was not only to establish a model for his
children but also to match the model that had been left for him:
I felt that, being in education, it's important to model what you preach. So, I wanted to go
back and get that last degree. It was something that my father had, and he got it when I was
little. He was a high school principal as well, so there was a bit of inspiration from him as
well.
Document Analysis Findings. This assumed influence was not assessed by document
analysis.
Influence Summary. With all interviewed members of the stakeholder group of focus
demonstrating the essential component of motivation outlined in the research, it appeared that
there was no motivation gap needing intervention. A gap in this assumed influence was,
therefore, not validated.
Assumed Motivation Influence 2: Students prioritize academic work and dedicate sufficient
time to studying and research
Survey Results. Seven items on the survey were utilized to determine how OL students
prioritize the use of their time and what amount of time is dedicated to academic work. The
seven items, their response scales, and their response rates are listed in Table 17:

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

119
Table 17
Survey Items Assessing OL Students’ Time Use and Prioritizing
Item Question Response Scale Response Rate
Q9 Approximately how many hours per
week do you dedicate to your
doctoral studies?
Ratio response scale:
0-5, 6-10…40-45, 46-50
97% (68 of 70)
Q10 Since starting my doctoral program,
time with my family has:
Likert response scale:
Decreased considerably
Decreased
Generally stayed the same
Increased
Increased Considerably
97% (68 of 70)
Q11 Since starting your doctoral program,
approximately how many hours per
week do you spend engaged with
your family?
Ratio response scale:
0-5, 6-10…40-45, 46-50
97% (68 of 70)
Q12 Since starting my doctoral program,
the amount of time I spend fulfilling
professional/work duties has:
Likert response scale:
Decreased considerably
Decreased
Generally stayed the same
Increased
Increased Considerably
97% (68 of 70)
Q13 Since starting your doctoral program,
approximately how many hours per
week do you spend fulfilling your
professional/work duties?
Ratio response scale:
0-5, 6-10…40-45, 46-50
97% (68 of 70)
Q14 Since starting my doctoral program,
the amount of time I spend on
commitments other than work and
family has:
Likert response scale:
Decreased considerably
Decreased
Generally stayed the same
Increased
Increased Considerably
96% (67 of 70)
Q15 Since starting your doctoral program,
approximately how many hours per
week do you spend on commitments
other than work and family?
Ratio response scale:
0-5, 6-10…40-45, 46-50
97% (68 of 70)

Of the 68 responses submitted for Q9 (Approximately how many hours per week do you
dedicate to your doctoral studies?), 44% (30 of 68) responded that they dedicated 16-25 hours
per week to their academic studies; the greatest segment of survey participants (28%/19 of 68)
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

120
responded that they dedicated 16-20 hours per week to their academic studies. Nearly 6% (4
of 68) responded that they dedicated 0-5 hours to their doctoral studies on a weekly basis, while
an equal amount responded that they spent 30-40 hours per week (see Figure 4.8 for full results).
Figure 4.8. Survey results for Q9 – Approximately how many hours per week do you dedicate to
your doctoral studies?

Examining the results from surveys completed exclusively by working fathers with at least one
child under the age of 18, the results remained relatively similar. The response rate among the 23
working fathers was 100%. Of the 23 responses submitted, 43% (10 of 23) responded that they
dedicated 6-15 hours per week to their academic studies; the greatest segment of survey
participants (30%/7 of 23) responded that they dedicated 6-10 hours weekly. Nearly 9% (2 of 23)
responded that they dedicated 0-5 hours to their doctoral studies on a weekly basis, while one
working father (4%) responded that he spent 31-35 hours per week (see Figure 4.9 for full
results) on his doctoral studies.

5.88%
19.12%
10.29%
27.94%
16.18%
14.71%
2.94% 2.94%
0.00% 0.00%
0 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 21 - 25 26 - 30 31 - 35 36 - 40 41 - 45 46 - 50
Q9 - Approximately how many hours per week do you
dedicate to your doctoral studies?
(n=68)
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

121
Figure 4.9. Working fathers’ survey results for Q9 – Approximately how many hours per
week do you dedicate to your doctoral studies?

Of the 68 responses submitted for Q10 (Since starting my doctoral program, time with
my family has), 85% (55 of 68) responded that time with their family had either decreased or
decreased considerably. One participant (1%) responded that time with his family had increased
Figure 4.10. Survey results for Q10 – Since starting my doctoral program, time with my family
has:

8.70%
30.43%
13.04%
8.70%
21.74%
13.04%
4.35%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 21 - 25 26 - 30 31 - 35 36 - 40 41 - 45 46 - 50
Working Fathers' Responses to Q9 - Approximately how
many hours per week do you dedicate to your doctoral
studies?
(n=23)
33.82%
51.47%
13.24%
1.47% 0.00%
Decreased
considerably
Decreased Generally stayed
the same
Increased Increased
considerably
Q10 - Since starting my doctoral program, time with my
family has
(n=68)
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

122
since starting his doctoral program (see Figure 4.10 for full results). Examining the results
from surveys completed exclusively by working fathers with at least one child under the age of
18, the results remained relatively similar. The response rate among the 23 working fathers was
100%. Of the 23 responses submitted, 87% (20 of 23) responded that time with their family had
either decreased or decreased considerably (see Figure 4.11 for full results).
Figure 4.11. Working fathers’ survey results for Q10 – Since starting my doctoral program, time
with my family has:

Of the 68 responses submitted for Q11 (Since starting your doctoral program,
approximately how many hours per week do you spend engaged with your family?), nearly 43%
(29 of 68) responded that they spent 6-15 hours per week engaged with their families; the
greatest segment of survey participants (24%/16 of 68) responded that they gave 6-10 hours per
week to their families. Nearly 18% (12 of 68) responded that they spent 0-5 hours engaged with
their families on a weekly basis, while nearly 6% (4 of 68) responded that they spent 40-50 hours
per engaged with family (see Figure 4.12 for full results).
17.39%
69.57%
13.04% 0.00% 0.00%
Decreased
Considerably
Decreased Remained the
same
Increased Increased
Considerably
Working Fathers' Responses to Q10 - Since starting my
doctoral program, time with my family has
(n=23)
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

123
Figure 4.12. Survey results for Q11 – Since starting your doctoral program, approximately
how many hours per week do you spend engaged with your family?

Examining the results from surveys completed exclusively by working fathers with at least one
child under the age of 18, the results remained relatively similar. The response rate among the 23
working fathers was 100%. Of the 23 responses submitted, 30% (7 of 23) responded that they
spent 6-15 hours per week engaged with their families; the greatest segment of survey
participants (35%/8 of 23) responded that they dedicated 26-30 hours weekly. One working
father (4%) responded that he dedicated 0-5 hours to his family on a weekly basis; one other
working father (4%) responded that he spent 31-35 hours engaged with his family per week (see
Figure 4.13 for full results).

17.65%
23.53%
19.12%
5.88%
7.35%
17.65%
1.47% 1.47%
2.94% 2.94%
0 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 21 - 25 26 - 30 31 - 35 36 - 40 41 - 45 46 - 50
Q11 - Since starting your doctoral program,
approximately how many hours per week do you spend
engaged with your family?
(n=68)
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

124
Figure 4.13. Working fathers’ survey results for Q11 – Since starting your doctoral program,
approximately how many hours per week do you spend engaged with your family?

Of the 68 responses submitted for Q12 (Since starting my doctoral program, the amount
of time I spend fulfilling professional/work duties has), 46% (31 of 68) responded that the
amount of time spent fulfilling their professional/work duties had generally stayed the same.
One-quarter of participants (17 of 68) responded that time fulfilling professional/work duties had
decreased since starting his doctoral program (see Figure 4.14 for full results). Examining the
results from surveys completed exclusively by working fathers with at least one child under the
age of 18, the results remained relatively similar. The response rate among the 23 working
fathers was 100%. Of the 23 responses submitted, 43% (10 of 23) responded that the amount of
time spent fulfilling their professional/work duties had generally stayed the same. Approximately
26% of participants (6 of 23) responded that time fulfilling professional/work duties had
decreased since starting his doctoral program (see Figure 4.15 for full results).

4.35%
13.04%
17.39%
4.35%
13.04%
34.78%
4.35% 4.35%
0.00%
4.35%
0 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 21 - 25 26 - 30 31 - 35 36 - 40 41 - 45 46 - 50
Working Fathers' Responses to Q11 - Since starting your
doctoral program, approximately how many hours per week do
you spend engaged with your family?
(n=23)
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

125
Figure 4.14. Survey results for Q12 - Since starting my doctoral program, the amount of time
I spend fulfilling professional/work duties has

Figure 4.15. Working fathers’ survey results for Q12 - Since starting my doctoral program, the
amount of time I spend fulfilling professional/work duties has

Of the 68 responses submitted for Q13 (Since starting your doctoral program,
approximately how many hours per week do you spend fulfilling your professional/work
duties?), nearly 75% (41 of 68) responded that they spent 41-50 hours per week fulfilling
5.88%
25.00%
45.59%
13.24%
10.29%
Decreased
Considerably
Decreased Remained the
same
Increased Increased
Considerably
Q12 - Since starting my doctoral program, the amount of
time I spend fulfilling professional/work duties has
(n=68)
8.70%
26.09%
43.48%
13.04%
8.70%
Decreased
Considerably
Decreased Remained the
same
Increased Increased
Considerably
Working Fathers' Responses to Q12 - Since starting my
doctoral program, the amount of time I spend fulfilling
professional/work duties has
(n=23)
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

126
professional duties; the greatest segment of survey participants (59%/40 of 68) responded
that they gave 46-50 hours per week to their jobs. Nearly 5% (2 of 68) responded that they spent
0-10 hours working on a weekly basis (see Figure 4.16 for full results).
Figure 4.16. Survey results for Q13 - Since starting your doctoral program, approximately how
many hours per week do you spend fulfilling your professional/work duties?

Examining the results from surveys completed exclusively by working fathers with at least one
child under the age of 18, the results remained relatively similar. The response rate among the 23
working fathers was 100%. Of the 23 responses submitted, 74% (17 of 23) responded that they
spent 41-50 hours per week engaged with their families; the greatest segment of survey
participants (57%/13 of 23) responded that they dedicated 46-50 hours to their employment
weekly. One working father (4%) responded that he dedicated 16-20 hours to his professional
duties on a weekly basis (see Figure 4.17 for full results).
Of the 67 responses submitted for Q14 (Since starting my doctoral program, the amount
of time I spend on commitments other than work and family has), 84% (56 of 67) responded that
the amount of time spent on commitments others than work and family had either decreased or
2.94%
1.47% 0.00%
2.94%
1.47%
4.41%
0.00%
11.76%
16.18%
58.82%
0 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 21 - 25 26 - 30 31 - 35 36 - 40 41 - 45 46 - 50
Q13 - Since starting your doctoral program,
approximately how many hours per week do you spend
fulfilling your professional/work duties?
(n=68)
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

127
decreased considerably. Three participants (4%) responded that time dedicated to
commitments other than work and family had increased since starting their doctoral program (see
Figure 4.18 for full results).
Figure 4.17. Working fathers’ survey results for Q13 - Since starting your doctoral program,
approximately how many hours per week do you spend fulfilling your professional/work duties?

Figure 4.18. Survey results for Q14 - Since starting my doctoral program, the amount of time I
spend on commitments other than work and family has

0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
4.35% 4.35%
0.00% 0.00%
17.39%17.39%
56.52%
0 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 21 - 25 26 - 30 31 - 35 36 - 40 41 - 45 46 - 50
Working Fathers' Responses to Q13 - Since starting your
doctoral program, approximately how many hours per
week do you spend fulfilling your professional/work
duties?
(n=23)
46.27%
37.31%
11.94%
4.48%
0.00%
Decreased
Considerably
Decreased Remained the
same
Increased Increased
Considerably
Q14 - Since starting my doctoral program, the amount of
time I spend on commitments other than work and family
has
(n=67)
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

128
Examining the results from surveys completed exclusively by working fathers with at least
one child under the age of 18, the results remained relatively similar. The response rate among
the 23 working fathers was 100%. Of the 23 responses submitted, 84% (14 of 23) responded that
the amount of time spent on commitments others than work and family had either decreased or
decreased considerably. One participant (4%) responded that time dedicated to commitments
other than work and family had increased since starting his doctoral program (see Figure 4.19 for
full results).
Figure 4.19. Working fathers’ survey results for Q14 - Since starting my doctoral program, the
amount of time I spend on commitments other than work and family has

Of the 68 responses submitted for Q15 (Since starting your doctoral program,
approximately how many hours per week do you spend on commitments other than work and
family?), approximately 83% (56 of 68) responded that they spent 0-10 hours per week on
commitments other than work or family; the greatest segment of survey participants (59%/40 of
68) responded that they spent 0-5 hours per week on commitments other than work or family.
47.83%
39.13%
8.70%
4.35%
0.00%
Decreased
Considerably
Decreased Remained the
same
Increased Increased
Considerably
Working Fathers' Responses to Q14 - Since starting my
doctoral program, the amount of time I spend on
commitments other than work and family has
(n=23)
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

129
One individual (1%) responded that he spent 46-50 hours working per week on commitments
other than work and family (see Figure 4.20 for full results).
Figure 4.20. Survey results for Q15 - Since starting your doctoral program, approximately how
many hours per week do you spend on commitments other than work and family?

Figure 4.21. Working fathers’ survey results for Q15 - Since starting your doctoral program,
approximately how many hours per week do you spend on commitments other than work and
family?

58.82%
23.53%
4.41%
7.35%
1.47% 1.47% 0.00% 1.47% 0.00% 1.47%
0 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 21 - 25 26 - 30 31 - 35 36 - 40 41 - 45 46 - 50
Q15 - Since starting your doctoral program,
approximately how many hours per week do you spend on
commitments other than work and family?
(n=68)
43.48%
39.13%
4.35%
8.70%
4.35%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 21 - 25 26 - 30 31 - 35 36 - 40 41 - 45 46 - 50
Working Fathers' Response to Q15 - Since starting your
doctoral program, approximately how many hours per
week do you spend on commitments other than work and
family?
(n=23)
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

130
Examining the results from surveys completed exclusively by working fathers with at least
one child under the age of 18, the results remained relatively similar. The response rate among
the 23 working fathers was 100%. Of the 23 responses submitted, 82% (19 of 23) responded that
they spent 0-10 hours per week on commitments other than work and family; the greatest
segment of survey participants (43%/10 of 23) responded that they gave 0-5 hours to those
commitments (see Figure 4.21 for full results).
Interview Findings. This assumed influence was assessed by two semi-structured, open-
ended questions (Q9: Approximately how many hours per week do you dedicate to your doctoral
studies? and Q10: How important do you think it is for doctoral students to prioritize their
academic work and dedicate sufficient time to research and studies?). Findings generated by Q9
and Q10 supported the survey results.
Of the 14 interview participants’ responses to Q9, 71% (10 of 14) responded that they
dedicated 10-20 hours per week to their doctoral studies. The most common response among
interview participants was 10-15 hours per week (6 of 14/43%). Two interview participants
stated that they dedicated at least 25 hours per week to their doctoral studies.
I tell people it's equivalent to another full-time job, and I mean that. When you calculate the
mental effort or thinking involved in planning what you have to do (on top of actually
doing work, and writing, and reading, and all of that kind of thing), I'd say [doctoral studies
can] easily [require] 30 hours a week if not more. (Father 9)
Of the 14 interview participants’ responses to Q10, 71% (10 of 14) definitively stated that
it is important for doctoral students to prioritize their academic work and dedicate sufficient time
to research studies. Especially as making time for academic work relates to completion of the
dissertation, one father stated that there was no alternative to prioritizing the doctoral program:
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

131
You look for ways to be more efficient in what you're doing, but you have to do the
work. Especially when it comes to your [dissertation] work – your survey, your interview,
your analysis. [For that,] you have to dedicate sufficient time. You can't get away with not
doing that. (Father 1)
Father 9 explained that the amount of time dedicated to his studies was a direct result of the
expectations that he had of himself and his academic performance:
For me, I set the bar high early on [with regards to what] I wanted to do. This was my last
chance to be a student, and I wasn't historically a great student. This was like my last
chance to be a great student. So, I set that bar for myself early on. Had I not done that, I
think there's no reason why a student couldn't slide through and do [the] bare minimum and
to graduate. There's probably nothing wrong with that, and [that approach] would save a
ton of stress or work. That's not the path I chose when I started, but I think somebody could
do that.
Father 9 indicated that the prioritizing of schoolwork by doctoral students may be a product
of the academic program’s expectations and accountability of its students:
I think it depends on the program you're in. If you're in a program like [deleted] where
you're just getting the letters, then you can put in whatever kind of effort you want to get
out of it. But I feel with this program, for [University X], it's intense. It's a substantial time
requirement and you need to work, you need to read. That being said, I think whatever
you're willing to put in, you're going to get out. If you get to a class and you get by without
reading, and you don't have time to read, then that's just what you're going to do for the
week, just to get by. I think whatever effort you're putting into the program is what you're
going to get out of it.
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

132
Of note, Father 1 stated that hours invested at the start of a doctoral program are not the
same as hours invested at the end. As skills, priorities, and contexts evolve, so does time spent
focusing on schoolwork:
You can't earn this degree without the work. But, I would say we all look for ways to cut
corners. I don't mean that necessarily in a pejorative term, but more like being efficient.
[For example,] the way that I read research in the beginning was not the way I read it in the
end. In the beginning, I was reading the whole [article] and trying to take it all in. By the
end, I could probably spend three minutes on an article and know if it was going to work or
not. You just develop different skill sets. You develop a more analytical mind.
Overall, findings from interviews with the purposefully sampled population appeared to
align with results culled from the survey data. While working fathers pursuing their doctorate
considered the prioritizing of academic work to be important and reported a decrease in time
spent with family and other commitments, interviews revealed that the amount of time given to
academic work could easily be affected by several influences and it was likely that not all
students were investing adequate effort into earning their doctorate. While members of the
purposefully sampled population that participated in the qualitative interviews (on average)
indicated a higher number of hours designated for academic studies than the survey data
indicated, neither had a frequency mode above 15 hours per week dedicated to studying and
research.
Document Analysis Findings. Syllabi from numerous OL courses were examined for
descriptions and/or expectations regarding course workload. The review of syllabi revealed that
OL course syllabi consistently presented a section outlining class time, describing expectations
for synchronous class time and asynchronous work. Class time for Fall and Spring term courses
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

133
were scheduled to meet once a week for two hours; Summer courses met once a week for
three hours. Courses were a “combination of online synchronous activities and class time (online
required office hours, online guided student discussion, online mediated student workgroups)
and online asynchronous learning (faculty and invited expert video lectures and moderated
discussion forum).” Courses were taught in a flipped classroom design and workshop mode to
enhance learning by creating an active learning environment. Students were to watch
prerecorded lectures and interviews, as well as complete some activities and assignments prior to
attending class.
All syllabi included a subsection outlining the anticipated workload for
asynchronous/out-of-class assignments. All examined syllabi shared the same anticipated time
requirements, which read:
“Out-of-class Assignments
The out-of-class workload for this course is approximately 5 hours and 15 minutes per
week. Out-of-class assignments include: readings (approximately 3 hours weekly);
recorded lectures and other video (approximately one hour weekly); and written
assignments (approximately 2 hours weekly).”
With asynchronous work requiring an estimated six hours per week (in addition to the two hours
generally required for synchronous class meetings), each Fall and Spring course in the OL
program was anticipated to need eight hours of time (Summer courses would require an
anticipated nine hours after the additional hour of synchronous class meetings). Designed to have
students enrolled in two courses each term (minus the eighth term, dedicated to work on the
capstone project), the OL program anticipates, then, that students would require at least 16 hours
per week to complete their coursework. This total does not consider any additional time required
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

134
of OL students to fulfill expectations of their DCs to make progress on the dissertation or
additional administrative requirements of the OL program (i.e. Preliminary Review, Qualifying
Exam/Proposal Defense, etc.).
Influence Summary. With approximately one-third of the stakeholder group of focus
failing to dedicate the syllabus-recommended number of hours to their studies, results and
findings of the data collected indicated failure to prioritize academic work and dedicate sufficient
time to studying and research on the part of working fathers pursuing their doctorates. In failing
to demonstrate this essential component of motivation outlined in the research, it appeared that a
motivation gap needing intervention was identified. A gap in this assumed influence was,
therefore, validated.
Assumed Motivation Influence 3: Students believe they are capable of successfully
balancing their work, school, and life responsibilities
Survey Results. This assumed influence was assessed by one Likert scale item on the
survey (Q16a: I believe I am capable of successfully balancing work, school, family, and my
other responsibilities). The response scale was Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly
Agree. The item yielded a response rate of 96% (67 of 70).
Of the 67 responses submitted, 86% (58 of 67) responded that they either agreed or
strongly agreed with the statement. One participant (1%) submitted a response of Strongly
Disagree (see Figure 4.22 for full results).

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

135
Figure 4.22. Survey results for Q16a - I believe I am capable of successfully balancing work,
school, family, and my other responsibilities

Figure 4.23. Working fathers’ survey results for Q16a - I believe I am capable of successfully
balancing work, school, family, and my other responsibilities

Examining the results from surveys completed exclusively by working fathers with at least one
child under the age of 18, the results remained relatively similar. The response rate among the 23
working fathers was 100%. Of the 23 responses submitted, 91% (21 of 23) responded that they
2%
12%
58%
28%
Q16a - I believe I am capable of successfully balancing
work, school, family, and my other responsibilities
(n=67)
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
4%
4%
61%
31%
Working Fathers' Responses to Q16a - I believe I am
capable of successfully balancing work, school, family,
and my other responsibilities
(n=23)
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

136
either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. One participant (4%) submitted a
response of Strongly Disagree (see Figure 4.23 for full results).
Interview Findings. This assumed influence was not assessed by interview.
Document Analysis Findings. This assumed influence was not assessed by document
analysis.
Influence Summary. With nearly all interviewed members of the stakeholder group of
focus demonstrating the essential component of motivation outlined in the research, it appeared
that there was no motivation gap needing intervention. A gap in this assumed influence was,
therefore, not validated.
Assumed Motivation Influence 4: Students believe that foregoing other activities to create
more time for academic work is worth it
Survey Results. This assumed influence was assessed by two Likert scale items on the
survey (Q16b: Time spent studying will improve my chances or successfully completing my
courses, and Q16c: Sacrificing time otherwise spent with family, friends, or on myself to have
more time for my academic studies is worth it). The response scale for both questions was
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree. Both items yielded a response rate of 96%
(67 of 70).
Of the 67 responses submitted for Q16b (Time spent studying will improve my chances
or successfully completing my courses), 94% (63 of 67) responded that they either agreed or
strongly agreed with the statement. Four participants (6%) submitted a response of Disagree (see
Figure 4.24 for full results).

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

137
Figure 4.24. Survey results for Q16b: Time spent studying will improve my chances or
successfully completing my courses

Figure 4.25. Working fathers’ survey results for Q16b: Time spent studying will improve my
chances or successfully completing my courses

Examining the results from surveys completed exclusively by working fathers with at least one
child under the age of 18, the results remained relatively similar. The response rate among the 23
working fathers was 100%. Of the 23 responses submitted, 100% were in the affirmative as 57%
0%
6%
40%
54%
Q16b: Time spent studying will improve my chances or
successfully completing my courses
(n=67)
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
0% 0%
57%
43%
Working Fathers' Responses to Q16b: Time spent studying
will improve my chances or successfully completing my
courses
(n=23)
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

138
(13 of 23) agreed and 43% (10 of 23) strongly agreed with the statement (see Figure 4.25 for
full results).
Of the 67 responses submitted for Q16c (Sacrificing time otherwise spent with family,
friends, or on myself to have more time for my academic studies is worth it), 68% (46 of 67)
responded that they either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. A full quarter of
respondents (17 of 67) submitted a response of Disagree and an additional four (6%) submitted a
response of Strongly Disagree (see Figure 4.26 for full results).
Figure 4.26. Survey results for Q16c: Sacrificing time otherwise spent with family, friends, or on
myself to have more time for my academic studies is worth it

Examining the results from surveys completed exclusively by working fathers with at least one
child under the age of 18, the results remained relatively similar. The response rate among the 23
working fathers was 100%. Of the 23 responses submitted, 69% (16 of 23) responded that they
either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. Six of the 23 respondents (26%) submitted a
response of Disagree and one (4%) a response of Strongly Disagree (see Figure 4.27 for full
results).
6%
25%
49%
20%
Q16c: Sacrificing time otherwise spent with family,
friends, or on myself to have more time for my academic
studies is worth it
(n=67)
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

139
Figure 4.27. Working fathers’ survey results for Q16c: Sacrificing time otherwise spent with
family, friends, or on myself to have more time for my academic studies is worth it

Interview Findings. This assumed influence was assessed by three semi-structured,
open-ended questions (Q7: How has the time commitment required of your doctoral studies
impacted your ability to interact with your family?, Q11: How do you feel about the impact that
your doctoral studies have on other aspects of your life?, and Q12: Do you feel those sacrifices
have been worth it?). Findings generated by Q7, Q11, and Q12 failed to support the survey
results.
While Q7 and Q11 served multiple purposes in this study (among them, inducing
reflection and triangulating data), this assumed influence was primarily assessed during the
interview portion of data collection by Q12. Of the 14 interview participants asked Q12, 86% (12
of 14) responded in the affirmative that they believed sacrifices made in the name of their
doctoral program were worth it. For some, like Father 9, the experience was deemed worthwhile
even before completing his program. When asked if he believed the sacrifices made for his
doctoral program were worth it, he responded:
5%
26%
65%
4%
Working Fathers' Responses to Q16c: Sacrificing time
otherwise spent with family, friends, or on myself to have
more time for my academic studies is worth it
(n=23)
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

140
I do. That's without even seeing how my career is going to shift and change. I think
[the] relationships that I've built, both within the program and outside because of my
doctoral work, [are] going to be beneficial. The learning that I gain from this will help
impact [my employing organization]. So, big picture – it's definitely been worth it and
I'm looking to see how it's more worth it as things move on down.
For others, like Father 14, the payoff took a different form. As a test of fortitude, the doctorate-
earning process had proven to be the start of a journey rather than the end of one.
[It’s been the] single greatest learning experience of my life, I'll tell you that. I've learned
more about things that I'm interested in. I've learned more about myself. I've had an
opportunity to really stretch and grow and challenge myself at a time where a lot of my
contemporaries are starting to peak and fade out in life. Like, this is the end of their big
contributing time in life. This degree program has confirmed something that's very
important to me, [and] that's a sense that I am not in a decline in my life right now. I'm
actually accelerating. This program just basically dumped rocket fuel on me, so I'm super
excited and invested and interested in the world in a way that a lot of my peers are not.
Not all working fathers interviewed were as eager to declare the sacrifices made for their academic
survival as having been worth it. Father 7, believed that evaluation could not be done until the
process was complete, and a product was in hand.
I think it would be a bit premature to say [Yes]. I don't regret the time that I've invested,
yet. But, since it hasn't culminated in a tangible degree… I mean, I'm a candidate, or
whatever they call it. [But] you can't put “candidate” on a business card. So, I would say if
you ask me this in six months, I would say Yes. Right now, it's a little premature.
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

141
Similarly, Father 11 considered the pursuit of his doctorate an investment in the future. So,
while not indicating that he was either regretful or deterred, he was not prepared to declare the time
lost and sacrifices made as being worthwhile (yet).
Up until now, I would say No. But I'm doing this for the future. I believe that I'm
positioned right now for some additional opportunities professionally. Personally, I'm close
to reaching one of my major milestones. I'm confident that I'll look back and I'll say,
"Yeah, that was a big decision." But, again, it's one of those things where, at least for me,
the rewards aren't happening simultaneous to the program or the degree.
Overall, findings from interviews with the purposefully sampled population appeared to
align with results gathered from the survey data. While the majority of OL students pursuing
their doctorate believed that sacrificing time otherwise spent with family, friends, or on
themselves to have more time for their academic studies was worth it, both surveys and
interviews revealed that a meaningful number of working fathers pursuing their doctorates
disagreed. This could prove relevant with regards to time management, prioritizations,
scheduling, and overall motivation to complete the doctoral program.
Document Analysis Findings. This assumed influence was not assessed by document
analysis.
Influence Summary. Results and findings of the data collected from members of the
stakeholder group of focus indicated that a considerable number of working fathers pursuing
their doctorate failed to believe that foregoing other activities to create more time for academic
work was worth it. In failing to demonstrate this essential component of motivation outlined in
the research, it appeared that a motivation gap needing intervention was identified. A gap in this
assumed influence was, therefore, validated.
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

142
Summary of Results and Findings for Motivation Influences
Overall, working fathers pursuing their doctorates demonstrated numerous essential
components of motivation outlined in the research, including being able to identify an intrinsic
purpose for pursuing a doctorate and believing that earning the degree while maintaining a
healthy work-life balance is possible. Areas of concern were identified regarding prioritizing
academic work and in believing that foregoing other activities for the benefit of academic work
is worthwhile. Both factors may have a direct impact on the time management capabilities of a
doctoral student and, in turn, his academic performance. Failure to effectively regulate one’s use
of time has been documented as a major contributing factor to doctoral attrition. Therefore,
failing to prioritize one’s doctoral studies or to elevate them above other non-obligatory activities
leaves working fathers pursuing their doctorates at an increased risk of failing to earn their
degrees on time.
Results and Findings for Organizational Influences
Table 18 presents the assumed organizational influences.
Table 18
Assumed Organizational Influences
Organizational Assumed Influence
The organization sufficiently scaffolds student skills related to conducting
research for the dissertation writing process
The organization has processes and resources in place to support students’
sense of identity, self-efficacy
The organization has processes in place to monitor the degree to which
students have productive relationships with their dissertation chairs
The organization ensures that students are provided adequate opportunities
for social integration
The organization ensures that the program design and structure are amenable
to the lifestyle of its doctoral students (distance/online program vs.
traditional, cohort model, scheduling flexibility, etc.)
The organization ensures that the curricular content is appropriate for its
student body (accounting for adult learning needs, relevant material, etc.)
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

143
The organization has procedures in place to communicate necessary
information to students accurately and in a timely manner
The organization reasonably meets students’ expectations of the program
The organization reasonably supports and accommodates students facing
financial hardship
The organization is responsive to categorical conditions that may affect
student persistence and attrition (student age, gender, race, ethnicity, marital
status, parental status, etc.)
The program’s assignments are structured such that doctoral students can
complete their program in a reasonable amount of time (TTD)

Assumed Organizational Influence 1: The organization sufficiently scaffolds student skills
related to conducting research for the dissertation writing process
Survey Results. This assumed influence was assessed by one Likert scale item on the
survey (Q16d: My doctoral program provides sufficient training regarding how to conduct
research for the dissertation writing process). The response scale was Strongly Disagree,
Disagree, Agree, and Strongly Agree. The item yielded a response rate of 94% (66 of 70).
Figure 4.28. Survey results for Q16d: My doctoral program provides sufficient training
regarding how to conduct research for the dissertation writing process

8%
9%
56%
27%
Q16d: My doctoral program provides sufficient training
regarding how to conduct research for the dissertation
writing process
(n=66)
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

144
Of the 66 responses submitted, 83% (53 of 66) responded that they either agreed or
strongly agreed with the statement. Five participants (8%) submitted a response of Strongly
Disagree (see Figure 4.28 for full results). Examining the results from surveys completed
exclusively by working fathers with at least one child under the age of 18, the results remained
relatively similar. The response rate among the 23 working fathers was 100%. Of the 23
responses submitted, 87% (20 of 23) responded that they either agreed or strongly agreed with
the statement. One participant (4%) submitted a response of Strongly Disagree (see Figure 4.29
for full results).
Figure 4.29. Working fathers’ survey results for Q16d: My doctoral program provides sufficient
training regarding how to conduct research for the dissertation writing process

Interview Findings. This assumed influence was assessed by one semi-structured, open-
ended questions (Q14: How important is it for doctoral programs to provide training in how to
conduct research for the dissertation writing process?). The findings generated by Q14 supported
the survey results. Of the 14 interview participants, 100% believed that it was important for
4%
9%
65%
22%
Working Fathers' Responses to Q16d: My doctoral
program provides sufficient training regarding how to
conduct research for the dissertation writing process
(n=23)
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

145
doctoral programs to provide training in how to conduct research for the dissertation writing
process.
Interview participants provided a catalog of reasons why guidance and training in
preparation for the dissertation writing process were necessary. Interview participants most
commonly listed: the creation of viable research questions; the understanding of a conceptual
framework for the study; learning the various methods of data collection and their uses;
understanding the roles of ethics and validity; and the style and formatting of academic writing.
Overall, interview participants reflected positively upon the preparation provided throughout the
OL program. Father 7 was appreciative of the structure and support provided, in part because of his
coming from a professional/non-academic background.
I think [the OL program] did a good job at the beginning [by] saying, "We did multiple
approaches to how research can and should be done; and what some of the tools are, and
some of the resources are. We have the writing center, we have the doctoral dissertations
advisors. We have tons of resources." So, I think it was important, especially for somebody
like me who doesn't come from [an academic] background or doesn't have that skillset.
Appreciation for scaffolded training and support was echoed among interview participants from
the education field as well. Father 1 compared the importance of effective dissertation training to
effective teaching:
It's totally important because otherwise you don't know what you're doing. I understand that
there's a place for cognitive dissonance and that act of figuring out – there's a place for that.
But it's like good teaching: if I expect a product out of you, and I expect this product to
look a certain way, I need to guide you in [meeting] the expectation. I need to give you
everything you need to achieve that outcome. So, having appropriate training on how to
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

146
meet those needs and what those [dissertation] components look like [is vital]. I think
there are places where the program did it very well, there are places where it could have
been better, and there are places that it was left up to chance on who you got for a
[dissertation] chair.
Of note within the OL program is that work related to the problem of practice dissertation was
embedded within coursework, allowing OL students to develop their dissertation throughout their
doctoral program. This approach is considerably different from traditional doctoral programs that
do not have students begin dissertation writing until after coursework is done and, despite
statements about the added stress of balancing dissertation writing and coursework, the embedded
dissertation writing was generally reflected upon positively. Having recently completed his
dissertation defense, Father 13 reflected:
I think the program did a nice job making sure that it wasn't just one-stop shopping, that
everything was scaffolded and went back to [research and coursework] so that we knew
how we were required to write and what we were being asked to do. I think it's incredibly
important and I think the program did a good job with that.
Though appreciative of the guidance and support, Father 4 shared that the scaffolding and tools
provided by the OL program were not always positively received by students, with some feeling
like components of the dissertation were being forced upon them.
I know we have different camps of thought in this program. Some say it's too prescriptive,
it's kind of “insert here.” I appreciated that, especially since this work – for most of us, if
not all of us – is brand new. This is a new type of writing. There's new expectations, higher
expectations. So, I think it's been key that we have had a uniform and somewhat consistent
model in which to present our research, our information, and present an idea. Is it the only
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

147
way? No. But I think that that's what we're really paying the university for: their
guidance on how to do this.
Father 10 believed that one reason for the different perspectives on the training and support
provided by the OL program may be due to the diversity within the program, especially with
regards to how individuals perceived the role of the program.
There's a bit of an old-school sink-or-swim mentality sometimes ... like, throw you in and
see what's needed. I don't know if that connects with today's younger student (“millennial”
or “digital baby”). I don't know if those students feel the same way that I might. I'm not in
that category. I feel like, "Hey, just give me the challenge, and I'm [going to] sink my teeth
in it." I think others feel like, "It's your responsibility to prepare me better." And that's
not really where I'm coming from.
These findings provided a context for survey results, both with purposefully sampled
population and the OL population at-large. The findings and results confirmed that the
development of skills related to conducting research for the dissertation writing process was
considered vital to doctoral completion and that OL students felt this component was being
sufficiently addressed by the OL program.
Document Analysis Findings. This assumed influence was assessed by reviewing the
following documents and protocols of University X’s OL program:
3-year program layout (43-unit). This document, presented to OL students at the onset of
their program, provides a cognitive map (by term and year) of the courses that the cohort will
progress through during the doctoral program. Included are multiple courses dedicated to
research methodology. Also noted are general milestones or points of significance (“Advisory
Assigned” in term 2, “Qualifying Exam/Proposal Defense” in term 5, etc.). The final term of the
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

148
program indicates a course dedicated to dissertation writing and notes the milestones of
“Dissertation Defense and Upload,” “Commencement,” and “Graduation.”
Preliminary review (target date: third term of the program). Per the student handbook
provided to OL students at the start of their program, the Preliminary Review is (in part) a
screening process designed to measure mastery and comprehension of core concepts, to evaluate
the student’s ability to write at the doctoral level, and to reevaluate the student’s fit with the
program. Preliminary Review occurs after the second term of study, with results coming before
your fourth term of study.
Qualifying exam/proposal defense (target date: fifth term of the program). Per the
student handbook provided to OL students at the start of their program, the qualifying
examination is designed to test the student’s capacity to do independent research and to examine
the student’s ability to master the subject matter in the program core and concentration area.
Advisement committee members will read and evaluate the examination on a pass/fail basis.
Examinations cannot be passed if there is more than one score of Fail. For all doctoral qualifying
examinations, a student who fails the examination may be permitted, at the discretion of the
faculty, to take it a second time. A student who fails the qualifying examination a second time
may not continue in the program after the end of the semester in which the second examination is
taken.
Various course syllabi and assignments. Multiple course syllabi were reviewed
considering interview participants’ references to coursework related to dissertation training.
Coursework at the onset of the OL program included units focused on the expectations academic
writing, as well reviewing and revising academic writing. Later coursework and syllabi appear
designed to guide students through the research process. Specifically, syllabi were reviewed for
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

149
three methodology courses focused on training OL students in data collection methodology.
Syllabi included readings, exercises, and pre-recorded lectures on the LMS related to ethics,
validity, the completion of CITI training, the creation of an iStar account, and general
preparation for the IRB process. Additionally, writing assignments were structured (for both
methodology and non-methodology courses) in sync with sections of a dissertation template
students were expected to reference throughout their doctoral program.
Templates for the problem of practice dissertation. OL students are presented,
throughout the doctoral program, with templates intended to assist with the dissertation writing
process. Templates (distributed in chapter-long portions) provide a section-by-section framework
for the dissertation and are presented to students in pieces throughout the doctoral program in
conjunction with the current coursework (i.e. Chapter Three, focused on methodology, is
distributed to students in tandem with the first methodology course of the program). Students are
to select the most appropriate template for their study, based on their selected dissertation topic.
The OL program also has a predetermined conceptual framework, to be used in all OL students’
dissertations. Modification of template sections or chapter outlines is at the DC’s discretion.
Dedicated doctoral support resources. University X has a dedicated Doctoral Support
Center to assist students with their coursework, dissertations, and through degree completion.
Areas of assistance include APA style formatting, revising academic writing, and time
management skills. The center also hosts workshops and provides additional written resources on
its website and blog.
Writing workshops/writing weekends. In addition to writing workshops hosted on the
University X campus by the Doctoral Support Center, announcements for dissertation chair-
organized “writing weekends” were reviewed as part of this document analysis. Writing
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

150
weekends were initiated by dissertation chairs starting in the second year of the OL program.
Writing weekends were hosted both on campus and at other locations across the United States
(generally to be determined by the location of the hosting DC). Students were invited to attend
either in person or by virtual appointment. By virtual appointments, students were able to submit
a draft copy of work for the DC’s review and (at the time of the appointment) the comments and
work would be reviewed together via phone or another similar platform. Students could
participate in writing weekends regardless of whether their assigned DC was directly involved in
the event or not.
Library research tutorials. Videos prepared by the University X research library staff are
available on the library’s website and the OL program’s LMS. Tutorials outline different search
methods, how to utilize inter-library transfers, and how to access professional databases and
journals for article searches (among other topics).
Influence Summary. Survey results and findings from interviews with members of the
stakeholder group of focus corroborated the research. Additionally, data collected by survey,
interview, and document analysis indicated that the organization was adequately addressing this
assumed influence and it appeared that there was no organizational gap needing intervention. A
gap in this assumed influence was, therefore, not validated.
Assumed Organizational Influence 2: The organization has processes and resources in
place to support students’ sense of identity, self-efficacy
Survey Results. This assumed influence was not assessed by survey.
Interview Findings. This assumed influence was assessed by one semi-structured, open-
ended questions (Q21: How important is it for a doctoral program to have mechanisms in place
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

151
to develop students’ self-efficacy?). Of the 14 interview participants, nine (64%) indicated
that it was important for doctoral programs to develop students’ sense of identity and self-
efficacy.
Most affirmative responses were given by interview participants with some connection to
the field of education. Father 9, a high school English teacher, outlined the importance of having
assignments early in the program that allowed students to believe they could successfully move
forward in the learning process.
Building in assignments that let students try and experiment and figure out what works for
him or her is important to help people maintain and continue [through] the program. Once
they're completing an assignment, it's like, "OK, I get that. Now I can do the next step. I
get that. OK, I can do the next step." I think that's a benefit of this practitioner's degree, and
the shorter program – seeing how everything ties together while also trying it out and
seeing how it's going to work within your own study.
Father 11 (employed within the California community college system) shared that the OL
program initiated some tools to assist with students’ self-efficacy at the onset of the OL program
via the LMS. He found the asynchronous exercises’ reminding him of academic writing
expectations to be an especially useful tool at the start of his doctoral program.
It's important to have assignments early on that help build some [self-efficacy], tools with
scaffold[ed] learning, whether it's the learning concepts or the skills. We had that in this
program with the writing. There's [a preprogram writing workshop] that happened online. It
was a good refresher for me to go through something like that on my own, [at] my own
pace, where I can number any bad habits that I've picked up in business writing. I think
it's important to have things like that throughout the program.
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

152
Father 6 (a high school counselor), believed that not only is the development of self-
efficacy important but that the most effective resource utilized by the OL program in developing
students’ self-efficacy was its people.
[Having methods to build self-efficacy is] very important. When you have a support
staff who is checking on you, you have your dissertation chair who has that transparent
communication with you, it really builds my motivation, it elevates myself efficacy.
Because [it shows me] I’m not alone in this program, that there is someone else who truly
does care about my future, [and] cares that I finish the program. That is very intrinsically
motivating.
The most consistent theme among interview participants who did not feel it was
necessary for doctoral programs to focus upon the development of student self-efficacy was that,
at this level of academia and with this caliber of working professionals, self-efficacy was a
given. As Father 7 stated, “For the type of program that we're going through, and the level of
experience and education you should have coming into this program, it really shouldn't be that big
of a focus.”
A second theme apparent among responses not believing that it was the responsibility of
doctoral programs to develop student self-efficacy was the role that age/generational
expectations may play. Father 5 stated matter-of-factly:
I'm old, I'm not a young guy. I think it's our responsibility to develop [self-efficacy] on our
own. If people need help, then the school should have some level of resource, tools that
people can use, based on what they're feeling, for what they might need. But, in the real
life, it's called self-efficacy, it's not called this-efficacy-upon-me. I own it.
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

153
These findings failed to confirm that the support and development of doctoral
students’ self-efficacy were considered vital to doctoral completion by OL students. Despite this,
most interview participants felt this component was being sufficiently addressed by the OL
program.
Document Analysis Findings. This assumed influence was assessed by reviewing the
following documents and protocols of University X’s OL program:
3-year program layout (43-unit). As presented in Assumed Organizational Influence 1,
this document provides a cognitive map of the courses that a cohort will progress through during
the doctoral program.
Preliminary review. As presented in Assumed Organizational Influence 1, the
Preliminary Review is a screening process designed to measure mastery and comprehension of
core concepts, to evaluate the student’s ability to write at the doctoral level, and to reevaluate the
student’s fit with the program.
Various course syllabi and assignments. As presented in Assumed Organizational
Influence 1, coursework and syllabi appear designed to guide students through the research
process. Projects are broken into smaller assignments, allowing for timely formative assessment
of student progress. Writing assignments were structured (for both methodology and non-
methodology courses) in sync with sections of a dissertation template students were expected to
reference throughout their doctoral program.
Templates for the problem of practice dissertation. As presented in Assumed
Organizational Influence 1, OL students are presented, throughout the doctoral program, with
templates intended to assist with the dissertation writing process. Templates (distributed in
chapter-long portions) provide a section-by-section framework for the dissertation and are
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

154
presented to students in pieces throughout the doctoral program in conjunction with the
current coursework (i.e. Chapter Three, focused on methodology, is distributed to students in
tandem with the first methodology course of the program).
Dedicated doctoral support resources. As presented in Assumed Organizational
Influence 1, University X has a dedicated Doctoral Support Center to assist students with their
coursework, dissertations, and through degree completion. Areas of assistance include APA style
formatting, revising academic writing, and time management skills. The center also hosts
workshops and provides additional written resources on its website and blog.
Writing workshops/writing weekends. As presented in Assumed Organizational
Influence 1, writing weekends were hosted both on campus and at other locations across the
United States. Students were able to submit a draft copy of work for the DC’s review and
feedback, as well as to ask clarifying questions. Students could participate in writing weekends
regardless of whether their assigned DC was directly involved in the event or not.
Library research tutorials. As presented in Assumed Organizational Influence 1, videos
prepared by the University X research library staff are available on the library’s website and the
OL program’s LMS. Tutorials outline different search methods, how to utilize inter-library
transfers, and how to access professional databases and journals for article searches (among other
topics).
On-campus immersion. While coursework for the OL program was completed primarily
through the LMS and online assignments, students were required to attend an annual immersion
weekend held on the University X campus. This immersion experience was intended to give
students the opportunity to meet their classmates and professors face-to-face and complete
various collaborative learning exercises designed to build essential leadership skills.
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

155
Academic Advisors. In addition to assigned DCs, OL students are assigned an
Academic Advisor through the LMS platform provider. In conjunction with University X staff,
the LMS platform Academic Advisor reaches out to OL students each term to solicit feedback
and help with any challenges encountered during the doctoral program.
Influence Summary. Findings from interviews with members of the stakeholder group
of focus failed to corroborate the research regarding the importance of this assumed influence.
Nevertheless, data collected by interview and document analysis indicated that the organization
was adequately addressing this assumed influence and it appeared that there was no
organizational gap needing intervention. A gap in this assumed influence was, therefore, partially
validated.
Assumed Organizational Influence 3: The organization has processes in place to monitor
the degree to which students have productive relationships with their dissertation chairs
Survey Results. This assumed influence was assessed by one Likert scale item on the
survey (Q16e: My doctoral program monitors whether students have productive relationships
with their dissertation chairs). The response scale was Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, and
Strongly Agree. The item yielded a response rate of 96% (67 of 70).

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

156
Figure 4.30. Survey results for Q16e: My doctoral program monitors whether students have
productive relationships with their dissertation chairs

Of the 67 responses submitted, 82% (54 of 67) responded that they either disagreed or
strongly disagreed with the statement. One participant (1%) submitted a response of Strongly
Agree (see Figure 4.30 for full results).
Figure 4.31. Working fathers’ survey results for Q16e: My doctoral program monitors whether
students have productive relationships with their dissertation chairs

39%
43%
16%
2%
Q16e: My doctoral program monitors whether students
have productive relationships with their dissertation chairs
(n=67)
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
26%
52%
18%
4%
Working Fathers' Responses to Q16e: My doctoral
program monitors whether students have productive
relationships with their dissertation chairs
(n=23)
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

157
Examining the results from surveys completed exclusively by working fathers with at least
one child under the age of 18, the results remained relatively similar. The response rate among
the 23 working fathers was 100%. Of the 23 responses submitted, 78% (18 of 23) responded that
they either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement. One participant (4%) submitted a
response of Strongly Agree (see Figure 4.31 for full results).
Interview Findings. This assumed influence was assessed by one semi-structured, open-
ended questions (Q15: How important is it for doctoral programs to monitor the degree to which
students have positive, productive relationships with their dissertation chairs?). Findings
generated by Q15 supported the survey results. Of the 14 interview participants, 11 (79%)
believed that it was important for doctoral programs to monitor the degree to which students had
positive and productive relationships with their DCs.
Having served as an advisor for graduate students writing a thesis for completion of their
master’s degree, Father 3 was appeared keenly aware of the importance of an engaged and
supportive DC.
[The dissertation chair-student relationship is] the crucial part of graduate school. That's
ultimately going to determine whether somebody succeeds or fails. For the most part, we're
all relatively intelligent and can probably make it through our courses with or without help.
But to pull off a dissertation and do it right, you've got to have some support there with
your chair and your committee.
Discussing the role of that a university/program administration plays in the doctoral student-
dissertation chair relationship, Father 5 indicated that there was no assuring that the relationship
would be perfect – but a burden falls upon the program to ensure that DCs are competent and
qualified.
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

158
It's the responsibility of the institution to guarantee great [dissertation] chairs. Not every
chair-and-learner relationship needs to be perfect and productive. But, they [should] ensure
that they have highly competent, highly qualified, and highly engaged chairs. I think it's
the university’s job to manage the specifics of those relationships between the chair and the
student. But they've got to provide great chairs and acknowledge the relationship is
working somehow.
As interview participants reflected upon personal experience with their DCs in the OL program,
Father 11 shared how the OL program’s process of assigning a DC (without having provided
students or faculty any time to meet or develop any degree of familiarity) was somewhat
distressing.
If your chair doesn't like you, or you have issues with the chair, you're going to have
problems throughout your entire program. That's probably the scariest part of this program
– that you get assigned a dissertation chair without having an opportunity to really
connect with someone [first].
In Father 9’s case, the OL program’s method for assigning DCs was successful and, predictably, he
was satisfied with his progress and experience in the OL program. But he appeared very aware of
the fact that not all members of his cohort were as fortunate.
It's critical and I think you can see that in our cohort. You can see people who are being
successful because they have good advisors, and people who are struggling because
the advisor leaves something to be desired. I've been totally blessed beginning with [my
dissertation chair]. She's personable and knows what she's doing, pushes when she needs to
push and lets you think and work whenever you need to think and work. [But] I know
other people have had a different experience.
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

159
Father 8, a member of Father 9’s cohort who changed DCs, shared his experience and his
feelings regarding both the cost of having a less-engaged DC and a seemingly slow-to-respond
administration.
I think I'm relatively unique in my cohort in that I switched my dissertation chair
midstream at a pretty late date. I feel like that was because I was very frustrated with the
other dissertation chair. I felt that it was very much impeding the process. For me that was
an area of frustration that I felt like there wasn't a level of initial receptivity from the
program to be able to, one, correct what I perceived as shortcomings of the first dissertation
chair. But then, two, the amount of time that it took to reassign me to another
dissertation chair. I felt like I lost almost an entire semester because of just that process,
and really felt like it had put me behind significantly in my dissertation process.
Reflecting on the experience of a classmate’s experience in which the classmate’s DC informed
him (in the sixth of eight academic terms) that he should disregard the conceptual framework
suggested by the program and design one of his own that would be more fitting, Father 1 appeared
left in disbelief. His only response to the situation was:
I think they probably should do more [to monitor the relationship between dissertation
chairs and doctoral students]. I think [University X’s OL administrators] need to do some
internal calibration of their own chairs.
Among the three (21%) interview participants responding in the negative was Father 13. While
agreeing that the relationship between a doctoral student and his DC should be positive and
productive, Father 13 hesitated in formulating an actual plan for how that relationship could be
evaluated and deemed “positive and productive.”
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

160
It's incredibly important for the relationship [between dissertation chair and doctoral
student] to be positive and productive. To what extent that gets monitored, that's tougher,
because how do you evaluate that? Are you checking in with the person to see if they like
their chair? I think it's more [about if] their chair [is] responsive. So, I think that that would
be more important to [determine] whether [the student] felt that their chair was invested
in their process and was helping them move forward.
Father 12 also responded in the negative while agreeing that the doctoral student-dissertation
chair relationship was significant. In Father 12’s opinion, the responsibility for a positive and
productive relationship is shared between the student and DC.
I don't think it's up to the school to monitor the quality of the relationship [between
dissertation chair and doctoral student]. I think liking each other is helpful, but I think the
relationship has to be professional, obviously, and it needs to be responsive. And that goes
on both sides. If the student's not being responsive, they have an equal share in that
relationship. Somebody shouldn't feel trapped in a bad relationship on either side if it's not
working out.
These findings provided a context for survey results, both with purposefully sampled
population and the OL population at-large. The findings and results confirmed that the
relationship between a doctoral student and his DC was vital to doctoral completion and that the
monitoring of that relationship by program administration was key to ensuring the relationship’s
success. Furthermore, interview findings indicated that OL students did not feel this component
was being sufficiently addressed by the OL program.
Document Analysis Findings. This assumed influence was assessed by reviewing the
following documents and protocols of University X’s OL program.
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

161
OL Student Handbook. The student handbook provided to OL students at the onset
of their program refers to DCs a limited number of times. Per the OL Student Handbook, DCs
must be a full-time member of the University X School of Education’s (SOE) faculty and have
expertise relevant to the student’s prospective dissertation area. No further information is
provided regarding DCs.
3-year program layout (43-unit). This document, presented to OL students at the onset of
their program, provides a cognitive map (by term and year) of the courses and milestones that the
cohort will progress through during the doctoral program. Among general milestones and points
of significance is “Advisory Assigned” in term 2.
Of note, OL students are not provided with any documents or information regarding: who
prospective DCs are, prior to assignment; the process for assigning students to DCs; any training
DCs undertake prior to, or throughout, advising assignments; how to change DCs; the
expectations of DCs, including their duties/responsibilities to students; or any formal or informal
process to communicate with the OL office to provide feedback regarding DC
support/performance.
Influence Summary. Survey results and findings from interviews with members of the
stakeholder group of focus corroborated the research. Furthermore, data collected by survey,
interview, and document analysis indicated that the organization was failing to adequately
address this assumed influence and there was an organizational gap needing intervention. A gap
in this assumed influence was, therefore, validated.
Assumed Organizational Influence 4: The organization ensures that students are provided
adequate opportunities for social integration
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

162
Survey Results. This assumed influence was assessed by two Likert scale items on
the survey (Q17a: My doctoral program provides opportunities to interact socially with my peers
and classmates, and Q17b: My doctoral program provides opportunities to interact socially with
my professors and advisors). The response scale for both questions was Strongly Disagree,
Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree. Both items yielded a response rate of 96% (67 of 70).
Of the 67 responses submitted for Q17a, 70% (47 of 67) responded that they either
agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. Five participants (7%) submitted a response of
Disagree (see Figure 4.32 for full results).
Figure 4.32. Survey results for Q17a: My doctoral program provides opportunities to interact
socially with my peers and classmates

7.46%
22.39%
52.24%
17.91%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Q17a: My doctoral program provides opportunities to
interact socially with my peers and classmates
(n=67)
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

163
Figure 4.33. Working fathers’ survey results for Q17a: My doctoral program provides
opportunities to interact socially with my peers and classmates

Examining the results from surveys completed exclusively by working fathers with at least one
child under the age of 18, the results were more affirmative. The response rate among the 23
working fathers was 100%. Of the 23 responses submitted, 83% (18 of 23) responded that they
either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement (see Figure 4.33 for full results).
Of the 67 responses submitted for Q17b, 73% (49 of 67) responded that they either
disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement. A full quarter of respondents (17 of 67)
submitted a response of Agree; just one (1%) submitted a response of Strongly Agree (see Figure
4.34 for full results). Examining the results from surveys completed exclusively by working
fathers with at least one child under the age of 18, the results remained relatively similar. The
response rate among the 23 working fathers was 100%. Of the 23 responses submitted, 57% (13
of 23) responded that they either disagreed with the statement. Nine of the 23 respondents (39%)
submitted a response of Agree (see Figure 4.35 for full results).
0.00%
17.39%
56.52%
26.09%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Working Fathers' Respones to Q17a: My doctoral program
provides opportunities to interact socially with my peers
and classmates
(n=23)
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

164
Figure 4.34. Survey results for Q17b: My doctoral program provides opportunities to
interact socially with my professors and advisors

Figure 4.35. Working fathers’ survey results for Q17b: My doctoral program provides
opportunities to interact socially with my professors and advisors

Interview Findings. This assumed influence was assessed by one semi-structured, open-
ended questions (Q16: How important is it for doctoral programs to provide opportunities for
social engagement and integration for their students?). Findings generated by Q16 supported the
19.40%
53.73%
25.37%
1.49%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Q17b: My doctoral program provides opportunities to
interact socially with my professors and advisors
(n=67)
4.35%
56.52%
39.13%
0.00%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Working Fathers' Responses to Q17b: My doctoral
program provides opportunities to interact socially with
my professors and advisors
(n=23)
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

165
survey results. Of the 14 interview participants, 12 (86%) believed that it was important for
doctoral programs to provide opportunities for social engagement and integration.
Echoing the research, Father 11 described how social engagement was a primary method
for stress management, a sense of validation, and support for doctoral students.
It's probably one of the most important pieces. No one's going to necessarily
understand what you're going through except for those that are going through it with you,
so having a quick conversation with your classmates probably generates a lot more
empathy, relaxation, recharging, than trying to explain what's happening to your social
circles that are not involved in the program, which could end up being frustrating [because
of] a lack of understanding of what's really going on or the challenges that are being
faced. So, from that aspect, I think those interactions are very important.
Father 1 believed that social integration more essential to doctoral students in online programs,
like the OL program, since there is no normal level of interaction among classmates or faculty.
In a program like this I think it's probably very important because it's not organic
necessarily. There was one time when a bunch of us gathered [in the downtown area
around University X] around nothing in particular and we all went to a football game and
spent the weekend together. That was fun, and that helped grow community. It's hard. I
had cohort members in Hong Kong and Brazil and Abu Dhabi and Austin. It's difficult. I
get that it's difficult.
Multiple interview participants’ responses indicated that the importance of social integration may
be affected by the generational expectations of the doctoral student. Older interview participants
were more likely to indicate that social integration was not only important but preferred because it
allowed for traditional face-to-face conversation. As Father 14 shared:
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

166
Personally, I have found that to be one of the best parts of this program. Do I think it's
important? Absolutely, yes. I think that I would like to have seen that expand. I would like
to have had many more opportunities to meet collectively as a cohort in person because I'm
an old guy, I like talking to people face-to-face. This digital thing is interesting and
tactically useful, but I like to associate with people one-on-one in person much more. I
would like to have had more of that.
While nearly all interview participants praised the flexibility of the OL program being offered
online, some still believed that the in-person components of the program were worth expanding.
Father 5 was among those who believed that the OL program could be strengthened by giving
students more opportunities to engage each other and strengthen their sense of community.
It depends on the program and if the program is like the one we're in (where it's a cohort
style, online but live), I think it's critical. I think it important to create a sense of community
where students can count on one another and rely on another, translate for one another
and help work with stress for one another, to help each other get through life in the
program, [and] getting out of the program. I think it's critical that [the program] provide
even more opportunities to connect, more venues to connect. It's key.
Of the two (14%) interview participants who did not consider it important for doctoral programs
to provide opportunities for social engagement and integration for their students, the opinion was
not a disagreement with the importance of social engagement as much as a disagreement with the
idea that it was a responsibility of the academic program to provide/structure those opportunities.
As Father 13 noted:
I don't know that it's necessarily important for the doctoral program to ensure that there
is that engagement; however, I think that that engagement is incredibly important. I'm
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

167
not sure it's the role of the school to facilitate that but, I myself, made some really good
friends. It was really good to have those friends that say, "Hey, what's going on? How are
you doing? How's it going?" and to have that support group (for lack of a better term) to
talk to.
These findings provided a context for survey results, both with purposefully sampled
population and the OL population at-large. The findings and results confirmed that opportunities
for doctoral students to engage socially with their colleagues and peers are vital to doctoral
completion and that a considerable number of OL students felt this component was not being
sufficiently addressed by the OL program.
Document Analysis Findings. This assumed influence was assessed by reviewing the
following documents and protocols of University X’s OL program:
Email communications from the University X Alumni Association. OL students
received two to four emails per semester announcing events open to current students and alumni,
generally in the greater metropolitan area surrounding University X. No such communications
are coordinated by either the SOE or the OL program, nor are events hosted in any geographical
regions beyond the greater metropolitan area surrounding University X.
Email communications regarding on-campus immersions sessions. OL students were
required to attend an annual immersion weekend held on the University X campus. This
immersion experience was intended to give students the opportunity to meet their classmates and
professors face-to-face and complete various collaborative learning exercises designed to build
essential leadership skills
Influence Summary. Survey results and findings from interviews with members of the
stakeholder group of focus corroborated the research. Furthermore, data collected by survey,
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

168
interview, and document analysis indicated that the organization was failing to adequately
address this assumed influence and there was an organizational gap needing intervention. A gap
in this assumed influence was, therefore, validated.
Assumed Organizational Influence 5: The organization ensures that the program design
and structure are amenable to the lifestyle of its doctoral students (distance/online program
vs. traditional, cohort model, scheduling flexibility, etc.)
Survey Results. This assumed influence was assessed by two Likert scale items on the
survey (Q17c: My doctoral program’s being offered online is a good fit for the students enrolled
in the program, and Q17d: My doctoral program’s being offered in a cohort model is a good fit
for the students enrolled in the program). The response scale for both questions was Strongly
Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree. Both items yielded a response rate of 93% (65 of
70).
Of the 65 responses submitted for Q17c, 97% (63 of 65) responded that they either
agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. One participant (2%) submitted a response of
Strongly Disagree (see Figure 4.36 for full results). Examining the results from surveys
completed exclusively by working fathers with at least one child under the age of 18, the results
remained relatively similar. The response rate among the 23 working fathers was 100%. Of the
23 responses submitted, 100% were in the affirmative as 52% (12 of 23) agreed and 48% (11 of
23) strongly agreed with the statement (see Figure 4.37 for full results).

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

169
Figure 4.36. Survey results for Q17c: My doctoral program’s being offered online is a good
fit for the students enrolled in the program

Figure 4.37. Working fathers’ survey results for Q17c: My doctoral program’s being offered
online is a good fit for the students enrolled in the program

Of the 65 responses submitted for Q17d, 97% (63 of 65) responded that they either
agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. One participant (2%) submitted a response of
Strongly Disagree (see Figure 4.38 for full results).
1.54% 1.54%
50.77%
46.15%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Q17c: My doctoral program’s being offered online is a
good fit for the students enrolled in the program
(n=65)
0.00% 0.00%
52.17%
47.83%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Working Fathers' Responses to Q17c: My doctoral
program’s being offered online is a good fit for the
students enrolled in the program
(n=23)
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

170
Figure 4.38. Survey results for Q17d: My doctoral program’s being offered in a cohort model
is a good fit for the students enrolled in the program

Figure 4.39. Working fathers’ survey results for Q17d: My doctoral program’s being offered in a
cohort model is a good fit for the students enrolled in the program

Examining the results from surveys completed exclusively by working fathers with at least one
child under the age of 18, the results remained relatively similar. The response rate among the 23
working fathers was 100%. Of the 23 responses submitted, 100% were in the affirmative as 52%
1.54% 1.54%
55.38%
41.54%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Q17d: My doctoral program’s being offered in a cohort
model is a good fit for the students enrolled in the
program
(n=65)
0.00% 0.00%
52.17%
47.83%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Working Fathers' Responses to Q17d: My doctoral
program’s being offered in a cohort model is a good fit for
the students enrolled in the program
(n=23)
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

171
(12 of 23) agreed and 48% (11 of 23) strongly agreed with the statement (see Figure 4.39 for
full results).
Interview Findings. This assumed influence was assessed by two semi-structured, open-
ended questions (Q13: To what degree was program design relevant to your choosing your
doctorate program? And Q18: Do you believe that your program’s design is appropriate for the
student body?). Findings from Q13 and Q18 supported the survey results. Of the 14 interview
participants, 100% stated that program design was crucial to their doctoral program selection.
Like most interview participants, Father 7 considered multiple elements of the OL
program’s design in his decision-making process:
[Program design] was one of the key factors when I was researching which program I
was going to go with, or which program I was interested in. Was it mostly online? Do
they [use a] cohort model? Do they have a good mix of people who are from a for-profit
industry versus an academic industry? I want to work with (or leverage opportunities
with) people that are in similar industries as mine, but I also want to learn something
from the opposite end of the world of stuff I have no experience with (which is
academia). So those were [all] important factors in [selecting] a program for me.
Use of a cohort model and the dissertation writing process being embedded into the
coursework were significant for many interview participants, like Father 1:
It was extremely important [to me]. I did my master's in an accelerated cohort model as
well, and I really appreciated [a] cohort model [and] having those people that you can rely
on. [The OL program’s] having the dissertation work embedded in the coursework was
huge for me because you were working on it almost from [the very start of the
program]. "Welcome to the program. What's your topic?" That was huge.
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

172
Father 4 reflected on how the OL program design’s accessibility and flexibility allowed
him to be engaged and successful in his doctoral studies while allowing him to still be effective as
an administrator and spend time with his family.
One of the things that's nice about having a program like this is that I always had access to
my material. It's different when you're anchored to something that's brick and mortar or you
don't have the type of availability and the cloud with the materials that we have. Being able
to view the asynchronous material on my phone in airports, I've participated in class
meetings in Starbucks (as many of us have), in hotels, when traveling and at conferences.
I've typed a paper on my phone in a car, going down to San Diego, in Google Docs. I love
that stuff because that allows you to do things in a nonconventional way rather than “I
need to be [at] my desk, I need to be in front of my desktop, I need to have this, this and
this.”
A central theme among interview participants was their searching for a program that would
minimize the impact on family time and/or their ability to be present for their children. Father 9,
who lived on the east coast of the United States, not only appreciated the online format of the OL
program but also benefitted from the difference in time zones between him and University X.
Being able to do my coursework online, and then have class, (like the synchronous class
times), at times where it had very little impact on bedtimes or dinner, or anything like that,
was huge. That's one of the reasons that I chose the program, and it was successful [for
me].
Father 13 echoed Father 9’s concern regarding the impact on family. Also living on the east coast,
his selection of the OL program over others was almost completely based on minimizing the
sacrificed time with his children.
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

173
[On] a scale one to ten, ten being the most relevant, [program design] was a ten. I did
my master’s in educational administration at Rutgers, which is about 20 minutes down the
road and I very well could have done my doctorate there, but I just couldn't go back to
driving at night and not having that time [with] my family. So, I literally said, "I have
to be able to walk to my basement or walk out a minute downstairs to be able to do the
program." I wanted to minimize the amount of impact. I also liked that there was a time
difference [between east and west coast] and most of the classes would be after my kids
went to bed. The fact that they structured it as a cohort model, with the flexibility of time
and all online. Two trips to go to [University X] is nothing in the scheme of things as
opposed to driving to a campus over six years.
Father 8 shared that, as he and his wife weighed the options for his doctorate and which program to
select, the OL program’s design gave him the best chance of successfully balancing his
responsibilities (and the stress that accompanies them).
The flexibility that I was able to have in this program to be able to determine when I do my
work and when it's most conducive for the family so that I didn't feel like I had to sacrifice
as much with my boys and with my wife is huge. That flexibility, [because] it is stressful at
times, might be the most important thing in helping balance all of these commitments.
Responses to Q18 (Do you believe that your program’s design is appropriate for the
student body?) were considerably less uniform and clear. Of the 14 interview participants, 79%
(11 of 14) believed that the design of their program was appropriate for its student body. Though
the interview question was directed towards program design, interview participants frequently
responded with reflections upon the program as a whole, focusing heavily on the curriculum.
One theme among a majority of responses was that, while reporting being generally satisfied
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

174
with the design of the OL program, the program design/content could be improved. Father
14’s view of the program was:
I think [the design is] appropriate. I won't say that it's optimized. I won't say that it has been
flawlessly laid out. I won't say that it has been consistently delivered between faculty
teaching the same class to two different sections in the cohort. I don't think it's been bad, I
think it's been great…but there are areas for improvement.
Father 11 was among interview participants whose greatest concern was how content was selected
and courses were focused.
I would say there's a third of it that is definitely appropriate for the entire student body.
That is top form, that definitely needs to stay and shouldn't be changed. There's another
third that is solid curriculum but may or may not apply to everybody and is more of a
hold-over, I think, to curriculum that might have been included with versions of this
program that were geared toward much more on the educational side. I would have to say
(obviously painting with a broad brush) probably a third of the curriculum touches on
some interesting ideas, but really could be electives. It could be swapped in and out with
other electives based off of what individual students want to really study or focus on.
Affirmative reviews of the OL program’s design most often came from interview participants
employed in the education field, a point not lost on Father 8:
I think it has been [appropriate] because I'm an educator. I think maybe I'd answer
differently than some of my peers who are from the business sector. I feel like those that
complain about the curricular design have predominantly been business side folks
because, often times, examples are educationally based. I feel like the program has done a
good job at attempting to use diverse readings, diverse examples to be able to enrich
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

175
the learning so the range of professionals continue to be able to access it. I think it has
been really good.
These findings provided a context for survey results, both with purposefully sampled
population and the OL population at-large. The findings and results confirmed that program
design and suitability are vital to doctoral completion, and that OL students felt this component
was being sufficiently addressed by the OL program.
Document Analysis Findings. This assumed influence was assessed by reviewing the
following documents and protocols of University X’s OL program:
Online program description. The Ed.D. in OL was described on University X websites
as being delivered through a blend of online interactions. The program allows students to
continue working full time while pursuing a degree that will develop them as organizational
leaders. The program is available in two variations (one for students possessing a master’s
degree and one for those interested in earning a master’s degree and Ed.D. consecutively. The
OL program requires attendance at an annual on-campus immersion session (lasting an extended
weekend) that was intended to give students the opportunity to meet their classmates and
professors face-to-face and complete various collaborative learning exercises designed to build
leadership skills. OL program admissions requirements were the same as traditional on-campus
doctorate programs offered by University X’s SOE, with three start dates throughout the year
(January, May, and September).
Various course syllabi. All course syllabi reviewed for this assumed influence contained
template wording regarding the design and nature of instructional delivery. Courses were noted
as only being available online, and as utilizing asynchronous and real-time modules. Coursework
includes reading and writing assignments to be done prior to scheduled synchronous class
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

176
sessions. Courses were taught using a flipped classroom design and a workshop model. This
design was based on research that demonstrates learning is enhanced when working actively as
opposed to listening passively (as in a lecture). Asynchronous assignments included watching
prerecorded lectures and interviews, as well as completing various assignments embedded in the
LMS.
Registration memos. Email communications indicated that, approximately 60 days prior
to registration, OL students would receive a memo from OL program administration outlining
the registration process as well as course offerings. Four sections of each course were offered
each term, three during the week and one on Saturday mornings. Courses were offered in the
late-afternoon and evening hours of the Pacific Time Zone. Fall and spring courses were two
hours long, summer courses three (to account for the shorter academic term). Classes were listed
as having a capacity of 16 students.
Influence Summary. Survey results and findings from interviews with members of the
stakeholder group of focus corroborated the research, affirming that this was a relevant
influence. While findings from the interview indicated that improvement may be needed, overall
evaluations of the OL program indicated that the organization was adequately addressing this
assumed influence and it appeared that there was no organizational gap needing intervention. A
gap in this assumed influence was, therefore, not validated.
Assumed Organizational Influence 6: The organization ensures that the curricular content
is appropriate for its student body (accounting for adult learning needs, relevant material,
etc.)
Survey Results. This assumed influence was assessed by one Likert scale item on the
survey (Q17e: The curricular content of my doctoral program is appropriate and applicable). The
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

177
response scale was Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree. The item yielded a
response rate of 96% (67 of 70).
Figure 4.40. Survey results for Q17e: The curricular content of my doctoral program is
appropriate and applicable

Of the 67 responses submitted, 88% (59 of 67) responded that they either agreed or
strongly agreed with the statement. Two participants (32%) submitted a response of Strongly
Disagree (see Figure 4.40 for full results). Examining the results from surveys completed
exclusively by working fathers with at least one child under the age of 18, the results remained
relatively similar. The response rate among the 23 working fathers was 100%. Of the 23
responses submitted, 96% (22 of 23) were in the affirmative as 61% (14 of 23) agreed and 35%
(8 of 23) strongly Agreed with the statement. One participant (4%) disagreed with the statement
(see Figure 4.41 for full results).

2.99%
8.96%
65.67%
22.39%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Q17e: The curricular content of my doctoral program is
appropriate and applicable
(n=67)
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

178
Figure 4.41. Working fathers’ survey results for Q17e: The curricular content of my doctoral
program is appropriate and applicable

Interview Findings. This assumed influence was assessed by one semi-structured, open-
ended questions (Q17: How important is curricular content to student persistence?). Findings
generated by Q17 supported the survey results. Of the 14 interview participants, 79% (11 of 14)
stated that curricular content was important to student persistence.
Father 5 was among interview participants who most strongly believed in a curriculum’s
ability to affect student persistence, considering it strong enough to overcome even the
shortcomings of lack-luster instruction.
The curriculum has to be interesting. It has to be challenging and it has to be relevant and
instructors’ communication of the dialog around the curriculum has to be the same. I've
been in some classes where I've felt the curriculum was absolutely outstanding but the
facilitation was miserable; the curriculum pulled me through, and I said it in a few classes
and with a few classmates, “Lean into the curriculum, you don't have to like your
professor. Think about what we're reading and what we're supposed to be talking about. I
0.00%
4.35%
60.87%
34.78%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Working Fathers' Responses to Q17e: The curricular
content of my doctoral program is appropriate and
applicable
(n=23)
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

179
mean this is awesome stuff. Let's live in that, let's live in the curriculum.” Even when
instruction can be mediocre sometimes, the curriculum should pull through – it has to.
Father 3 noted the how the University X School of Education’s core competencies and
principles being discernable through all the program’s courses created a sense of consistency and
reminded students of the spirit of the program and degree. This, along with the embedded
dissertation, left him with a positive experience.
I appreciate how things are intertwined and interconnected. Dissertation work is embedded
in multiple courses. I like the nature of the courses. I think they were well thought out.
There are things that could be changed, absolutely. But, for the most part, I think [the
university] did a really nice job with that. I guess if I didn't enjoy the courses or if I had bad
interactions with professors, that answer might be different. But, I've had pretty good
experiences with all my courses for the most part.
Father 8 was among interview participants who did not consider curriculum very important
to student persistence. In his opinion, the process of earning a doctorate involved too many other
means of learning for the textbook curriculum to have that much influence on a student’s decision
to continue or end his doctoral program.
I don't know that I would place curriculum very high on the list of overall importance
compared to some of these other facts. I think although the curriculum is important, there's
so much additional learning that's taking place and, as doctoral students, I think the onus is
really on us as learners to be able to gain that. There's so [many] other assets of the
program that really drive the learning that I think the curriculum, as opposed to an
undergrad or a master’s degree, takes a secondary importance to a number of these other
aspects of learning.
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

180
Father 13’s opinion was direct when contemplating the relationship between academic
curriculum and student persistence.
You've been in school before. We've all taken courses we didn't feel were completely
relevant. So, I think it's somewhat important, but I don't know that it's one of the more
important things.
These findings provided a context for survey results, both with purposefully sampled
population and the OL population at-large. The findings and results confirmed the importance of
a doctoral program’s curriculum (as it relates to student persistence), and that OL students felt
this component was being sufficiently addressed by the OL program.
Document Analysis Findings. This assumed influence was assessed by reviewing the
following documents and protocols of University X’s OL program:
3-year program layout (43-unit). This document, presented to OL students at the onset of
their program, provided a cognitive map (by term and year) of the courses that the cohort would
progress through during the doctoral program. Course titles indicated coursework on leadership,
accountability, research methodology (multiple courses), performance evaluation, increasing
capacity for change, and assessment of system outcomes. Additionally, the two final courses of
the program were dedicated to the completion of the capstone project (inclusive of a dissertation
and additional reflective writing assignments).
Various course syllabi. All course syllabi reviewed for this assumed influence contained
sections outlining the Purpose, Learning Outcome, and Required Readings for the course.
Readings were a mix of books procured by the student and articles to be provided to students for
download through the university library system. Articles assigned for reading were chosen from
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

181
a variety of journals and sources, including journals focused on performance improvement,
training and development, leadership, education, and (namely) the Harvard Business Review.
Influence Summary. Survey results and findings from interviews with members of the
stakeholder group of focus corroborated the research. Furthermore, data collected by survey,
interview, and document analysis indicated that the organization was adequately addressing this
assumed influence and there was no organizational gap needing intervention. A gap in this
assumed influence was, therefore, not validated.
Assumed Organizational Influence 7: The organization has procedures in place to
communicate necessary information to students accurately and in a timely manner
Survey Results. This assumed influence was assessed by one Likert scale item on the
survey (Q17f: My doctoral program communicates important information to me accurately and
in a timely manner). The response scale was Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly
Agree. The item yielded a response rate of 96% (67 of 70).
Figure 4.42. Survey results for Q17f: My doctoral program communicates important information
to me accurately and in a timely manner

14.93%
19.40%
58.21%
7.46%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Q17f: My doctoral program communicates important
information to me accurately and in a timely manner
(n=67)
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

182
Of the 67 responses submitted, 63% (44 of 67) responded that they either agreed or
strongly agreed with the statement. Ten participants (15%) submitted a response of Strongly
Disagree (see Figure 4.42 for full results). Examining the results from surveys completed
exclusively by working fathers with at least one child under the age of 18, the results were more
affirmative. The response rate among the 23 working fathers was 100%. Of the 23 responses
submitted, 78% (18 of 23) either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. One participant
(4%) submitted a response of Strongly Disagree (see Figure 4.43 for full results).
Figure 4.43. Working fathers’ survey results for Q17f: My doctoral program communicates
important information to me accurately and in a timely manner

Interview Findings. This assumed influence was assessed by one semi-structured, open-
ended questions (Q20: How important is it for your doctoral program to communicate necessary
information accurately and in a timely manner?). Of the 14 interview participants, 100%
believed that it was important for doctoral programs to communicate necessary information to
their students accurately and in a timely manner.
4.35%
17.39%
73.91%
4.35%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Working Fathers' Responses to Q17f: My doctoral
program communicates important information to me
accurately and in a timely manner
(n=23)
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

183
Interview participants’ estimations of the OL program’s communication ranged from
inefficient or ineffective to incompetent. Numerous factors were identified as contributing to the
poor communication efforts from the OL program, including the relative newness of the program.
“I would say that's one of the areas that we had the greatest frustration in because, to a certain
degree, [University X] was building the plane as they were flying.” (Father 1)
Father 14 believed that, had communication regarding program expectations been clearer,
he’d have been better prepared for the workload and sacrifice required of a doctoral program.
Doctoral programs need to make very clear what the expectations are up front, not only in
terms of time but in terms of curriculum expectations. At the beginning of this program,
in our very first class, we started talking about ideas for our dissertation. I wasn't prepared.
I had no idea what I wanted to talk about in my dissertation. I thought I'd discover that over
the course of the next several semesters. But the pace of this program has been so intense,
and the level of expectations and the speed of the deliverables has been so fast, it took me
over a year to catch up to that and then be ready. I think it's essential that these degree
programs are honest and up front, and not try to sugarcoat it. I would've been much better
prepared mentally if I had known that I'd be spending 15 to 20 hours a week, rather than
having to reframe my life, between work, family, exercise, everything else, in
execution, if you get what I mean.
Of additional note for professional doctoral programs, Father 11 noted, is the difference
in the support and structure needed for working professionals who operate on a different calendar
from academics and academia.
I'm not an 18-year-old who doesn't know what they're doing and just wants to go through
and just fumble along and experience going to college. [We’re] older, professional. I don't
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

184
have time to Mickey Mouse around with this stuff. I need to know what I'm getting
into, know what's expected of me over the next X number of years so I can plan it out,
schedule it, and get it done. Having all that information up front, for me, lets me know what
I need to do. If you're going to, suddenly, [say] that I have meet a certain deadline next
month that I wasn't planning for – you just screwed up a year's worth of scheduling and
planning.
Father 12 considered personnel change a key factor in the communication issues from the
OL administration. With constant changes in personnel, not only can it be difficult to maintain a
consistent message, but it also becomes increasingly challenging for students to know how to fully
utilize resources afforded them.
That's one of the things, on an administrative side, that I've noticed that the office has had
some difficulties with. There's this constant churn of advisors that I don't even know
sometimes what they do or don't do. All well-meaning, but I don't know ... I wouldn't know
how to use an advisor, and here I am in my last year. I like them all, but I don't know what
to do with them quite frankly.
Father 5 made a concerted effort to state that this was not to state that there was absolutely
zero communication from OL administration. But, the most consistent or reliable communications
may not have been regarding those things most relevant to students. For example:
They were doing a good job communicating if there [were] platform issues and the audio
system was going to be down. If they were going to be doing system maintenance. All this stuff
that they think is going to be important for me to know, but I don't care about.
Additionally, communication issues (according to Father 13) were not exclusive to OL
administrators. Miscommunication or lack of communication from instructors seemingly had
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

185
greater (or, at the least, more-immediate) ramifications upon students’ outlook, persistence, and
performance.
When there were classes where we didn't get data that we needed or assignments, I
remember being so upset and sending emails to professors saying, "I need this information.
The class is on Wednesday and you haven't given me the assignment by Saturday." That's
my [homework] time. My [homework] time is Saturday afternoon and Sunday
afternoon. So, if you're sending me something at 3:00 p.m. in California on Sunday, it's
7:00 p.m. in New Jersey. I've just lost the entire weekend because you're not giving me
what I need to do. So, I sent a couple emails and I remember being incredibly frustrated
with people not valuing our time. An Ed.D. is mostly professionals. We got full-time
jobs. The window is so small that if someone is not getting us information or assignments
or feedback, or whatever it might be, for us to be able to use the time the way we need,
that was aggravating. It was really upsetting when that happened. It didn't happen a lot,
but that really impacted the quality of my work and my ability to get the work done.
Overall, communication of necessary information to students in an accurate and timely
manner may be more important than the literature leads one to believe, as most research has been
conducted with traditional, residential doctoral programs. Online programs and their students, at an
innate disadvantage with regards to battling student isolation, must employ effective means of
communicating with all stakeholders if they are to avoid increased student attrition. As Father 8
summarized:
I think that [a] level of proactive communication from the [OL] program is really important
because you don't have the kind of hallway conversations that you would get if you're on-
site and you're a full-time student. [In on-the-ground doctoral programs], that
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

186
communication can happen organically. But when you're remote, you're (by definition)
isolated at least to some extent. [So,] that effective communication and organized
communication from the central program is critical. Or else you end up feeling so isolated
and frustrated that that in and of itself almost becomes the core impediment that
prevents persistence. There's been a couple members of our cohort where that's been
the central gripe, and [it] almost pushed them to the point where [they’d quit].
These findings provided a context for survey results, both with purposefully sampled
population and the OL population at-large. The findings and results confirmed that doctoral
programs communicating information to students accurately and in a timely manner were vital to
on-time doctoral completion, and that OL students felt this component was not being sufficiently
addressed by the OL program.
Document Analysis Findings. This assumed influence was assessed by reviewing the
following documents and protocols of University X’s OL program.
Registration memos. Email communications indicated that, approximately 60 days prior
to registration, OL students would receive a memo from OL program administration outlining
the registration process as well as course offerings.
Various email communications and announcements. Email communication from OL
administration and various University X departments were reviewed in the evaluation of this
assumed influence. Communications included emails from academic advisors reaching out to
schedule meetings with students, announcements of OL change in staff, and requests for students
to complete end-of-term evaluation surveys. Additionally, communications were sent to OL
students regarding applying for graduation, the timeline and procedures for submitting a
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

187
dissertation to the university, and SOE newsletters sharing recent highlights related to SOE
faculty and/or students.
Student-organized social media groups/pages. The most substantial and extensive source
of material for review came from student-organized social media forums. Multiple forums were
evaluated for student feedback regarding communication (forums had been structured by
students for both specific cohorts and the OL program at-large). Comments and conversations
indicated lapses in communication in a variety of areas, including: feedback from professors (late
grading, no grading, changes in assignment due dates, lack of preparation in class – all leading to
recommendations); feedback and/or communication from DCs regarding dissertation writing and
capstone assignments; feedback and/or communication from OL administrators regarding
submitted questions or concerns. Commonly, members of earlier cohorts would respond to
questions posed by students in later cohorts, sharing recommendations and advice for navigating
the issue at hand. Students built a collection of documents (timelines, samples, templates,
exemplars, etc.) for shared access in lieu any lack of resources from professors, advisors, or DCs.
Influence Summary. Survey results and findings from interviews with members of the
stakeholder group of focus corroborated the research. Furthermore, data collected by survey,
interview, and document analysis indicated that the organization was failing to adequately
address this assumed influence and there was an organizational gap needing intervention. A gap
in this assumed influence was, therefore, validated.
Assumed Organizational Influence 8: The organization reasonably meets students’
expectations of the program
Survey Results. This assumed influence was assessed by one Likert scale item on the
survey (Q18c: Overall, my doctoral program has met my expectations). The response scale was
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

188
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree. The item yielded a response rate of
96% (67 of 70).
Figure 4.44. Survey results for Q18c: Overall, my doctoral program has met my expectations

Figure 4.45. Working fathers’ survey results for Q18c: Overall, my doctoral program has met my
expectations

Of the 67 responses submitted, 82% (55 of 67) responded that they either agreed or
strongly agreed with the statement. Five participants (7%) submitted a response of Strongly
7.46%
10.45%
50.75%
31.34%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Q18c: Overall, my doctoral program has met my
expectations
(n=67)
0.00%
4.35%
52.17%
43.48%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Working Fathers' Responses to Q18c: Overall, my
doctoral program has met my expectations
(n=23)
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

189
Disagree (see Figure 4.44 for full results). Examining the results from surveys completed
exclusively by working fathers with at least one child under the age of 18, the results were
slightly more affirmative. The response rate among the 23 working fathers was 100%. Of the 23
responses submitted, 95% (22 of 23) responded that they either agreed or strongly agreed with
the statement. One participant (4%) submitted a response of Disagree (see Figure 4.45 for full
results).
Interview Findings. This assumed influence was assessed by one semi-structured, open-
ended questions (Q21: How important is it for doctoral programs to meet the expectations of
their students?). Of the 14 interview participants, 100% stated that it was important for doctoral
programs to meet the expectations of their students. But, a common theme among responses was
that students’ expectations must also be evaluated/calibrated if a program was to avoid suffering
in quality. As Father 7 stated:
I think [they have] to be realistic expectations. I think we have some folks in our program
who want the sky and the moon. But, realistically, you have to consider all the people that
are going through the program and it has to appeal to them, too. So, I think it is important
that they acknowledge the expectations, but they also set the level of expectation
realistically for the entire group that's going through it.
Father 1, a public-school administrator, noted that one reason students in the OL program may
have had a different kind of expectation was because they were a different kind of student. With
many of the OL program’s students being leaders in the private sector, they may have been less
familiar or tolerant of processes and procedures commonplace in academia.
I would have cohort members who would say things and I'm like, "Yeah, that's not how
that works." Maybe some of us in education, maybe we get it. We get how a large,
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

190
bureaucratic, academic organization works. And sometimes that's not pretty and
sometimes that's a bit of a mess, and that's the way it goes sometimes.
Father 14 also made note of how OL students differed from the profile of the traditional graduate
student. In his opinion, this difference was part of what contributed to the strength of the OL
program.
At this level – when you're talking terminal degrees and our program in particular, which is
not made exclusively of 25-year-olds or 30-year-olds – we have folks that span a much
wider demographic, and we bring a much more mature perspective to our educational
processes. A lot of us are self-starters. A lot of us are very, very in tune with what we need,
what we expect. So, the program needs to be responsive to that if it looks to keep
capturing that demographic, which I think is the ideal demographic for this degree
program.
Ultimately, as Father 13 noted, interview participants generally saw the meeting of students’
expectations as a balancing act between maintaining the integrity of a high-level professional
doctorate program and meeting the expectations of its non-traditional students.
It depends on the expectations of the students and whether or not they're reasonable and
relative. The school has to have standards. They have to say, "This is what the program is."
But, at the same time, they need to understand who their students are. They need to
understand that students are full-time students, they need to respect [students’] time and
really evaluate the work that they want [students] to do. And if it's not valuable, and if it's
not important to achieving the instructional goal, then they shouldn't assign it. So, I think
it's a balance.
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

191
These findings provided a context for survey results, both with purposefully sampled
population and the OL population at-large. The findings and results confirmed that doctoral
programs meeting the expectations of their students was essential to doctoral completion and that
OL students felt this component was being sufficiently addressed by the OL program.
Document Analysis Findings. This assumed influence was not assessed by document
analysis.
Influence Summary. Survey results and findings from interviews with members of the
stakeholder group of focus corroborated the research. Furthermore, data collected by survey and
interview indicated that the organization was adequately addressing this assumed influence and
there was no organizational gap needing intervention. A gap in this assumed influence was,
therefore, not validated.
Assumed Organizational Influence 9: The organization reasonably supports and
accommodates students facing financial hardship
Survey Results. This assumed influence was assessed by one Likert scale item on the
survey (Q18a: My doctoral program is supportive of students dealing with financial hardship).
The response scale was Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree. The item yielded a
response rate of 79% (55 of 70).
Of the 55 responses submitted, 60% (33 of 55) responded that they either disagreed or
strongly disagreed with the statement. Two participants (4%) submitted a response of Strongly
Agree (see Figure 4.46 for full results).

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

192
Figure 4.46. Survey results for Q18a: My doctoral program is supportive of students dealing
with financial hardship

Figure 4.47. Working fathers’ survey results for Q18a: My doctoral program is supportive of
students dealing with financial hardship

Examining the results from surveys completed exclusively by working fathers with at least one
child under the age of 18, the results were slightly more affirmative. The response rate among the
23 working fathers was 78% (18 of 23). Of the 18 responses submitted, 50% (9 of 18) agreed
18.18%
41.82%
36.36%
3.64%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Q18a: My doctoral program is supportive of students
dealing with financial hardship
(n=55)
5.56%
38.89%
50.00%
5.56%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Working Fathers' Responses to Q18a: My doctoral
program is supportive of students dealing with financial
hardship
(n=18)
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

193
with the statement. Seven participants (39%) submitted a response of Disagree (see Figure
4.47 for full results).
Interview Findings. This assumed influence was not assessed by interview.
Document Analysis Findings. This assumed influence was assessed by reviewing the
website for University X’s office of financial aid.
OL students were provided with minimal literature or guidance on how to secure funding
for their doctoral program; the university appeared to expect to procure funding for their
academic program on their own during the application process. Template emails from the office
of financial aid began being sent to OL students shortly after confirmed intent of enrollment was
received by the university, informing students if forms were needed, the status of application
reviews, etc. The website for the office of financial aid had a page dedicated to graduate and
professional students with general information outlining program costs, confirmations to be
received once funding was secured by the university, and FAQs.
A downloadable PDF handbook was the only source to specifically state who qualified
for federal financial aid/loans (relevant to a program with a global student body), as well as
defined the options of scholarships, fellowships, work-study, and teaching assistance ships. But
there was no guidance on where to how to apply for any of the above-listed options.
Specific to students in the OL program and programs like it (whose programs include a
third term/summer session each year), there was no notice of how federal aid loans obtained for
the academic year were affected by year-round study. Numerous students with no previous
summer-session experience failed to realize that, in step with a fiscal calendar, summer session
was the first term of an academic loan period. Additionally, communications from the university
collections office indicated holds were placed on student accounts if the amount borrowed per
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

194
term differed from an updated tuition cost (i.e. if loan amounts were established in summer
with 2015-2016 tuition rates but fall term saw an increase for the 2016-2017 academic year).
This led to multiple students having holds placed on their academic records and prohibiting
registration for future courses until the necessary paperwork and/or funding could be secured.
Once enrolled in the OL program, students received information regarding grants or
scholarships available from OL administrators one to two times per calendar year.
Influence Summary. A gap in this study’s survey was exposed as data were not
collected from participants to evaluate the importance of the organization supporting and
accommodating students facing financial hardship – thus, it was not possible to determine if the
data corroborated the research. Despite this, data collected by survey indicate that either A) the
organization was failing to adequately address this assumed influence or B) failing to effectively
inform students of the resources available to them. The result, then, was an organizational gap
needing intervention. A gap in this assumed influence was, therefore, validated.
Assumed Organizational Influence 10: The organization is responsive to categorical
conditions that may affect student persistence and attrition (student age, gender, race,
ethnicity, marital status, parental status, etc.)
Survey Results. This assumed influence was not assessed by survey.
Interview Findings. This assumed influence was assessed by one semi-structured, open-
ended questions (Q23: How important is it for a doctoral program to be sensitive to the
categorical conditions that may affect student success?). Of the 14 interview participants, eight
of 14 (57%) stated that it was important for doctoral programs to be sensitive to categorical
conditions that may affect student success.
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

195
Like most interview participants, Father 13 believed that doctoral programs have an
obligation to be sensitive to students’ categorical conditions if they claim to value diversity and
the varying perspectives bound to surface in a professional doctoral program. Part of his opinion,
it seemed, was shaped by first-hand knowledge of a fellow student’s challenges in attending
class.
I remember one student in my class, my cohort who I had a lot of classes with was in Abu
Dhabi and she would wake up at 4:30 in the morning to go to class, and it was
unbelievable, just her dedication and determination. So, I think it's important that if you're
going to have somebody who's an English teacher in Abu Dhabi who's waking up at 4:30
in the morning to go to class, that there needs to be an additional level of understanding
that's not necessarily available to me, who's in New Jersey. I think if you're going to value
that diversity and the various backgrounds and all the different things that make students
valuable, I think it's important to be considerate of them. There's a line – at some point,
you have to say, "This is when it's due," or "This is what we need." But I think it's a true
mark of a good program when you value the students and what they bring to the table and
you work with them within the constraints of the system.
Father 12 viewed communication regarding challenges arising from categorical conditions as a
joint effort, stating that accountability applies to both students and the program if the student is
to be successful.
I think it's a co-responsibility. If I sign up for something like this, I need to know what I'm
getting myself into, and what's required, and I need to accept accountability on that. But I
think the school also needs to say, "We are casting a wide net," and in some ways, "We
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

196
need to have the responsiveness or sensitivity to that wide net that we cast, and be able
to address [people’s needs]."
Among the small minority was Father 1, who did not believe it incumbent upon the program to
adjust to the needs of the student. Father 1 viewed challenges arising from categorical conditions
as challenges for the student to overcome and part of the doctorate-earning process if the student
was aware of those barriers when starting the program.
The program is the program. I think it's incumbent upon me, the student, to look at the
program. The program shouldn't be all-consuming in your life. That's not realistic and that's
not appropriate. That’s on me as the student. I shouldn't move next to the airport and
complain about the noise. Planes were landing long before I moved there. I think that's
more incumbent upon the student quite honestly. I need to know that. I need to get my
ducks in a row. I need to have that conversation with my family. I need to evaluate my life
and where I am.
The findings failed to confirm that sensitivity to categorical conditions was perceived as
vital to doctoral completion.
Document Analysis Findings. This assumed influence was assessed by reviewing the
following documents and protocols of University X’s OL program:
Various course syllabi. All course syllabi reviewed for this assumed influence contained
sections outlining brief descriptions of various support systems and methods of contacting them.
Among those support systems listed were:
Student counseling services. Available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, offering free and
confidential mental health treatment for students (including short-term psychotherapy, group
counseling, stress fitness workshops, and crisis intervention).
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

197
National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. Provides free and confidential emotional
support to people in suicidal crisis or emotional distress 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Relationship and sexual violence prevention service. Available 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week, this service offers free and confidential therapy services, workshops, and training for
situations related to gender-based harm.
Sexual assault resource center. For information about how to get help or help a survivor,
rights, reporting options, and additional resources.
Office of Equity and Diversity and Title IX Compliance. Works with faculty, staff,
visitors, applicants, and students around issues of protected class.
Bias assessment response and support. Incidents of bias, hate crimes, and
microaggressions need to be reported allowing for appropriate investigation and response.
The Office of Disability Services and Programs (DSP). Provides certification for students
with disabilities and helps arrange relevant accommodations.
Student support and advocacy. Assists students and families in resolving complex issues
adversely affecting their success as a student (ex: personal, financial, and academic).
OL Student Handbook. The student handbook provided to OL students at the onset of
their program refers to student counseling services providing a broad range of quality mental
health programs. Additionally, University X’s student counseling services can aid with referral to
off-campus mental health professionals, long-term, or specialty care.
Influence Summary. Findings from interviews with members of the stakeholder group
of focus failed to corroborate the research regarding the importance of this assumed influence.
Despite this, document analysis indicated that the organization was adequately addressing this
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

198
assumed influence and there was no organizational gap needing intervention. A gap in this
assumed influence was, therefore, partially validated.
Assumed Organizational Influence 11: The program’s assignments are structured such
that doctoral students can complete their program in a reasonable amount of time (TTD)
Survey Results. This assumed influence was assessed by one Likert scale item on the
survey (Q18b: I believe it is possible to earn my doctorate in a reasonable amount of time
through this program). The response scale was Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly
Agree. The item yielded a response rate of 96% (67 of 70).
Of the 67 responses submitted, 97% (65 of 67) responded that they either agreed or
strongly agreed with the statement. One participant (1%) submitted a response of Strongly
Disagree (see Figure 4.48 for full results).
Figure 4.48. Survey results for Q18b: I believe it is possible to earn my doctorate in a reasonable
amount of time through this program

1.49% 1.49%
52.24%
44.78%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Q18b: I believe it is possible to earn my doctorate in a
reasonable amount of time through this program
(n=67)
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

199
Figure 4.49. Working fathers’ survey results for Q18b: I believe it is possible to earn my
doctorate in a reasonable amount of time through this program

Examining the results from surveys completed exclusively by working fathers with at least one
child under the age of 18, the results were slightly more affirmative. The response rate among the
23 working fathers was 100%. Of the 23 responses submitted, 100% were in the affirmative, as
48% (11 of 23) responded that they agreed with the statement and 52% (12 of 23) that they
strongly agreed with the statement (see Figure 4.49 for full results).
Interview Findings. This assumed influence was assessed by one semi-structured, open-
ended questions (Q19: How important is it that your doctorate can be earned in a reasonable
amount of time?). Findings generated by Q19 supported the survey results. Of the 14 interview
participants, 100% stated that being able to earn their doctorate in a reasonable amount of time
was important to them.
The challenge of an open-ended program was voiced by most interview participants.
Reasons varied, whether family-based or profession-based. In general, the idea of not being able
0.00% 0.00%
47.83%
52.17%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Working Fathers' Responses to Q18b: I believe it is
possible to earn my doctorate in a reasonable amount of
time through this program
(n=23)
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

200
to know how much time and resource would be needed to complete the doctorate was too
strong of a deterrent. As Father 5 shared:
I couldn't do eight years and sign up for a program that would just ... I don't know what life
would look like in eight years. Most people that are in a program have a pretty good view
of two to three, maybe four, years mapped out. But beyond that, I would never have
signed up if it were a wandering program that didn't have a defined end time.
Father 14 identified multiple results of prolonged TTD as motivation for enrolling in a doctoral
program with a shorter timeframe.
I have many friends that are ABD or who are just strictly out of time, out of money, out
of interest. So, the notion that you could complete a degree program within five years
is an essential requirement for me, it's not a negotiable.
While both Father 5 and Father 14 mentioned commonly-cited reasons for wanting to avoid a
prolonged doctoral program, both also had teenage children in their homes. For fathers with
younger children, the length of program and timing of enrollment appeared to be important for
additional reasons. Father 3 shared:
The nature of it being completed in that three-year time frame was good for me because
I really wanted to finish it. That allowed me to finish it before our son starts kindergarten.
It gave me a little bit time with him hopefully between graduation and when he starts.
That was a huge factor for me because I didn't really want to draw it out.
Father 4 shared Father 5’s objective of completing his doctoral program before the demands of
school could interfere with his being present for his son.
I was very strategic on why I [started my doctoral program] at this time. It was not ideal. I
have a young son. When I started this program, he was two. He's going to be five in a
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

201
month. I just started a brand-new job. It was not the greatest timing, but I looked at this
and I said, "Well, if I get this done, I'm done in two and a half years, really. Three years to
graduate." I'm done before he's five, before his life is going to start to control my life rather
than my schedule control his schedule. So, I took the opportunity to do this now and to say,
"Here's my little sliver of time that I can make this work for me."
These findings provided a context for survey results, both with purposefully sampled
population and the OL population at-large. The findings and results confirmed that being able to
earn the doctorate in a reasonable amount of time was vital to doctoral completion and that OL
students felt this component was being sufficiently addressed by the OL program.
Document Analysis Findings. This assumed influence was assessed by reviewing the
following documents and protocols of University X’s OL program:
Online program description. The Ed.D. in OL was described on University X websites
as requiring 60 units of coursework and can be completed in three to four years. Students who
held a master’s degree could be admitted with advanced standing and were required to take 43
units over the course of three years to complete the program. The OL program offered three start
dates throughout the calendar year (January, May, and September).
OL Student Handbook. The student handbook provided to OL students at the onset of
their program outlined the unit requirement for completion of the Ed.D. in OL. The section read
that the doctorate requires 60 units and could be completed in three to four years. A maximum of
17 credit hours could be forgiven through advanced standing with a previously earned master’s
degree, which allowed students to complete the degree coursework over three years. Students
who did not hold a master’s degree but had acceptable work and leadership experience were
required to complete the full 60 units of coursework over four years.
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

202
Various course syllabi. Multiple course syllabi reviewed for this assumed influence
contained sections declaring dissertation components as being embedded into the coursework.
Course assignments were to be used as a foundation for parts of the dissertation once revised and
expanded from semester to semester.
Influence Summary. Survey results and findings from interviews with members of the
stakeholder group of focus corroborated the research regarding the importance of this assumed
influence. Furthermore, data collected by survey, interview, and document analysis indicated that
the organization was adequately addressing this assumed influence and it appeared that there was
no organizational gap needing intervention. A gap in this assumed influence was, therefore, not
validated.
Summary of Results and Findings for Organization Influences
Data revealed performance gaps in multiple assumed organizational influences affecting
doctoral completion. Among those influences validated and needing intervention were: the
monitoring of the relationship between DC and doctoral student to ensure a positive and
productive relationship; providing adequate opportunities for social integration; the need to
communicate necessary information to students accurately and in a timely fashion; reasonably
supporting students facing financial hardship. Failing to adequately address these influences may
result in increased doctoral attrition from the OL program, including among working fathers
pursuing the doctorate.
Summary
The study validated seven of the assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational
barriers affecting the ability of doctoral students who are fathers to complete their academic
programs. Addressing these influences would close the performance gap and contribute to
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

203
increased retention and completion rates among working fathers pursuing their doctorate.
The data indicated that many of these influences could be addressed by the organization directly,
indicating that cultural settings and models are tantamount to the success of doctoral students.
The next chapter identifies and presents research-based recommendations for solutions to
closing the knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps affecting working fathers’ ability to
earn their doctorates.
Table 19
Complete List of Influences and Determination of Validation

Assumed Knowledge Influence Validated
Factual
Students understand that balancing doctoral studies with family
responsibilities, and other relationships, is a significant challenge
No

Students know what they want to accomplish by enrolling in a
doctoral program
No
Conceptual
Students understand the negative effects of role-overload on their
ability to achieve their academic goals
No

Students understand the relationship between poor work-life
balance and conditions such as: burn-out; increased cognitive
difficulties; and reduced levels of health, energy, and well-being
No
Procedural
Students know how to utilize effective personal competencies
(stress management methods, coping skills, support systems, time
management skills, organizational skills, etc.)
No
Metacognitive
Students monitor the risk factors and stress levels that may
contribute to their doctoral attrition
Yes
Assumed Motivation Influence Validated
Expectancy-
Value Theory –
Intrinsic Interest
Students need to possess an intrinsic interest in pursuing, and see
the value in completing, their doctoral program No
Expectancy-
Value Theory –
Attainment
Value
Students prioritize academic work and dedicate sufficient time to
studying and research
Yes
Self-Efficacy
Theory
Students believe they are capable of successfully balancing their
work, school, and life responsibilities
No
Expectancy-
Value Theory –
Cost
Students believe that foregoing other activities to create more
time for academic work is worth it Yes
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

204
Assumed Organizational Influence Validated
The organization sufficiently scaffolds student skills related to
conducting research for the dissertation writing process
No
The organization has processes and resources in place to support
students’ sense of identity, self-efficacy
Partially
The organization has processes in place to monitor the degree to
which students have productive relationships with their
dissertation chairs
Yes
The organization ensures that students are provided adequate
opportunities for social integration
Yes
The organization ensures that the program design and structure
are amenable to the lifestyle of its doctoral students
(distance/online program vs. traditional, cohort model, scheduling
flexibility, etc.)
No
The organization ensures that the curricular content is appropriate
for its student body (accounting for adult learning needs, relevant
material, etc.)
No
The organization has procedures in place to communicate
necessary information to students accurately and in a timely
manner
Yes
The organization reasonably meets students’ expectations of the
program
No
The organization reasonably supports and accommodates students
facing financial hardship
Yes
The organization is responsive to categorical conditions that may
affect student persistence and attrition (student age, gender, race,
ethnicity, marital status, parental status, etc.)
Partially
The program’s assignments are structured such that doctoral
students can complete their program in a reasonable amount of
time (TTD)
No

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

205
CHAPTER FIVE
RECOMMENDATIONS WITH INTEGRATED IMPLEMENTATION
AND EVALUATION PLANS
In the previous chapter, the first research question was addressed regarding the factors
influencing the ability of doctoral students who are fathers to complete their academic programs.
Results were presented within Clark and Estes’ (2008) framework of knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences. Key findings were summarized, and
implications stated. This chapter addresses the second research question:
2. What are the recommended solutions for closing the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational gaps affecting working fathers’ ability to earn their doctorates?
Context-specific recommendations for knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
solutions are provided, followed by an integrated implementation and evaluation plan of
solutions that incorporates the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Chapter Five closes with a review of the strengths and weaknesses of the study, limitation and
delimitations, and recommendations for future study.
Recommendations for Addressing Validated KMO Influences
Knowledge Component Overview
In his revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy, Krathwohl (2002) divided the Knowledge dimension into
four categories:
1) Factual knowledge addresses the basic elements that a student would learn to become
acquainted with a subject (terminology, basic details or elements)
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

206
2) Conceptual knowledge is concerned with the relationships between elements,
enabling them to function together (i.e. knowledge of classifications and categories,
principles and theories)
3) Procedural knowledge is knowing how to do something and may include subject-
specific skills, techniques, or procedures
4) Metacognitive knowledge, adding a distinction that was not widely recognized at the
time of the original taxonomy’s creation, involves knowledge of cognition as well as
awareness and knowledge of one’s own cognition
Attempting to address knowledge and skill influences that may negatively affect working
fathers’ ability to complete their doctoral program requires proper classification of the
knowledge influences into one of these four categories. Beyond validating an influence, it is
necessary to understand the type of influence to accurately identify and propose appropriate
recommendations.
Knowledge Recommendations. The knowledge influences in Table 20 represent the complete
list of knowledge influences with a performance gap validated by this study. Additionally, Table
20 identifies the knowledge influences by type and includes evidence-based recommendations
based on theoretical principles.
Table 20
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Knowledge Influence Validated Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Doctoral students must be
aware of the risk factors
(inclusive of prolonged
high-stress levels) present in
Yes The use of
metacognitive strategies
facilitates learning
(Baker, 2006).
Provide education to
improve metacognition
via self-assessment, self-
monitoring and increase
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

207
their lives that can lead to
doctoral attrition.
(Metacognitive)

Modeling to-be-learned
strategies or behaviors
improves self-efficacy,
learning, and
performance (Denler,
Wolters, & Benzon,
2006).
self-regulation

Metacognitive knowledge recommendations. Doctoral students must be aware of the
risk factors present in their lives that can lead to doctoral attrition (metacognitive). Baker (2006)
found that the use of metacognitive strategies facilitates learning. Additionally, modeling to-be-
learned strategies or behavior(s) has been found to improve self-efficacy, learning, and
performance (Denler, Wolters, & Benzon, 2006). This would suggest that providing doctoral
students with opportunities to develop self-regulation strategies would support their learning.
The recommendation for the organization is to provide education to improve metacognition via
self-assessment, self-monitoring, and increase self-regulation.
Several of the negative work-life balance influencers associated with working fathers
suffering from role-overload can also be found in the literature examining doctoral attrition
(consistently elevated stress levels, emotional exhaustion, declining health, etc.). Working
fathers pursuing their doctorates must be able to assess and monitor the negative influencers/risk
factors present in their lives, identify which (if any) are reason for concern, and establish a means
of effectively managing them. As Abrami, Bernard, Bures, Borokhovski, & Tamim (2011)
suggest, cognitive tools and learning strategies may work best when they are an integral feature
of a course or program of study and not an add-on. As such, Abrami et al. (2011) suggest the
evidence-based approach of integrating a self-reflection component that includes self-judgment
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

208
(self-evaluation and casual attribution) and self-reaction (self-satisfaction/affect and
adaptive-defensive responses).
Motivation Component Overview
Motivation is the catalyst that transforms knowledge into action. Motivation is comprised
of three indices: active choice, persistence, and mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda,
2011). Active choice is choosing to pursue one goal instead of another. Persistence is
commitment to an activity over a course of time and in the face of distraction. Mental effort
refers to the work required to generate new learning or knowledge (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda,
2011).
As with knowledge and skills influences, attempting to address motivation influences that
may negatively affect working fathers’ ability to complete their doctoral program requires proper
classification of the influences. Beyond validating an influence, it is necessary to understand the
type of influence to accurately identify and propose appropriate recommendations. The
motivational influences in Table 21 are grounded in the research literature and are framed within
the construct of expectancy-value theory.
Expectancy-Value Theory. Expectancy-value theory stands upon four core attributes
that affect an individual’s motivation: intrinsic interest, attainment value or importance, utility
value or usefulness, and cost (Eccles, 2006; Pintrich, 2003). Three of these four attributes –
intrinsic interest, attainment value or importance, and cost – were relevant to this study. Intrinsic
interest is the internal drive an individual possesses to complete a task; attainment value relates
to the importance of completing a task; and cost is the investment a person must commit to
complete a task (regarding both priorities and effort) (Wigfield & Cambria, 2010).
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

209
Motivation Recommendations. The motivation influences in Table 21 represent the
complete list of motivation influences with a performance gap validated by this
study. Additionally, Table 21 identifies the motivation influences by type and includes
evidence-based recommendations based on theoretical principles.
Table 21
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Motivation Influence Validated Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Students need to prioritize
academic work and dedicate
sufficient time to studying
and research (Expectancy-
Value Theory – Attainment
Value)
Yes Learning and
motivation are
enhanced when
individuals attribute
success or failures to
effort rather than
ability. (Anderman &
Anderman, 2006).
Establish realistic
academic goals and
implement strategies for
achieving them.
Students need to believe that
foregoing other activities to
create more time for
academic work is worth it
(Expectancy-Value Theory –
Cost)
Yes Rationales that include
a discussion of the
importance and utility
value of the work or
learning can help
learners develop
positive values
(Eccles, 2006; Pintrich,
2003).
Establish priorities for
school, family, social,
and work demands.

Expectancy-Value Theory – Attainment Value recommendations. Working fathers
pursuing their doctorate need to prioritize academic work and dedicate sufficient time to
studying and research (Expectancy-Value Theory – Attainment Value). Research by Anderman
and Anderman (2006) found that learning and motivation are enhanced when individuals
attribute success or failures to effort rather than ability. This would suggest that the development
– and, more importantly, implementation – of strategies to achieve intelligently designed
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

210
academic goals would increase attainment value. Therefore, the recommendations are for the
organization to 1) assist in the establishment of realistic academic goals and 2) ensure students
can implement strategies to achieve them.
More than 60% of doctoral students find time management to be challenging (Brill et al.,
2014) and poor time management has been identified as a shortcoming that contributes directly
to doctoral attrition (Allan & Dory, 2001). As a result, failure to dedicate sufficient time to
doctoral studies and research has become a reoccurring negative influence upon doctoral
completion rates in the literature (Allan & Dory, 2001; Brill et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2006).
Spaulding and Rockinson-Szapkiw (2012) find it, then, key for doctoral students to set realistic
goals and implement strategies to reach them.
Expectancy-Value Theory – Cost recommendations. Working fathers pursuing their
doctorates need to believe that foregoing other activities to create more time for academic work
is worth it (Expectancy-Value Theory – Cost). Rationales that include a discussion of the
importance and utility value of the work or learning can help learners develop positive values
(Eccles, 2006; Pintrich, 2003). This would suggest that establishing and/or clarifying priorities
could increase the cost value of a doctorate. The recommendation then is for learners to establish
priorities among school, family, social, and work demands.
If an activity is considered to as having too high of a cost, individuals are less likely to
engage or persist (Wigfield & Cambria, 2015). Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw (2012) found
that doctoral students are faced with considerable decisions regarding the ways in which they
divide their time among doctoral studies and other aspects of life and write that doctoral students
should be prepared to make sacrifices to attend to coursework or to work on their dissertations.
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

211
Allan and Dory (2001) suggest, then, that doctoral students establish priorities among school,
family, social, and work demands as a strategy to assist them towards earning a doctorate.
Organizational Component Overview
Organizational influences are the third and final potential cause for performance gaps.
Clark and Estes (2008) describe organizational barriers as the formal or informal policies,
processes, or resources in the organization adversely affecting performance. Even individuals
with the required knowledge and unparalleled motivation may fail to reach performance goals if
there are organizational barriers in place (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Clark and Estes
(2008) suggest that when the culture of an organization interferes with performance and goal
achievement, making a change to that culture must become an organizational priority.
As with knowledge and motivation influences, attempting to address organizational
influences that may negatively affect working fathers’ ability to complete their doctoral program
requires proper classification of the influences. Beyond validating an influence, it is necessary to
understand the type of influence to accurately identify and propose appropriate
recommendations. The organizational influences in Table 22 are grounded in the research
literature and are framed within the constructs of cultural models and cultural settings.
Cultural models. “Cultural models” refers to the invisible but important shared mental
schema within an organization. Cultural models are dynamic and are so familiar that they are
often unnoticed by those who hold them (Rueda, 2011). In a school or organization, the cultural
model frames the ways in which the organization is structured, including its values, beliefs, and
practices (Rueda, 2011).
Cultural settings. “Cultural setting” refers to the visible, concrete, and measurable
aspects of a social context. Cultural settings are the who, what, when, where, why, and how of the
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

212
routines that constitute everyday life, including plans, policies, procedures, and resources
(Rueda, 2011).
Organizational Recommendations. The organizational influences in Table 22 represent the
complete list of organizational influences with a performance gap validated by this
study. Additionally, Table 22 identifies the organizational influence by type and includes
evidence-based recommendations based on theoretical principles.
Table 22
Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations

Organizational Influence

Validated Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cultural Setting 3: The
organization has processes in
place to monitor the degree
to which students have
productive relationships with
their dissertation chairs
Yes Monitoring
performance of all
staff and students is
correlated with higher
learning outcomes
(Waters, Marzano &
McNulty, 2003).
Have dissertation chairs
trained and calibrated.
Implement mechanisms
for student feedback.
Allow students who
experience poor
relationships or conflict
with dissertation
advisors to change
them.
Cultural Setting 4: The
organization ensures that
students are provided
adequate opportunities for
social integration

Yes Organizational culture
is created through
shared experience,
shared learning and
stability of
membership. It is
something that has
been learned. It cannot
be imposed (Schein,
2004).
Programs must facilitate
positive student and
faculty relationships, as
well as encourage
student cohesiveness.

Cultural Setting 7: The
organization has procedures
in place to communicate
necessary information to
students accurately and in a
timely manner
Yes Adult learners resist
learning when they feel
others are imposing
information, ideas or
actions on them
(Fidishun, 2000).
Delineate what
information will be
helpful to students.
Enable students to
develop cognitive maps
by providing
information in a variety
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

213
of mediums.
Cultural Setting 9: The
organization reasonably
supports and accommodates
students facing financial
hardship
Yes Funding’s impact on
student learning
(Hillman, Tandberg
& Fryar, 2015).
Provide opportunities
for economic
integration to doctoral
students, especially
those pursuing
doctorates in education
who are more likely to
maintain full-time
employment during
studies

Cultural setting – monitoring relationships with dissertation chairs. Doctoral
programs need to have processes in place to monitor the degree to which learners have
productive relationships with their DCs. Monitoring the performance of all staff and students is
correlated with higher learning outcomes (Waters, Marzano & McNulty, 2003). This would
suggest that ensuring DCs are prepared to support students during the dissertation-writing
process and there are procedures in place to review their performance would support doctoral
students’ learning. The recommendations for doctoral programs then are 1) to have dissertation
advisors trained and calibrated, 2) to implement mechanisms for student feedback, and 3) to
allow students who experience poor relationships or conflict with dissertation advisors to change
them.
The DC plays a crucial role in the doctoral student experience, providing subject matter
knowledge, knowledge of the research and writing process, clarification regarding department
and program expectations, and increasing the student’s academic integration; as a result, the
relationship between the DC and doctoral student is a critical predictor for degree completion
(Brill et al., 2014; Devos, Boudrenghein, Van der Linden, Azzi, Frenay, Galand, & Klein, 2016;
Golde, 2005; Grasso, Barry, & Valentine, 2009; Pauley, Cunningham, & Toth, 1999; Smith et
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

214
al., 2006; Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012; West, Gokalp, Pena, Fischer, & Gupton,
2011). Conversely, an incompatible advising relationship may leave doctoral students with a
sense of program mismatch and isolation, problems with committee members, and could result in
increased TTD; these, in turn, leave the doctoral student more susceptible to attrition (Allan &
Dory, 2001; Brill et al., 2014; Golde, 2005; Jairam & Kahl, 2012; Lovitts, 2001; Rockinson-
Szapkiw, 2011; Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012; Wao & Onwuegbuzie, 2011).
Cultural setting – social integration. Doctoral programs need to ensure that doctoral
students are provided adequate opportunities for social integration. Organizational culture is
created through shared experience, shared learning and stability of membership. It is something
that must be learned; it cannot be imposed (Schein, 2004). This would suggest that program-
sponsored opportunities to integrate students and faculty are key to student success. The
recommendation then is for doctoral programs to facilitate positive student and faculty
relationships, as well as encourage student cohesiveness, by means of formal and informal
gatherings.
Feeling a sense of connection and community with faculty and peers is an important
factor in doctoral persistence (Devos, Boudrenghein, Van der Linden, Azzi, Frenay, Galand, &
Klein, 2016; Grasso, Barry, & Valentine, 2009; Lovitts, 2001; Pauley, Cunningham, & Toth,
1999; Smith et al., 2006; Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012; Stallone, 2011; West, Gokalp,
Pena, Fischer, & Gupton, 2011). The absence of a sense of community leaves students with less
support from their peers, increased levels of self-doubt, and an increased chance of leaving the
program prematurely (Brill et al., 2014; Golde, 2005; Lovitts, 2001; Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2011;
Smith et al., 2006; Stallone, 2011). Successful doctorate graduates credit the support they
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

215
received from colleagues as central to their success in the program (Amrein-Beardsley,
Zambo, Moore, Buss, Perry, Painter, & Puckett, 2012).
Cultural setting – communication. Doctoral programs need to have procedures in place
to communicate necessary information to learners accurately and in a timely manner. Fidishun
(2000) found that adult learners resist learning when they feel others are imposing information,
ideas or actions on them. This would suggest accurate and timely communication of important
information would positively affect student learning. The recommendations then are for doctoral
programs to 1) delineate what information will be helpful to students and 2) enable students to
develop cognitive maps by providing information in a variety of mediums.
When a graduate program has a weak communication system in place, it commonly
results in students not understanding what doctoral study entails, how the processes of the
doctoral program work, or how to navigate the program effectively – leaving students more
likely to depart from the program without a degree (Brill et al., 2014; Lovitts; 2001; Rockinson-
Szapkiw, 2011; Smith et al., 2006; Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012; Stallone, 2011; Wao
& Onwuegbuzie, 2011). When students move through a program that fails to satisfactorily
answer their questions or respond to their expressed needs, they become frustrated, can
experience a sense of helplessness, feel disconnected from the program, and may begin to
question whether the program is a proper match for their plans and goals (Smith et al., 2006).
When students perceive a mismatch between their goals and program, or when they lack
adequate information about a process and expectations (especially in a series of occurrences),
they are more likely to withdraw from the program (Lovitts, 2001; Spaulding & Rockinson-
Szapkiw, 2012).
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

216
Cultural setting – financial support. Doctoral programs need to support and
accommodate students facing financial hardship. Research has outlined funding’s impact on
student learning (Hillman, Tandberg & Fryar, 2015). This would suggest that providing
resources for students facing financial hardship would positively affect their persistence and
learning. The recommendation then is for doctoral programs to provide opportunities for
economic integration to their students, especially those pursuing doctorates in education (who
are more likely to maintain full-time employment during studies).
Challenges related to finances are a hefty influence upon the decision to leave a doctoral
program prematurely (Allan & Dory, 2001; Brill et al., 2014; Grasso, Barry, & Valentine, 2009;
Lovitts, 2001; Pauley, Cunningham, & Toth, 1999; Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012,
Stallone, 2011; West, Gokalp, Pena, Fischer, & Gupton, 2011). Lovitts (2001) found that 20%
of doctoral students cited financial reasons for their premature program departure. Irrespective of
program type, students who self-finance are less likely to persist to the end of their program
(Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012).
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
This implementation and evaluation plan is informed by the New World Kirkpatrick
Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), a revision of the Don Kirkpatrick’s original Four
Level Model of Evaluation. The original model defined four levels of professional training
evaluation as outlined in Figure 5.1.
The revised model reverses the order of the sequential levels, allowing for increased
focus on end results, improved connection of results to planning and implementation, and

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

217
Figure 5.1. The Kirkpatrick Model (1959)

Source: Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016
Figure 5.2. The New World Kirkpatrick Model

Source: Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

218
avoidance of the common error of overemphasis on the first two levels (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016) (see Figure 5.2). Additionally, the reverse order of the New World
Kirkpatrick Model allows for the development of solution outcomes that focus on assessing work
behaviors, the identification of indicators that learning occurred during implementation, and the
emergence of indicators that participants are satisfied with implementation strategies
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
By focusing on results and the collective efforts of all parties, the New World Kirkpatrick
Model creates a framework with increased probability of both participant investment and goal
attainment.
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
University X is a private, not-for-profit research university founded in the late 1800s with
a mission to develop human beings and society by cultivating and enriching the human mind and
spirit. The university seeks to fulfill this mission, in part, with the offerings made available
through its nationally ranked School of Education (SOE). The SOE is a graduate school offering
four doctorates; among them is the Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) in Organizational Leadership
(OL). The Ed.D. in OL is designed for individuals who currently hold or are seeking leadership
positions within higher education, K-12 schools and systems, private firms, nonprofits, and/or
government organizations. Research finds that approximately half of all individuals who begin
doctoral studies will fail to earn their degree; the rate of attrition is believed to be higher among
Ed.D. students. Additionally, research finds that working fathers are increasingly suffering from
burnout and role-overload as they increase their contributions to raising their children and
domestic duties while maintaining the high levels of responsibility at work. This study examined
the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational causes influencing the ability of
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

219
doctoral students who are working fathers to complete their academic programs. The
proposed recommendations and implementation and evaluation plans should contribute to the
desired outcome – an on-time completion rate of 100% among University X’s Ed.D. on OL
students.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 23 shows the proposed Level 4 outcomes, metrics and methods for both external
and internal outcomes. If the internal outcomes are achieved due to organizational support,
training, and information, then the external outcomes should also be realized.
Table 23

Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

Outcome Metric(s) Method
External Outcomes
Improved doctoral student
understanding of the challenges
encountered while attempting to
balance doctoral studies with
work, family, and other
relationships/ commitments
The number of hours
dedicated to discussing
challenges to doctoral
completion, as identified in
current research
Prospective student/pre-
program orientation followed
by annual workshops
reviewing the demands and
challenges of doctoral studies
Increased doctoral student
awareness of the negative effects
of role-overload
The number of already-
experienced role-overload
consequences identified on
individual student surveys
Annual workshop reviewing
the importance of work-life
balance and effects of role-
overload
Increased doctoral student
confidence in ability to
successfully balance work,
school, and life responsibilities
The number of students who
successfully reach program
milestones on schedule
Intra-program milestones on a
cognitive map of the program,
presented at orientation
Internal Outcomes
Improved students’ skills
related to conducting research
and the dissertation writing
process
The number of hours
dedicated to research
methodology and writing for
academic purpose
Coursework specifically
designed to develop academic
writing skills
Improved student satisfaction
with chair relationships
The positive/negative
responses to surveys
evaluating student experience
Provide comprehensive
training and support for
dissertation chairs
Increased sense of community
among students
The attendance rate among
students at various types of
Coordinate regular program-
sponsored social events
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

220
program-sponsored social
events
Improved accuracy and
timeliness of important
information communicated to
students
The positive/negative
responses to program
administration emails made
by students
Administrators will solicit
student responses to emails
relaying information from
program administration to the
student listserv

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick (2016) define critical behaviors as the
few key behaviors that have been identified as the most important to achieving success and, if
performed consistently by the primary stakeholder group, will have the biggest impact on the
desired results. The stakeholders of focus are OL students, specifically those OL students who
are working fathers. The first critical behavior is that working fathers pursuing their doctorates
must ensure that personal resources are being used optimally in support of academic success.
The second critical behavior is that they must monitor negative influences (i.e. risk factors)
present in their lives that may contribute to doctoral attrition. The third critical behavior is that
they must prioritize academic work and dedicate sufficient time to studying and research. The
specific metrics, methods, and timing for each of these outcome behaviors appear in Table 24.
Table 24
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Working Fathers Pursuing their Doctorate
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
Optimal utilization of
personal resources to
support academic
success
The number of skill sets
identified as effective
support systems on
asynchronous module
assessments
Asynchronous modules
examining a set of relevant
skills (i.e. stress
management methods,
time management skills,
organizational skills, note
taking skills, etc.) with end
assessments
Each academic
term
Monitoring of
personal doctoral
attrition risk factors
The number of risk
factors identified on
student risk-factor
inventories
Administration of risk
factor inventories to
students by program
administration
Each academic
term
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

221
Prioritization of
academic work and
dedication of
sufficient time to
studying and research
The number of hours
dedicated to doctoral
studies and research
Students track the hours
spent on academic work
and make critical
reflections in end-of-term
assignments
Each academic
term

Required drivers. OL students, specifically those OL students who are working fathers,
will need the support of their DCs and doctoral program to successfully apply new information,
training, and tools as well as to feel supported in sustaining these critical behaviors. This will
require a combination of organizational drivers in the form of support (to reinforce, encourage,
and reward critical behaviors) and accountability (to monitor and ensure new behaviors are
applied and maintained). Table 25 lists the recommended drivers to support the sustainability of
critical behaviors for doctoral students who are working fathers.
Table 25
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors of Working Fathers Pursuing their Doctorates
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
Reinforcing

Learning aids outlining skills sets and coping methods
supported by research (stress management, time
management, etc.)
Each academic term 1, 2, 3
Checklists, inventories, and results of surveys and
assessments to increase self-awareness of performance
Each academic term 1, 2, 3
Advisory meetings to support academic progress Each academic term 1, 2, 3
Reminders on shared calendars of important dates and
deadlines
Ongoing 1, 3
Encouraging

Feedback and coaching on optimizing skill sets and
coping methods supported by research
Ongoing 1, 3
Feedback and coaching on navigating identified risk-
factors that may lead to doctoral attrition
Ongoing 2, 3
Rewarding

Recognition for improved academic performance on
asynchronous assessments evaluating use of skills sets and
coping methods supported by research
Ongoing 1
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

222
Recognition for timely completion of program milestones
and deadlines
Ongoing
1, 2, 3
Recognition for requests for assistance and/or additional
guidance in sustaining a critical behavior
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Monitoring

Advisory meetings to support academic progress Each academic term 1, 2, 3
Advisee interviews to monitor academic progress, areas of
concern
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Surveys to monitor student self-efficacy, stress levels,
areas of concern
Each academic term 1, 2, 3

Organizational support. To adequately support OL students (and improve doctoral
retention and completion rates at University X), the University’s School of Education (SOE) will
need to implement the drivers in full and as scheduled. It is recommended that the SOE utilize a
Student Progression Plan (SPP), to be maintained by academic advisors and reviewed by
program leadership each academic term. The plan would include a log of individual drivers,
timing, completion, and results. This method of accountability would demonstrate adoption of
the New World Kirkpatrick Model’s commitment to Levels 3 and 4.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Following completion of the recommended solutions, most notably the
SPP, the student will be able to:
1. Identify personal challenges he may have in balancing doctoral studies with family
responsibilities, work, and other relationships (Factual knowledge)
2. Monitor personal risk factors that may contribute to doctoral attrition
(Metacognitive knowledge)
3. Create a plan to ensure sufficient time for academic work (Attainment Value)
4. Value his academic work over other activities (Cost)
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

223
Program. The learning goals will be achieved with an SPP that allows doctoral
programs to adequately monitor and support their students during their academic program. The
SPP would also help learners (doctoral students) develop skills to further enhance their chances
of program completion, as they study and discuss a range of topics pertaining to both doctoral
attrition and completion. The SPP is blended, consisting of both asynchronous online work as
well as advisory meetings and workshops.
During the online asynchronous modules (to be provided each term throughout the
academic program), learners will be provided access to lectures and learning aids to help assess
risk factors and develop personal skillsets. Lectures will be prerecorded, introducing the subject,
outlining its importance, and detailing the risk factors of failing to manage it as an influence or
the importance of developing and optimally utilizing the skill during the learner’s doctoral
program. Lectures will end with the introduction of an asynchronous assignment (a
comprehension check, survey, inventory, or an assessment). These evaluation tools will allow
learners to better understand and assess their resources and risk factors. In conjunction with the
prerecorded lecture, learners will be provided with learning aids. Learning aids will include
additional material related to the subject matter, reviewing topics such as coping methods (stress
management, work-life balance) and organizational skills (prioritizing, scheduling, time
management). Data collected from evaluation tools will be forwarded to the learner’s academic
advisor and/or DC for review, creating an opportunity for measured feedback and counsel.
Advisory meetings and workshops may be conducted either individually or with a subset
of students to encourage cohort support and sense of community. During the advisory meetings
and workshops, the focus will be on: assessing if learners have applied what was learned
asynchronously; providing feedback on academic performance and progress; providing
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

224
recognition for academic performance, improvement, and/or progress; providing guidance
through upcoming program requirements and deadlines; and monitoring areas of concern.
Components of learning. Based on the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016), there are five components involved in Level 2 learning: knowledge, skills,
attitude, confidence, and commitment.
Table 26 lists the evaluation methods and timing used for incorporating the learning
components throughout the course of the student progression plan.
Table 26
Components of Student Progression Plan (SPP)
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks, reading comprehension checks (multiple
choice)
Each academic term, in the
asynchronous work during and
after lectures
Knowledge checks through written assessment (open-ended,
short answer questions)
Each academic term, at the end
of the asynchronous module
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
During asynchronous work using scenarios with multiple-
choice items
Each academic term, at the end
of the asynchronous module
Students demonstrate procedural skill by working with
examples and case studies to create plans to address needs or
deficiencies
Each academic term, in the
asynchronous work during and
after lectures
Quality of the student feedback during advisory meetings Each academic term, during
meetings with academic advisors
Individual application of the skills and methods in support of
their own academic success
Each academic term, during
meetings with academic advisors
Retrospective pre- and post-test surveys asking learners
about their knowledge and confidence levels before and after
each module
Each academic term, before and
after the asynchronous module
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Advisors’ observation of students’ statements and actions
demonstrating that students see the benefit of what they are
being asked to do for their academic program
Each academic term, during
meetings with academic advisors
Discussions of the value of what students are being asked to
do for their academic program
Each academic term, during
meetings with academic advisors
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

225
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Survey items using scaled items Each academic term, at the end
of the asynchronous module
Discussions following practice and feedback Each academic term, during
meetings with academic advisors
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Discussions following practice and feedback Each academic term, during
meetings with academic advisors
Create an individual action plan to sustainably use newly
learned skills and methods for the remainder of their doctoral
program
Each academic term, during
meetings with academic advisors
Monitor student progress and see if they stay on schedule for
program completion
Each academic term, ongoing

Level 1: Reaction
Assessing learners’ reactions to training is important to assessing the overall success of
the training. Kirkpatrick (2016) recommended including strategically timed appraisals during the
training (referred to as pulse checks). Students’ reactions to the SPP will be measured, based on
three criteria: engagement, relevance, and student satisfaction. Engagement is key to ensuring
that students are learning and immersed in the coursework and discussions. Relevance is
necessary, else learners fail to find a reason to engage with the material or persist. Finally,
student satisfaction reflects the overall feeling that students have towards the SPP. Table 27
indicates the methods and timing for Level 1 evaluation of the SPP to be implemented at
University X.
Table 27
Components to Measure Reactions to the Student Progression Plan (SPP)
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Completion of asynchronous work and attendance to
advisory meetings
Each academic term, ongoing
Data analytics from asynchronous module (survey and
inventory results, knowledge check results)
Ongoing, after each term’s
asynchronous module
Observation by academic advisor Each academic term, during meetings
with academic advisors
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

226
Content evaluation After each term’s asynchronous
module, in module assessment(s)
Relevance
Pulse check with students via survey (online) After each term’s asynchronous
module, in module assessment(s)
Pulse check with students via discussion with academic
advisor (ongoing)
Each academic term, during meetings
with academic advisors
Content evaluation After each term’s asynchronous
module, in module assessment(s)
Student Satisfaction
Pulse-check with students via survey (online) After each term’s asynchronous
module, in module assessment(s)
Pulse-check with students via discussion with
academic advisor (ongoing)
Each academic term, during meetings
with academic advisors
Content evaluation After each term’s asynchronous
module, in module assessment(s)
Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. Throughout the asynchronous
coursework, the LMS will collect data about the completion of asynchronous modules by
students, which will indicate the Level 1 engagement with the asynchronous module content.
Each asynchronous module will conclude with a survey/module evaluation, which will measure
Level 1 engagement/interest in the content, student perception of course material relevance, and
student satisfaction with the learning experience. The evaluations will also measure students’
Level 2 learning by inquiring about newly acquired knowledge and skills, as well as by gathering
input regarding students’ attitudes towards the value of what was presented, their sense of
confidence after the asynchronous module, and their commitment to applying what was learned.
During the academic advisory meetings, the advisor will document attendance and
observe participation to measure Level 1 engagement, as well as conduct pulse-checks by asking
students about asynchronous module content relevance and any barriers to learning. Level 2
learning will be evaluated using factual, conceptual, and procedural knowledge checks during
advisory meetings. Level 2 attitudes will be measured throughout advisory meetings via advisor
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

227
observation of students’ statements and actions demonstrating their perception of the value of
what is being presented. Finally, Level 2 confidence and commitment will be evaluated in
discussion with students during advisory meetings. Attitudes, confidence, and commitment will
also be assessed in a post-advisory meetings survey. Appendix H shows sample Level 1 and 2
rating items, like those that would be included in surveys administered after asynchronous
modules and advisory meetings.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. University X’s SOE
leadership will administer a survey to students at the end of students’ first academic term,
approximately eight-to-ten weeks after the implementation of the SPP, and then again at the
same point in time each subsequent academic term. This survey will contain scaled and open-
ended items using the Kirkpatrick Blended Evaluation approach (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016) to measure students’ retrospective perspective of asynchronous module relevance and
satisfaction (Level 1), attitude towards asynchronous content (Level 2), application of
asynchronous content to addressing concerns related to doctoral attrition (Level 3), and the
extent to which their application of asynchronous module content has contributed to doctoral
retention in support of larger organizational goals (Level 4). Appendix I shows examples of
Blended Evaluation items that address all four Kirkpatrick levels as well as tie back to results
and leading indicators previously listed in Table 23 and the required drivers to support doctoral
students’ critical behaviors listed in Table 25.
Data Analysis and Reporting
A blended approach to analyzing and reporting key performance indicators (KPIs) will be
used, drawing upon Level 4 Results and Leading Indicators and Level 3 Critical Behaviors listed
previously in Tables 23 and 24, respectively. Table 28 lists each of the KPIs to be measured, as
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

228
well as metrics, the frequency of reporting, and graphic representation in a dashboard. The
dashboard will serve as a tool to communicate the status of KPIs with OL administrators and
leadership, as well as other relevant stakeholders as a means of internal accountability. A
prototype of the dashboard representation for one of the KPI listed, Student satisfaction with
DCs, is shown following Table 28.
Table 28
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for Internal Reporting and Accountability
Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs)
Metric(s) Frequency Dashboard Representation
Student awareness of the
negative consequences of
role-overload/burnout
Number of negative
consequences
experienced, as
reported by
students
Each
academic term
Infographic (Summary of Self-
Reported Negative
Consequences), Line chart
(Longitudinal Tracking of Self-
Reported Consequences),
Infographic (Program-wide
Summary of Self-Reported
Negative Consequences
Experienced by Students)
Student satisfaction with
dissertation chairs
Positive/negative
responses to
surveys
Annually Bar chart (Program-wide
Student Satisfaction Ratings),
Donut chart (Student
Satisfaction Ratings)
Sense of community
among students
Attendance rates
at program-
sponsored events
Annually Bar chart (Event Attendance,
Year by Year)
Accuracy and timeliness
of important information
communicated to
students
Positive/negative
student responses
to program emails
Each
academic term
Table (Student Responses to
Administrative
Communications)
Students’ self-
monitoring of risk
factors contributing to
doctoral attrition
Number of risk
factors
reported/identified
on student risk-
factor inventories
Each
academic term
Table (Self-Identified Risk
Factors Contributing to
Doctoral Attrition),
Infographic (Self-Identified
Risk Factors Contributing to
Doctoral Attrition)
Prioritization of
academic work
Number of hours
dedicated to
academic work, as
reported by
Each
academic term
Bar chart (Hours Dedicated to
Academic Work), Line chart
(Hours Dedicated to
Academic Work – Term by
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

229
students Term)

Prototype KPI Dashboard Representation
Student Satisfaction Ratings

Overall, are you satisfied with the quality of your relationship with your dissertation chair?

Summary
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (2016) was used as the framework for developing
this study’s recommended solutions, implementation strategies, and evaluation plan to
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
The overall quality of your relationship with
your dissertation chair
The timeliness of dissertation chair
responses
Dissertation chair availability
The quality of support from your
dissertation chair
The quality of dissertation chair feedback
Program-wide Student Satisfaction with
Dissertation Chairs
Are you satisfied with
Yes No
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

230
maximize the likelihood of improving doctoral completion rates among working father
pursuing an Ed.D. in Organizational Leadership (OL) at University X. The advantage of the
reverse application of Kirkpatrick’s (1958) original model is its focus on results and outcomes
(Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 2016). This results-driven focus strengthens the integration of all
methods and metrics. Furthermore, ongoing formative data collection throughout and after
implementation of solutions provides flexibility to adjust intervention strategies, as needed.
Thus, the New World Kirkpatrick Model affords University X’s Ed.D. in OL program optimal
conditions for a positive return on investment for implemented solutions.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
Any methodological approach comes with strengths and weaknesses. For this study,
using the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework was a strength in identifying numerous
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences negatively affecting working fathers’
ability to earn their doctorate. Clark and Estes’ integration of the four Kirkpatrick (1998) levels
of evaluation aided in the incorporation of results and findings into fully aligned implementation
and evaluation plans. The application of the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016) placed focus on desired results and outcomes, from which all four levels of
interventions and measurement were developed with support from existing literature and study
findings. This resulted in a comprehensive plan for University X’s OL program to consider for
implementation with formative data allowing for continual modification of solutions.
Potential weaknesses of the study include that, as an organizational case study,
findings and solutions may lack external generalizability, especially in consideration of the fact
that most doctoral programs are neither online nor targeting an audience of working
professionals from all three sectors (for-profit, non-profit, and government). Additionally, given
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

231
the accelerated pace of the OL program and its continued growth, it is unknown whether the
complete portfolio of proposed solutions and evaluation methods can be adopted; if not, this may
lessen the potential positive impact of those implemented.
Limitations
Limitations are defined elements of the study beyond the control of the PI; conversely,
delimitations are elements of the study that are within the control of the PI and/but reflect chosen
restraints placed upon the study (Simon, 2011). Several limitations and delimitations affecting
the findings of this study should be noted. First, to maintain a manageable scope of this study,
only one university (and only one of its doctoral programs) was chosen for data collection.
Therefore, survey results are limited to an online Doctor of Education program and cannot
represent all doctoral programs. Expanding the pool of participants to include multiple online
doctoral programs, multiple doctoral programs offered at the same university, or to doctoral
programs at other universities may have provided a more diverse collection of data and increased
the validity of the study. With that said, other institutions and programs may benefit from the
application of this study’s use of the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis process to improve
program and organization performance. Second, the study was based on a non-traditional
doctoral program. As a professional doctorate being offered online, the Ed. D. in OL differs from
a typical Ph.D. or Ed.D. program, though the requirements are similar. Third, OL students may
not be typical of students in other doctoral programs. The subjects of this study were all
experienced leaders in their respective fields, from both the public and private sectors. While
students in other doctoral programs may have some work experience, it is unlikely that the
typical candidate in other programs is as experienced as OL students. However, OL students may
bear resemblance to other doctoral students in other doctoral programs (especially in schools of
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

232
education) who vary widely in age, have families, and work full-time outside of the
university. Fourth, the sample may prove to be relatively small. Fifth, participation in the study
was voluntary, thereby creating self-selection limitations. Sixth, while the study examined
factors identified in the literature that may influence doctoral attrition, additional variables not
examined by this study (such as psychological and sociological ones) may still be relevant.
Seventh, the study asked students for evaluative opinions and reactions to a doctoral program in
which they are still enrolled. Their opinions may not be informed by the benefit of hindsight or
full reflection upon the degree-earning process. However, it is believed that each of the
participants was far enough into the degree-earning process to comment upon the most
significant influences encountered to date. Eighth, the study occurred at various stages of
fatherhood for participants. While some participants were addressing the needs of a newborn,
others were tending to toddlers or school-age children. Additionally, there was the variable of
fathers with a single child versus those with multiple. Therefore, the demands of fatherhood were
different for each participant, as those with infants may experience more fatigue and sleep
deprivation compared to those with toddlers and school-age children who may have a more
established daily routine. Ninth, the study did not account for any cultural factors that may
influence a participant’s interpretation of his role as a father. University X’s Ed.D. in OL serves
a student body spread around the globe. While the idea of a more-engaged father is becoming
more commonplace in the United States, this may not be the case for fathers rooted in cultures
from other parts of the world or for fathers raised across multiple generations. Tenth, the survey
and interview protocols (available in Appendixes A and D) may have had unintended influences
upon data collection. Both overtly stating that the research study was examining the relationship
between doctoral attrition and a redefined fatherhood, the protocols may have sensitized the
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

233
stakeholder group of focus and/or contributed to a Hawthorne effect. Additionally, it may
have limited quantitative data collection if recipients of the survey believed that the survey was
only applicable to fathers. A more general introduction to the protocols may have avoided these
limitations. Finally, studies incorporating a qualitative tool are vulnerable to researcher bias,
which may manifest among question design, data interpretation, or another segment of the study.
As stated in Chapter Three, the PI himself is employed full-time, is the married father of a
boy/girl set of twins (age 3 at the start of his doctoral program), and pursuing his doctorate; this,
therefore, qualifies the PI to be a member of the stakeholder of focus group. The PI was the only
person involved with coding and interpreting the data, so bias may be present. However,
preventative steps were taken to reduce bias and to ensure that the findings of this study are true,
and representative of the data collected. The data collection process included triangulation, as
multiple sources of data and methods of data collection were used to confirm emerging findings.
Member checks were utilized, as participants could review transcripts from interviews to ensure
accuracy and avoid misinterpretation. This study included a reflexive section accounting for the
role of the investigator, outlining potential researcher assumptions, biases, and his relationship to
the study (which may, or may not, influence the investigation). Findings included rich, thick
descriptions with the intent of better contextualizing the study and (in allowing readers to
determine the extent to which their situation matches the research context) improving the study’s
level of transferability. Finally, information that contradicted the general perspective of an
identified theme was presented to make the researchers’ account more realistic and valid.
Future Study
Recent and historical doctoral attrition and completion studies have primarily examined
traditional residential doctoral programs, programs in which students typically enroll full-time
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

234
and are employed in research labs or elsewhere on campus (if they work at all). This has
resulted in skewed data that failed to adequately address specific influences that may be related
to non-traditional elements in higher education. There has also been little information on how
changes to the roles played by working fathers are leading to increased levels of conflict and an
unhealthy work-life-balance. Thus, doctoral programs would benefit from more study related to
doctoral attrition and influences upon degree completion in terms of non-traditional contexts,
high-risk populations, and responsiveness to retention interventions. Additionally, doctoral
programs would benefit from an examination of how influences upon doctoral completion adjust
when applied to an online degree program.
All doctoral programs would benefit from further study into the role of the dissertation
chair. Often cited as the most crucial direct influencer upon doctoral completion, more critical
analysis and evaluation should be done regarding: how programs select faculty to serve as
dissertation chairs; what the expectations of dissertation chairs are; how dissertation chairs are
trained and/or calibrated with program expectations and each other; how dissertation chairs are
held accountable; how to better facilitate positive relationships among faculty and students; the
needs of dissertation chairs in order for them (and their advisees) to be successful; and if/how
dissertation chairs, themselves, are supported by their programs.
With two partially validated influences upon doctoral attrition, University X would
additionally benefit from deeper study of its doctoral completion rates by examining the role
played by processes and resources intended to support stakeholders’ sense of identity and self-
efficacy as well as the program’s responses to categorical conditions that may affect student
persistence and attrition.

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

235
Conclusion
This study sought to better understand influences upon doctoral attrition in relation to an
evolving definition of fatherhood within the context of University X’s Ed.D. in Organizational
Leadership (OL) program by assessing the knowledge and skill, motivation, and organizational
influences impacting working fathers’ ability to achieve their performance goal of graduating on
time from their doctoral programs. Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis served as the conceptual
and methodological framework for the study. Data analysis revealed evidence of multiple
contributing factors to doctoral attrition present within the OL program and its students.
However, the analysis also found evidence of several contributing factors to doctoral attrition
being addressed and/or mitigated by either the OL program or its students, suggesting that
University X’s OL program should yield above-average completion rates. Survey results and
interview findings of OL students identified several performance gaps, including: doctoral
students failing to self-monitor risk factors and stress levels that may contribute to doctoral
attrition; doctoral students insufficiently prioritizing academic work and dedicating time to
studying and research; doctoral students failing to believe that foregoing other activities to create
more time for academic work is worth it; the organization lacking processes to monitor the
degree to which students have productive relationships with their dissertation chairs; the absence
of adequate opportunities for social integration; deficiencies in communicating information to
students accurately, and in a timely manner; and the organization failing to reasonably support
students facing financial hardship.
This study begins to bridge a gap between the two bodies of research regarding doctoral
attrition and the evolving role of fathers and contributes to a new line of work examining steps to
be taken to improve doctoral completion rates of a high-risk population. The implications of
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

236
these findings point to the risk of continued high doctoral attrition rates, where students
(traditional and non-traditional alike) continue to withdraw from their doctoral programs
prematurely due to lack of knowledge and skills, motivation, or organizational resources. By
implementing the recommended solutions, University X’s OL program may begin to effectively
address contributing factors to doctoral attrition in ways that not only reduce the number of
doctoral drop-outs but also increases the rate of on-time graduation among populations at the
highest risk for attrition.

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

237
References
Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Bures, E. M., Borokhovski, E., & Tamim, R. M. (2011).
Interaction in distance education and online learning: Using evidence and theory to
improve practice. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(2-3), 82-103.
Allan, P., & Dory, J. (2001). Understanding doctoral program attrition: An empirical study.
Amrein-Beardsley, A., Zambo, D., Moore, D. W., Buss, R. R., Perry, N. J., Painter, S. R., . . .
Puckett, K. S. (2012). Graduates respond to an innovative educational doctorate program.
Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 7(1), 98-122.
Anaya, L., Glaros, A., Scarborough, I., & Tami, N. (2009). Single Parenthood and the PhD
Journey. Anthropology News, 50(6), 4-5.
Anderman, E. & Anderman, L. (2006). Attributions. Retrieved from http://www.education.
com/reference/article/attribution-theory/.
Angeline, T. (2011). Managing generational diversity at the workplace: Expectations and
perceptions of different generations of employees. African Journal of Business
Management, 5(2), 249–255.
Astin, A. W. (1975). Financial aid and student persistence. Los Angeles: Higher Education
Research Institute (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 112 804).
Astin, A. W. (1985). Achieving educational excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/article/
metacognition/.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75-78.
Bean, J. P. (1980). Dropouts and turnover: The synthesis and test of a causal model of student
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

238
attrition. Research in Higher Education, 12(2), 155-187.
Bean, J. P. (1981). The synthesis of a theoretical model of student attrition. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, Los Angeles,
CA.
Beauregard, T. A., & Henry, L. C. (2009). Making the link between work-life balance practices
and organizational performance. Human Resource Management Review, 19(1), 9-22.
Berdahl, J.L. & Moon, S. H. (2013). Workplace Mistreatment of Middle Class Workers
Based on Sex, Parenthood, and Caregiving. Journal of Social Issues, 69 (2), 341-366.
Berelson, B. (1960). Graduate education in the United States. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Brill, J. L., Balcanoff, K. K., Land, D., Gogarty, M., & Turner, F. (2014). Best practices in
doctoral retention: Mentoring. Higher Learning Research Communications, 4(2),
26-37.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (2015). Employment Characteristics of
Families – 2014. Retrieved from www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/famee.pdf
Burke, R. (2010). Do managerial men benefit from organizational values supporting
work-personal life balance? Gender in Management: An International Journal, 25(2),
91-99.
Buzzanell, P., & Duckworth, J. (2009). Constructing work-life balance and fatherhood:
Men's framing of the meanings of both work and family. Communication Studies,
60 (5), 558. doi:10.1080/10510970903260392
Castillo, J.T., Welch, G.W., & Sarver, C.M. (2013). The relationship between
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

239
disadvantaged fathers’ employment stability, workplace flexibility, and involvement
with their infant children. Journal of Social Service Research, 39 (3), 380-396.
Doi:10.1080/01488376.2013.775089
Cegarra-Leiva, D., Sanchez-Vidal, M. E., & Gabriel Cegarra-Navarro, J. (2012).
Understanding the link between work life balance practices and organisational outcomes
in SMEs: The mediating effect of a supportive culture. Personnel Review, 41(3), 359-379
Chan, X. W., Kalliath, T., Brough, P., Siu, O., O’Driscoll, M. P., & Timms, C. (2015).
Work–family enrichment and satisfaction: The mediating role of self-efficacy and
work–life balance. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, , 1-22.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions IAP.
Cornell, S., & Hartman, D. (2007). Ethnicity and race: Making identities in a changing world
(pp. 1–40). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Daipuria, P., & Kakar, D. (2013). Work-life balance for working parents: Perspectives and
strategies. Journal of Strategic Human Resource Management, 2(1), 45.
Darcy, C., McCarthy, A., Hill, J., & Grady, G. (2012;2011;). Work–life balance: One size
fits all? an exploratory analysis of the differential effects of career stage.
European Management Journal, 30(2), 111-120. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2011.11.001
Dembo, M., & Eaton, M. J. (2000). Self-regulation of academic learning in middle-level schools.
The Elementary School Journal, 100(5), 473–490.
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

240
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2006). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/.
Devos, C., Boudrenghien, G., Van der Linden, N., Azzi, A., Frenay, M., Galand, B., & Klein,
O. (2017). Doctoral students’ experiences leading to completion or attrition: a matter of
sense, progress and distress. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 32(1),
61-77.
Dowd, A. C., & Shieh, L. T. (2013). Community college financing: Equity, efficiency, and
accountability. The NEA Almanac of Higher Education, 37-65.
Dunn, S. (2014, April 15,). In hindsight: Former Ph.D. students reflect on why they jumped ship.
Chronicle of Higher Education,
Eccles, Jacquelynne. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
Evans, A. M., Carney, J. S., & Wilkinson, M. (2013). Work–life balance for men: Counseling
implications. Journal of Counseling & Development, 91(4), 436-441.
Fidishun, D. (2000). Teaching adult students to use computerized resources: Utilizing Lawler's
keys to adult learning to make instruction more effective. Information technology and
libraries, 19(3), 157.
Furman, J. & Stevenson, B. (2014, June 9). The Changing Role of Fathers in the Workforce and
Family [Government web log post]. Retrieved from
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/06/09/changing-role-fathers-workforce-and-
family
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

241
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45-56.
Gambles, R., Lewis, S., & Rapoport, R. (2006). The myth of work-life balance: The
challenge of our time for men, women and societies (1. Aufl.;1; ed.). Chichester,
England; Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Gardner, S. K. (2009). Student and faculty attributions of attrition in high and low-
completing doctoral programs in the United States. Higher Education, 58(1), 97-112.
Gatrell, C. J., Burnett, S. B., Cooper, C. L., & Sparrow, P. (2013). Work–Life balance and
parenthood: A comparative review of definitions, equity and enrichment. International
Journal of Management Reviews, 15(3), 300-316. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00341.x
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is “right.” In Becoming
qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.) (pp. 162-183). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Goenner, C. F., & Snaith, S. M. (2004). Predicting graduation rates: An analysis of student and
institutional factors at doctoral universities. Journal of College Student Retention:
Research, Theory & Practice, 5(4), 409-420.
Golde, C. M. (2000). Should I stay or should I go? Student descriptions of the doctoral attrition
process. The Review of Higher Education, 23(2), 199-227.
Golde, C. M. (2005). The role of the department and discipline in doctoral student attrition:
Lessons from four departments. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(6), 669-700.
Golden, D. (2006, November 13). Colleges, accreditors seek better ways to measure learning.
The Wall Street Journal, pp. B1, B2.
Grasso, M., Barry, M., & Valentine, T. (2009). A data-driven approach to improving doctoral
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

242
completion. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools [Online]
Http://Www.Cgsnet.Org/Cgs-Occasional-Paper-Series/University-Georgia,
Greenhaus, J. H., Collins, K. M., & Shaw, J. D. (2003). The relation between work–family
balance and quality of life. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(3), 510-531.
Gregory, A., & Milner, S. (2009). Editorial: Work–life balance: A matter of choice? Gender,
Work & Organization, 16(1), 1-13.
Harrington, B., Van Deusen, F., & Fraone, J. (2013). The New Dad: A Work (and Life) in
Progress. Retrieved from Boston College’s Center for Work & Family New Dad
Organization website:
http://www.thenewdad.org/the_new_dad_a_work_and_life_in_progress_2013
Harrington, B., Van Deusen, F., & Humberd, B. (2011). The New Dad: Caring, Committed
and Conflicted. Retrieved from Boston College’s Center for Work & Family website:
http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/centers/cwf/pdf/FH-Study-Web-2.pdf
Heilman, B., Cole, G., Matos, K., Hassink, A., Mincy, R., Barker, G. (2016).
State of America’s Fathers: A MenCare Advocacy Publication. Washington, DC:
Promundo-US.
Hillman, N. W., Tandberg, D. A., & Fryar, A. H. (2015). Evaluating the impacts of
“new” performance funding in higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis. doi: 0162373714560224.
Hughes, J., & Bozionelos, N. (2007). Work-life balance as source of job dissatisfaction and
withdrawal attitudes: An exploratory study on the views of male workers. Personnel
Review, 36(1), 145-154.
Ivankova, N. V., & Stick, S. L. (2007). Students’ persistence in a distributed doctoral
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

243
program in educational leadership in higher education: A mixed methods study.
Research in Higher Education, 48(1), 93.
Jairam, D., & Kahl Jr, D. H. (2012). Navigating the doctoral experience: The role of social
support in successful degree completion. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 7,
311-329.
Johnson, R.B. and Christensen, L.B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches. (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training
evaluation. Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Kirschner, P., Kirschner, F., & Paas, F. (2006). Cognitive load theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/cognitive-load-theory/.
Kurtzleben, D. (2013). Study: Men and women both stressed about work-life balance.
Washington: U.S. News and World Report.
Ladge, J. J., Humberd, B. K., Watkins, M. B., & Harrington, B. (2015). Updating the
organization MAN: An examination of involved fathering in the workplace. The
Academy of Management Perspectives, 29(1), 152-171.
Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the Ivory Tower: The causes and consequences of departure from
doctoral study. Rowman & Littlefield.
Malik, M., Wan, D., Dar, L., Akbar, A., & Naseem, M. A. (2014). The role of work life
balance in job satisfaction and job benefit. Journal of Applied Business Research,
30(6), 1627.
Maxwell, G. A. (2005). Checks and balances: the role of managers in work-life balance
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

244
policies and practices. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 12 (205), 179-
189. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2004.06.002
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
McLaughlin, K., & Muldoon, O. (2014). Father identity, involvement and Work–Family balance:
An in-depth interview study. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 24(5),
439-452.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Metz, G.W. (2004). Challenge and changes to Tinto’s persistence theory: A historical review.
Journal of College Student Retention, 6(2), 191-207.
doi:10.2190/M2CC-R7Y1-WY2Q-UPK5
Pain, Elisabeth. (2017). Ph.D. students face significant mental health challenges. Science. .
10.1126/science.caredit.a1700028.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of educational
research, 66(4), 543-578.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/
Parker, K. & Wang, W. “Modern Parenthood: Roles of Moms and Dads Converge as
They Balance Work and Family.” Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. (March 14,
2013). http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/03/14/modern-parenthood-roles-of-moms-
and-dads-converge-as-they-balance-work-and-family/, accessed on November 3, 2015.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1980). Predicting freshmen persistence and voluntary
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

245
dropout decisions from a theoretical model. Journal of Higher Education, 51, 60-75.
Pauley, R., Cunningham, M., & Toth, P. (1999). Doctoral student attrition and retention: A study
of a non-traditional ed. D. program. Journal of College Student Retention: Research,
Theory & Practice, 1(3), 225-238.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667-686.
Prieto, L. C., Phipps, S. T., & Osiri, J. K. (2011). Linking workplace diversity to organizational
performance: A conceptual framework. Journal of Diversity Management (JDM), 4(4),
13–22.
Raiden, A. B., & Raisanen, C. (2013). Striving to achieve it all: Men and work-family-life
balance in Sweden and the UK. Construction Management and Economics, 31(8),
899-913.
Rehel, E. & Baxter, E. (2015). Men, Fathers, and Work-Family Balance. Retrieved from Center
for American Progress website:
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/report/2015/02/04/105983/men-
fathers-and-work-family-balance/
Robinson Kurpius, S. E., & Stafford M. E. (2006). Testing and measurement: A user-friendly
guide. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J. (2011). Improving doctoral candidates’ persistence in the online
dissertation process.
Roskam I., Raes, M., and Mikolajczak, M., (2017) Exhausted Parents: Development and
Preliminary Validation of the Parental Burnout Inventory. Front. Psychol. 8:163.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00163
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

246
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 Dimensions of Improving Student Performance: Finding the Right
Solutions to the Right Problems. Teachers College Press. 1234 Amsterdam Avenue, New
York, NY 10027.
Salkind, N. J. (2017). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics: Using Microsoft Excel
2016 (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Schein, E. H. (2004). The concept of organizational culture: Why bother? In E. H. Schein, (Ed.),
Organizational culture and leadership (3
rd
ed.). (pp. 3–24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey
Bass.
Schmidt, H. G., Cohen-Schotanus, J., van der Molen, H. T., Splinter, T. A., Bulte, J.,
Holdrinet, R., & van Rossum, H. J. (2010). Learning more by being taught less: a
“time-for-self-study” theory explaining curricular effects on graduation rate and study
duration. Higher Education, 60(3), 287-300.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from http://
www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/.
Simon, M. K. (2011). Dissertation and scholarly research: Recipes for success (2011 Ed.).
Seattle, WA: Dissertation Success, LLC.
Smith, R. L., Maroney, K., Nelson, K. W., Abel, A. L., & Abel, H. S. (2006). Doctoral programs:
Changing high rates of attrition. The Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 45(1), 17.
Spaulding, L. S., & Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J. (2012). Hearing their voices: Factors doctoral
candidates attribute to their persistence. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 7,
199-219.
Stallone, M. N. (2011). Factors associated with student attrition and retention in an
educational leadership doctoral program. Journal of College Teaching & Learning
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

247
(TLC), 1(6)
Tierney, W. G. (1992). An anthropological analysis of student participation in college. Journal
of Higher Education, 63(6), 603-618.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research.
Review of Educational Research, 45, 89-125.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago:
The University of Chicago.
Tinto, V. (2006). Research and practice of student retention: What next? Journal of College
Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 8(1), 1-19.
doi:10.2190/C0C4-EFT9-EG7W-PWP4
Tinto, V., & Cullen, J. (1973). Dropout in higher education. A review and theoretical synthesis
of recent research. New York: Teachers College.
University X. (n.d. – h). Facts and Figures. Retrieved from About Us website.
University X. (n.d. – d). About Us. Retrieved from School of Education website.
University X. (n.d. – b). Common Data Set 2014 – 2015. Retrieved from Uploads website.
University X. (n.d. – e). Ed.D. in Organizational Leadership. Retrieved from Academics website.
University X. (n.d. – j). In Unit 9: Marshaling and Managing Resources: Spring 2016. [Class
lecture video]. Retrieved from EDUC524: Leadership website.
University X. (n.d. – c). Explore Programs by Career Path. Retrieved from School of Education
Programs website.
University X. (n.d. – i). IPEDS Completion Survey, 2014-2015. Retrieved from Uploads
website.
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

248
University X. (n.d. – f). Search results: Rankings. Retrieved from University X search
website.
University X. (n.d. – a). Learn about University X. Retrieved from Graduate Admission website.
U.S. Council of Economic Advisors (2014). Nine Facts About American Families and
Work. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/06/20/white-
house-report-nine-facts-about-american-families-and-work
U.S. News and World Report. (2017). Graduate School Rankings. Retrieved May 20, 2017,
from https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/search?program=top-education-
schools&specialty=&name=&zip=&program_rank=top_50&enrollment-
min=0&enrollment-max=1000&tuition_and_fees-min=5000&tuition_and_fees-
max=50000&sort=&sortdir=
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Higher Education
General Information Survey (HEGIS), "Degrees and Other Formal Awards Conferred"
surveys, 1976-77 and 1980-81; Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
(IPEDS), "Completions Survey" (IPEDS-C:90-99); and IPEDS Fall 2000 through Fall
2013, Completions component. (This table was prepared September 2014.)
Van Gennep, A. (1960). The rites of passage. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wada, M., Backman, C. L., & Forwell, S. J. (2015). Men's discursive constructions of balance in
everyday life. Community, Work & Family, 18(1), 117-133.
Wao, H. O. (2010). Time to the doctorate: Multilevel discrete-time hazard analysis. Educational
Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 22(3), 227-247.
Wao, H. O., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2011). A mixed research investigation of factors related
to time to the doctorate in education. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 6,
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

249
115-134.
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Aurora, CO:
Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
West, I. J. Y., Gokalp, G., Pena, E. V., Fischer, L., & Gupton, J. (2011). Exploring Effective
Support Practices for Doctoral Students' Degree Completion. College Student Journal,
45(2), 310.
Wigfield, A., & Cambria, J. (2010). Expectancy-value theory: Retrospective and prospective.
Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 16, 35-70.

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

250
Appendix A
Survey Instrument Protocol – Sample Group
Dear ,

My name is Juan Garcia, and I am a doctoral candidate in Organizational Change and Leadership
at the University of Southern California. I am conducting a research study as part of my
dissertation, examining the relationship between doctoral attrition and a redefined definition of
fatherhood. Permission to conduct this research has been granted by the Institutional Review
Board at the University of Southern California.

I would greatly appreciate your assistance and cordially invite you to participate in the
study.

If you agree, you will be asked to:
• Complete an anonymous online survey of questions that is anticipated to take no more
than 10 minutes to complete.
• If selected, be willing to participate in a follow-up interview. The interview is voluntary
and anticipated to last approximately 60 minutes. You do not have to answer any
questions that make you feel uncomfortable. You will be asked if the interview can be
recorded; if you do not want the interview to be recorded, handwritten notes will be
taken.

Participation in this study is completely voluntary. Your identity as a participant will
remain confidential throughout and after the study.

If you would like to participate in the study, please begin the study via the link.

If you have any questions, please contact me at GarciaJS@usc.edu or (626) 627-3113.

Thank you in advance for your participation.

Sincerely,

Juan Garcia
Doctoral Candidate – Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

251
Bold text indicates the influence being assessed; this is not visible on the participant
survey

1. Gender
Male
Female

2. Age (Text entry)

3. Which cohort are you currently a member of?
1
2
3

4. Marital status
Single
Married
Divorced
Separated
Other

5. Do you have any children?
Yes
No

6. How old is your child/are your children? (Text entry, only available if ‘Do you have any
children? Yes’ is selected)

7. What is your current employment status?
Employed full-time
Employed part-time
Unemployed
Other

8. How challenging has it been balancing your doctoral studies with work, family, and other
commitments?
Extremely challenging
Very challenging
Moderately challenging
Slightly challenging
Not challenging at all
Students understand that balancing doctoral studies with family responsibilities, and other
relationships, is a significant challenge

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

252
9. Approximately how many hours per week do you dedicate to your doctoral studies?
0-5 26-30
6-10 31-35
11-15 36-40
16-20 41-45
21-25 46-50
Students prioritize academic work and dedicate sufficient time to studying and research

10. Please choose the best answer to complete the following statement: Since starting my
doctoral program, time with my family has
Decreased considerably
Decreased
Generally stayed the same
Increased
Increased considerably
Students prioritize academic work and dedicate sufficient time to studying and research

11. Since starting your doctoral program, approximately how many hours per week do you spend
engaged with your family?
0-5 26-30
6-10 31-35
11-15 36-40
16-20 41-45
21-25 46-50
Students prioritize academic work and dedicate sufficient time to studying and research

12. Please choose the best answer to complete the following statement: Since starting my
doctoral program, the amount of time I spend fulfilling professional/work duties has
Decreased considerably
Decreased
Generally stayed the same
Increased
Increased considerably
Students prioritize academic work and dedicate sufficient time to studying and research

13. Since starting your doctoral program, approximately how many hours per week do you spend
fulfilling your professional/work duties?
0-5 26-30
6-10 31-35
11-15 36-40
16-20 41-45
21-25 46-50
Students prioritize academic work and dedicate sufficient time to studying and research

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

253
14. Please choose the best answer to complete the following statement: Since starting my
doctoral program, the amount of time I spend on commitments other than work and family has
Decreased considerably
Decreased
Generally stayed the same
Increased
Increased considerably
Students prioritize academic work and dedicate sufficient time to studying and research

15. Since starting your doctoral program, approximately how many hours per week do you spend
on commitments other than work and family?
0-5 26-30
6-10 31-35
11-15 36-40
16-20 41-45
21-25 46-50
Students prioritize academic work and dedicate sufficient time to studying and research

16. Please rate how you feel about the following statements.
a. I believe I am capable of successfully balancing work, school, family, and my other
responsibilities.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Students believe they are capable of successfully balancing their work, school, and life
responsibilities

b. Time spent studying will improve my chances of successfully completing my courses.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Students believe that foregoing other activities to create more time for academic work is
worth it

c. Sacrificing time otherwise spent with family, friends, or on myself to have more time for my
academic studies is worth it.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Students believe that foregoing other activities to create more time for academic work is
worth it

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

254
d. My doctoral program provides sufficient training regarding how to conduct research for
the dissertation writing process.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
The organization sufficiently scaffolds student skills related to conducting research for the
dissertation writing process

e. My doctoral program monitors whether students have productive relationships with their
dissertation chairs.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
The organization has processes in place to monitor the degree to which students have
productive relationships with their dissertation chairs

17. Please rate how you feel about the following statements
a. My doctoral program provides opportunities to interact socially with my peers and classmates.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
The organization ensures that students are provided adequate opportunities for social
integration

b. My doctoral program provides opportunities to interact socially with my professors and
advisors.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
The organization ensures that students are provided adequate opportunities for social
integration

c. My doctoral program’s being offered online is a good fit for the students enrolled in the
program.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
The organization ensures that the program design and structure are amenable to the
lifestyle of its doctoral students (distance/online program vs. traditional, cohort model,
scheduling flexibility, etc.)

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

255
d. My doctoral program’s being offered in a cohort model is a good fit for the students
enrolled in the program.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
The organization ensures that the program design and structure are amenable to the
lifestyle of its doctoral students (distance/online program vs. traditional, cohort model,
scheduling flexibility, etc.)

e. The curricular content of my doctoral program is appropriate and applicable.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
The organization ensures that the curricular content is appropriate for its student body
(accounting for adult learning needs, relevant material, etc.)

f. My doctoral program communicates important information to me accurately and in a timely
manner.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
The organization has procedures in place to communicate necessary information to
Students accurately and in a timely manner

18. Please rate how you feel about the following statements.
a. My doctoral program is supportive of students dealing with financial hardship.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
The organization reasonably supports and accommodates students facing financial
hardship

b. I believe it is possible to earn my doctorate in a reasonable amount of time through this
program.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
The program’s assignments are structured such that doctoral students can complete their
program in a reasonable amount of time (TTD)

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

256
c. Overall, my doctoral program has met my expectations.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
The organization reasonably meets students’ expectations of the program

19. A number of survey participants will be asked to participate in a follow-up interview to better
understand their experiences as working fathers pursuing doctorates. If you would be willing to
participate in a follow-up interview, please leave your name and best method of contact in the
box below. (Text entry, only available if ‘Gender? Male’, ‘What is your current employment
status? Employed full-time’, and ‘Do you have any children? Yes’ are selected)
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

257
Appendix B
Survey Reminder – Sample Group
Dear ,

Approximately one week ago you should have received a message asking for your help gathering
data as part of my dissertation and a link to quick survey. As a reminder, my study is examining
the relationship between doctoral attrition and a redefined definition of fatherhood.

As this phase of the data collecting process will be ending soon, I just wanted to send a reminder
asking for your help and participation. The survey link will become inactive at the end of this
week.

Please do not hesitate to contact me at either GarciaJS@usc.edu or (626) 627-3113 if you have
any questions or need any assistance.

Thank you in advance for your participation.

Sincerely,

Juan Garcia
Doctoral Candidate – Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

258
Appendix C
Request for Interview Participation – Purposefully Sampled Population
Dear ,

Thank you for your participation in the survey I sent a few weeks ago. As a follow-up, I would
like to interview you to gain a better understanding of your experiences as a father pursuing his
doctorate. Primarily, I would like to gain a better understanding regarding how you balance your
roles at home, work, and as a student.

The purpose of my study is to examine the relationship between doctoral attrition and a
redefining of fatherhood. Fatherhood today is a much more complex role than it was 50 years
ago, and the added components of fatherhood today may mean that fathers choosing to pursue a
doctorate are at higher risk for attrition (without anyone recognizing it). As a working father
studying for his doctorate, you possess the most valuable information and perspective to this
study.

I would appreciate your volunteering to share your viewpoints and experiences with me as part
of my study. As mentioned before, I will be asking for permission to record the interview (for
accuracy). After the interview, you will have an opportunity to review the transcripts. My
dissertation chair and I are the only people with access to the interviews. If you feel
uncomfortable at any point, you may choose not to answer a question or to discontinue the
interview and withdraw from the study completely. Your identity will be kept confidential,
and a pseudonym will be used in the final report.

If you are willing to participate in an interview, please let me know a few days and hours that
may work best to speak with you (anticipating about an hour for the interview). I will be trying
to accommodate schedules to complete all interviews over the course of the next month, or so –
so there is ample flexibility if you are not immediately available.

Thank you, again, for all your help.

Sincerely,

Juan Garcia
Doctoral Candidate – Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

259
Appendix D
Interview Protocol – Purposefully Sampled Population
Name:

Location of Interview:

Date/Time of Interview Start:

Introduction

Thank you for meeting with me today. This interview is being conducted as part of my
dissertation research examining the relationship between doctoral attrition and a redefined
definition of fatherhood. I anticipate needing approximately an hour of your time today and have
approximately 30 questions for you to consider.

As a reminder – your participation is completely voluntary. We can skip any questions you want
at any time, and you may stop the interview at any time. Any identifiable information gathered
during this interview (or at any other point of this study) will remain confidential. Your
responses will be coded with a pseudonym and maintained separately from your answers.

If you are comfortable with all of this, I would now like to ask for your permission to record our
conversation. The recording is to help ensure accuracy, and you will have an opportunity to
review the transcripts. Are you comfortable if I record the conversation?

Do you have any questions before we get started?

Ready to begin?

Bold text indicates the influence being assessed; this is not verbalized during the interview

Purpose
1.What were your reasons for initially considering a doctorate?
Students need to possess an intrinsic interest in pursuing, and see the value in completing,
their doctoral program

2.What do you hope to accomplish by earning a doctorate?
Students know what they want to accomplish by enrolling in a doctoral program

3a. What are some of the personal competencies a person must possess to be a successful
doctoral student?

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

260
3b. How important is it for a doctoral student to capitalize on personal competencies or
characteristics that could help him during his academic program?
(Both) Students know how to utilize effective personal competencies (stress management
methods, coping skills, support systems, time management skills, organizational skills, etc.)

Perspective and Awareness
4a. How would you define “role-overload”?
Students understand the relationship between poor work-life balance and conditions such
as: burn-out; increased cognitive difficulties; and reduced levels of health, energy, and
well-being

4b. Follow-up: What do you think some of the symptoms of role-overload would be for a
doctoral student?
Students understand the negative effects of role-overload on their ability to achieve their
academic goals

5.Do you believe that you may have demonstrated any of these symptoms/consequences?
Students monitor the risk factors and stress levels that may contribute to their doctoral
attrition

Time Distribution and Change
6.How difficult has it been for you to balance work, family, school, and other commitments?
Students understand that balancing doctoral studies with family responsibilities, and other
relationships, is a significant challenge

7.How has the time commitment required of your doctoral studies impacted your ability to
interact with your family?
Students believe that foregoing other activities to create more time for academic work is
worth it

8.Since starting your doctoral program, how do you manage stress and maintain a sense of work-
life balance?
Students monitor the risk factors and stress levels that may contribute to their doctoral
attrition

9.Approximately how many hours per week do you dedicate to your doctoral studies?
Students prioritize academic work and dedicate sufficient time to studying and research

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

261
10. How important do you think it is for doctoral students to prioritize their academic work
and dedicate sufficient time to research and studies?
Students prioritize academic work and dedicate sufficient time to studying and research

11. How do you feel about the impact that your doctoral studies have on other aspects of your
life?
Students believe that foregoing other activities to create more time for academic work is
worth it

12.Do you feel those sacrifices have been worth it?
Students believe that foregoing other activities to create more time for academic work is
worth it

Doctoral Program Opinions
13.To what degree was program design relevant to your choosing your doctorate program
(specifically, the program being offered online, in a cohort model, and being applicable to both
public and private sector organizations)?
The organization ensures that the program design and structure are amenable to the
lifestyle of its doctoral students (distance/online program vs. traditional, cohort model,
scheduling flexibility, etc.)

14. How important is it for doctoral programs to provide training in how to conduct research for
the dissertation writing process?
The organization sufficiently scaffolds student skills related to conducting research for the
dissertation writing process

15.How important is it for doctoral programs to monitor the degree to which students have
positive, productive relationships with their dissertation chairs?
The organization has processes in place to monitor the degree to which students have
productive relationships with their dissertation chairs

16. How important is it for doctoral programs to provide opportunities for social engagement and
integration for their students?
The organization ensures that students are provided adequate opportunities for social
integration

17. How important is curricular content is to student persistence?
The organization ensures that the curricular content is appropriate for its student body
(accounting for adult learning needs, relevant material, etc.)

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

262
18.Do you believe that your program’s design is appropriate for the student body?
The organization ensures that the program design and structure are amenable to the
lifestyle of its doctoral students (distance/online program vs. traditional, cohort model,
scheduling flexibility, etc.)

19. How important is it that your doctorate can be earned in a reasonable amount of time?
The program’s assignments are structured such that doctoral students can complete their
program in a reasonable amount of time (TTD)

20. How important is it for your doctoral program to communicate necessary information
accurately and in a timely manner?
The organization has procedures in place to communicate necessary information to
students accurately and in a timely manner

21. How important is it for doctoral programs to meet the expectations of their students?
The organization reasonably meets students’ expectations of the program

22.How important is it for a doctoral program to have mechanisms in place to develop students’
self-efficacy?
Follow-up: Does your program have any?
The organization has processes and resources in place to support students’ sense of
identity, self-efficacy

23. How important is it for a doctoral program to be sensitive to the categorical conditions that
may affect student success (age, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, etc.)?
Follow-up: Do you feel yours program is sensitive to these conditions?
The organization is responsive to categorical conditions that may affect student persistence
and attrition (student age, gender, race, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, etc.)

24.As a working father, is there anything you wish the program knew from your perspective?

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

263
Appendix E

Information/Facts Sheet for Exempt Non-Medical Research

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

EXAMINING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should
ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between doctoral attrition and a
redefined fatherhood. Fatherhood today is a much more complex role than it was 50 years ago,
and the added components of fatherhood today may mean that fathers choosing to pursue a
doctorate are at higher risk for attrition.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete an online survey of
questions that is anticipated to take no more than 10 minutes to complete; select participants will
be asked to participate in a follow-up interview. The interview is anticipated to last
approximately 60 minutes. You do not have to answer any questions that make you feel
uncomfortable. You will be asked if the interview can be recorded; if you do not want the
interview to be recorded, handwritten notes will be taken.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate. Your relationship with the Rossier School of Education will
not be affected whether you participate or not in this study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained during this study will remain confidential. Participants’
responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and maintained separately. The
researcher will collect demographic information, such as race, gender, age, etc. that will be
connected to the false names. Two copies of interviews, as well as their transcription and coding,
will be stored on a password-protected laptop as well as a secured cloud-based location. Two
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

264
years after the study has been completed, all copies of interviews, transcripts, and identifiable
information will be destroyed.

The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research
studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

When the results of the research are published, or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the study, please contact:

Principal Investigator
Juan Garcia
Telephone: (626) 627-3113
Email: GarciaJS@USC.edu

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

265
Appendix F

Quantitative Survey Item Summaries

Q1 - Gender

Answer % Count
Male 47.14% 33
Female 52.86% 37
Total 100% 70

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

266

Q3 - Which cohort are you currently a member of?

Answer % Count
1 24.29% 17
2 32.86% 23
3 42.86% 30
Total 100% 70

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

267
Q4 - Marital Status

Answer % Count
Single 15.71% 11
Married 70.00% 49
Divorced 12.86% 9
Separated 0.00% 0
Other 1.43% 1
Total 100% 70

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

268
Q5 - Do you have any children?

Answer % Count
Yes 75.36% 52
No 24.64% 17
Total 100% 69

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

269
Q7 - What is your current employment status?

Answer % Count
Employed full-time 92.75% 64
Employed part-time 2.90% 2
Unemployed 2.90% 2
Other 1.45% 1
Total 100% 69

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

270
Q8 - How challenging has it been balancing your doctoral studies with work, family,
and other commitments?

Answer % Count
Extremely challenging 37.68% 26
Very challenging 46.38% 32
Moderately challenging 10.14% 7
Slightly challenging 1.45% 1
Not challenging at all 4.35% 3
Total 100% 69

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

271
Q9 - Approximately how many hours per week do you dedicate to your doctoral
studies?

Answer % Count
0 - 5 5.88% 4
6 - 10 19.12% 13
11 - 15 10.29% 7
16 - 20 27.94% 19
21 - 25 16.18% 11
26 - 30 14.71% 10
31 - 35 2.94% 2
36 - 40 2.94% 2
41 - 45 0.00% 0
46 - 50 0.00% 0
Total 100% 68
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

272

Q10 - Please choose the best answer to complete the following statement: Since starting my
doctoral program, time with my family has:

Answer % Count
Decreased considerably 33.82% 23
Decreased 51.47% 35
Generally stayed the same 13.24% 9
Increased 1.47% 1
Increased considerably 0.00% 0
Total 100% 68

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

273
Q11 - Since starting your doctoral program, approximately how many hours per week
do you spend engaged with your family?

Answer % Count
0 - 5 17.65% 12
6 - 10 23.53% 16
11 - 15 19.12% 13
16 - 20 5.88% 4
21 - 25 7.35% 5
26 - 30 17.65% 12
31 - 35 1.47% 1
36 - 40 1.47% 1
41 - 45 2.94% 2
46 - 50 2.94% 2
Total 100% 68
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

274
Q12 - Please choose the best answer to complete the following statement: Since starting
my doctoral program, the amount of time I spend fulfilling professional/work duties has:

Answer % Count
Decreased considerably 5.88% 4
Decreased 25.00% 17
Generally stayed the
same
45.59% 31
Increased 13.24% 9
Increased considerably 10.29% 7
Total 100% 68

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

275
Q13 - Since starting your doctoral program, approximately how many hours per week
do you spend fulfilling your professional/work duties?

Answer % Count
0 - 5 2.94% 2
6 - 10 1.47% 1
11 - 15 0.00% 0
16 - 20 2.94% 2
21 - 25 1.47% 1
26 - 30 4.41% 3
31 - 35 0.00% 0
36 - 40 11.76% 8
41 - 45 16.18% 11
46 - 50 58.82% 40
Total 100% 68
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

276
Q14 - Please choose the best answer to complete the following statement: Since starting
my doctoral program, the amount of time I spend on commitments other than work and
family has:

Answer % Count
Decreased considerably 46.27% 31
Decreased 37.31% 25
Generally stayed the same 11.94% 8
Increased 4.48% 3
Increased considerably 0.00% 0
Total 100% 67

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

277
Q15 - Since starting your doctoral program, approximately how many hours per week
do you spend on commitments other than work and family?

Answer % Count
0 - 5 58.82% 40
6 - 10 23.53% 16
11 - 15 4.41% 3
16 - 20 7.35% 5
21 - 25 1.47% 1
26 - 30 1.47% 1
31 - 35 0.00% 0
36 - 40 1.47% 1
41 - 45 0.00% 0
46 - 50 1.47% 1
Total 100% 68
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

278
Q16 - Please rate how you feel about following statements:
Question
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
Total
I believe that I am capable of
successfully balancing work,
school, family, and my other
obligations
1.49% 1 11.94% 8 58.21% 39 28.36% 19 67
Time spent studying will improve
my chances of successfully
completing my courses
0.00% 0 5.97% 4 40.30% 27 53.73% 36 67
Sacrificing time with family,
friends, or spent on myself to
have more time for my academic
studies is worth it
5.97% 4 25.37% 17 49.25% 33 19.40% 13 67
My doctoral program has
provided sufficient training
regarding how to conduct
research for the dissertation
writing process
7.58% 5 9.09% 6 56.06% 37 27.27% 18 66
My doctoral program monitors
whether students have productive
relationships with their
dissertation chairs
38.81% 26 43.28% 29 16.42% 11 1.49% 1 67

Q17 - Please rate how you feel about the following statements:
Question
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
Total
My doctoral program provides
opportunities to interact socially
with my classmates and peers
7.46% 5 22.39% 15 52.24% 35 17.91% 12 67
My doctoral program provides
opportunities to interact socially
with my professors and advisors
19.40% 13 53.73% 36 25.37% 17 1.49% 1 67
My doctoral program's being
offered online is a good fit for the
students enrolled in the program
1.54% 1 1.54% 1 50.77% 33 46.15% 30 65
My doctoral program's being
offered in a cohort model is a
good fit for the students enrolled
in the program
1.54% 1 1.54% 1 55.38% 36 41.54% 27 65
The curricular content of my
doctoral program is appropriate
and applicable
2.99% 2 8.96% 6 65.67% 44 22.39% 15 67
My doctoral program
communicates important
information to be accurately and
in a timely manner
14.93% 10 19.40% 13 58.21% 39 7.46% 5 67

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

279
Q18 - Please rate how you feel about the following statements:
Question
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
Total
My doctoral program is
supportive of students dealing
with financial hardship
18.18% 10 41.82% 23 36.36% 20 3.64% 2 55
I believe it is possible to earn my
doctorate in a reasonable amount
of time through this program
1.49% 1 1.49% 1 52.24% 35 44.78% 30 67
Overall, my doctoral program
has met my expectations
7.46% 5 10.45% 7 50.75% 34 31.34% 21 67

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

280
Appendix G

Quantitative Survey Results

Q1 Gender
Q2 Age
Q3 Which cohort are you a member of?
Q4 Marital status
Q5 Do you have children?
Q6 How old is your child/are your children?
Q7 What is your current employment status?
Q8 How challenging has it been balancing your doctoral studies with work, family, and other commitments?
Q9 Approximately how many hours per week do you dedicate to your doctoral studies?
Q10 Since starting my doctoral program, time with my family has
Q11 Since starting your doctoral program, approximately how many hours per week do you spend engaged with your family?
Q12 Since starting my doctoral program, the amount of time I spend fulfilling professional/work duties has
Q13 Since starting your doctoral program, approximately how many hours per week do you spend fulfilling your professional/work duties?
Q14 Since starting my doctoral program, the amount of time I spend on commitments other than work and family has
Q15 Since starting your doctoral program, approximately how many hours per week do you spend on commitments other than work and family?
Q16a I believe I am capable of successfully balancing work, school, family, and my other responsibilities.
Q16b Time spent studying will improve my chances of successfully completing my courses.
Q16c Sacrificing time otherwise spent with family, friends, or on myself to have more time for my academic studies is worth it.
Q16d My doctoral program provides sufficient training regarding how to conduct research for the dissertation writing process.
Q16e My doctoral program monitors whether students have productive relationships with their dissertation chairs.
Q17a My doctoral program provides opportunities to interact socially with my peers and classmates.
Q17b My doctoral program provides opportunities to interact socially with my professors and advisors.
Q17c My doctoral program’s being offered online is a good fit for the students enrolled in the program.
Q17d My doctoral program’s being offered in a cohort model is a good fit for the students enrolled in the program.
Q17e The curricular content of my doctoral program is appropriate and applicable.
Q17f My doctoral program communicates important information to me accurately and in a timely manner.
Q18a My doctoral program is supportive of students dealing with financial hardship.
Q18b I believe it is possible to earn my doctorate in a reasonable amount of time through this program.
Q18c Overall, my doctoral program has met my expectations.
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

281

PARTICIPANT Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9
1 Male 49 3 Married Yes 13 and 16 Employed full-time Very challenging 21 - 25
2 Male 37 3 Married Yes 7 and 3 Employed full-time Very challenging 11 to 15
3 Female 42 2 Single Yes 15 Employed full-time Very challenging 21 - 25
4 Male 41 3 Married Yes 7 Employed full-time Extremely challenging 6 to 10
5 Female 48 2 Married Yes 10 and 6 Unemployed Extremely challenging 0 - 5
6 Female 61 1 Divorced Yes 26 and 24 Employed full-time Very challenging 21 - 25
7 Female 41 3 Married No Employed full-time Very challenging 31 - 35
8 Male 36 3 Single No Employed full-time Very challenging 0 - 5
9 Male 33 3 Married No Employed full-time Extremely challenging 11 to 15
10 Male 35 3 Married Yes 8, 5, 3 Employed full-time Moderately challenging 0 - 5
11 Male 57 3 Married Yes 34 and 30 Employed full-time Extremely challenging 26 - 30
12 Female 34 2 Married Yes 2 and 5 Employed full-time Extremely challenging 16 - 20
13 Male 37 3 Divorced Yes 9 and 4 Employed full-time Very challenging 6 to 10
14 Male 35 3 Married Yes 7, 9, and 11 Employed full-time Very challenging 21 - 25
15 Female 54 3 Married Yes 21 and 23 Employed full-time Very challenging 11 to 15
16 Female 57 1 Married No Employed full-time Very challenging 26 - 30
17 Male 33 3 Married Yes 3 and 7 mos Employed full-time Extremely challenging 6 to 10
18 Male 1 Married No Employed full-time Extremely challenging
19 Male 46 1 Married Yes 12 and 15 Employed full-time Very challenging 6 to 10
20 Male 58 1 Divorced Employed full-time Moderately challenging 11 to 15
21 Female 42 2 Married Yes 6 and 9 Employed full-time Very challenging 6 to 10
22 Male 30 3 Married Yes 11 and 7 Employed full-time Extremely challenging 6 to 10
23 Male 37 2 Married Yes 3 and 6 Employed full-time Very challenging 11 to 15
24 Male 43 1 Married Yes 15 and 7 Employed full-time Not challenging at all 31 - 35
25 Female 56 1 Married Yes 27 and 24 Employed full-time Very challenging 26 - 30
26 Female 47 2 Married Yes 22 and 23 Employed full-time Extremely challenging 16 - 20
27 Female 28 3 Single No Employed full-time Extremely challenging 16 - 20
28 Female 47 2 Single No Employed full-time Very challenging 6 to 10
29 Male 42 3 Married Yes 3 Employed full-time Moderately challenging 26 - 30
30 Female 56 1 Divorced Yes 25 Employed full-time Very challenging 21 - 25
31 Female 42 2 Married Yes 20 Yrs, 3.5 yrs, and 22 mos Employed full-time Extremely challenging 16 - 20
32 Female 48 2 Married Yes 14, 17, 18, and 31 Employed full-time Moderately challenging 6 to 10
33 Male 42 1 Single No Employed full-time Very challenging 11 to 15
34 Male 45 2 Married Yes 4 Employed full-time Very challenging 16 - 20
35 Female 45 2 Married Yes 13 Employed full-time Extremely challenging 36 - 40
36 Male 40 3 Married Yes 8 and 6 Employed full-time Very challenging 6 to 10
37 Female 58 2 Other No Employed full-time Very challenging 16 - 20
38 Male 49 2 Married Yes 2 and 14 Employed full-time Very challenging 11 to 15
39 Female 47 3 Married Yes 8 Employed full-time Extremely challenging 21 - 25
40 Female 45 2 Married Yes 19, 17, and 9 mos Employed full-time Extremely challenging 26 - 30
41 Female 62 3 Married Yes 27 and 23 Unemployed Very challenging 21 - 25
42 Female 48 2 Married Yes 15 Employed full-time Very challenging 16 - 20
43 Female 33 1 Married No Employed full-time Extremely challenging 16 - 20
44 Female 58 1 Married Yes
45 Female 1 Married Yes Employed full-time Extremely challenging 16 - 20
46 Female 58 3 Married No Employed full-time Extremely challenging 36 - 40
47 Male 49 3 Married Yes 15 Employed full-time Extremely challenging 16 - 20
48 Male 46 2 Married Yes 12 Employed full-time Not challenging at all 0 - 5
49 Male 38 2 Single No Employed full-time Very challenging 16 - 20
50 Female 37 2 Single No Employed full-time Moderately challenging 16 - 20
51 Female 58 1 Divorced Yes Adults Employed full-time Very challenging 16 - 20
52 Female 47 2 Single Yes 18 Employed full-time Extremely challenging 16 - 20
53 Male 43 1 Divorced Yes 19 and 21 Employed full-time Very challenging 26 - 30
54 Female 60 3 Divorced No Employed full-time Moderately challenging 16 - 20
55 Female 54 3 Married Yes adults Employed full-time Moderately challenging 16 - 20
56 Female 55 1 Married Yes 26 and 28 Employed full-time Extremely challenging 16 - 20
57 Female 39 3 Married Yes 5 and 7 Other Extremely challenging 26 - 30
58 Male 37 3 Single Yes 16 Employed full-time Extremely challenging 21 - 25
59 Male 43 3 Divorced Yes 14 Employed full-time Very challenging 21 - 25
60 Female 33 1 Married Yes 4 and 7 Employed part-time Very challenging 16 - 20
61 Male 66 3 Married Yes 27, 22, and 17 Employed full-time Extremely challenging 26 - 30
62 Female 29 3 Single No Employed full-time Very challenging 6 to 10
63 Female 44 1 Married Yes 12 and 8 Employed full-time Slightly challenging 16 - 20
64 Female 36 2 Divorced Yes 17 and 15 Employed full-time Extremely challenging 26 - 30
65 Male 39 3 Married Yes 10 and 7 Employed full-time Very challenging 26 - 30
66 Male 67 3 Married Yes 31 and 22 Employed part-time Not challenging at all 21 - 25
67 Male 37 3 Married Yes 5 and 5 Employed full-time Very challenging 21 - 25
68 Female 33 2 Single No Employed full-time Extremely challenging 6 to 10
69 Male 29 2 Married No Employed full-time Very challenging 6 to 10
70 Male 40 2 Married Yes 4 and 2 Employed full-time Extremely challenging 6 to 10
Cohort 1 17 Kids 52 Extreme 26
% Cohort 1 24.29% % Kids 74.29% % Extreme 37.14%
Cohort 2 23 No Kids 17 Very 32
% Cohort 2 32.86% % No Kids 24.29% % Very 45.71%
Cohort 3 30 Tot Resp 69 Moderate 7
% Cohort 3 42.86% Resp Rate 98.57% % Moderate 10.00%
Tot Resp 70 Slight 1
Resp Rate 100.00% % Slight 1.43%
Single 11 Not 3
Total Resp 70 % Single 15.71% % Not 4.29%
Male 33 Married 49 Tot Resp 69
Female 37 % Married 70.00% Resp Rate 98.57%
Divorced 9 Full Time 64
Average Age 44.72 % Divorced 12.86% % Full Time 91.43% Mode 16-20
Median 43.00 Separated 0 Part Time 2
Mode 37.00 % Separated 0.00% % Part Time 2.86%
Min 28 Other 1 Unemployed 2
Max 67 % Other 1.43% % Unemployed 2.86%
Range 39 Tot Resp 70 Other 1
Resp Rate 100.00% % Other 1.43%
Tot Resp 69
Resp Rate 98.57%
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

282

PARTICIPANT Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16a Q16b Q16c Q16d PARTICIPANT
1 Decreased 11 to 15 Decreased 36 - 40 Decreased 0 - 5 Agree Agree Agree Agree 1
2 Decreased 26 - 30 Increased considerably 46 - 50 Decreased 16 - 20 Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 2
3 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Increased 41 - 45 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree 3
4 Decreased 11 to 15 Decreased 46 - 50 Decreased 6 to 10 Agree Agree Agree Agree 4
5 Generally stayed the same 46 - 50 Generally stayed the same 46 - 50 Generally stayed the same 46 - 50 Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree Agree 5
6 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Generally stayed the same 46 - 50 Generally stayed the same 0 - 5 Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree 6
7 Decreased 11 to 15 Decreased 36 - 40 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree Agree 7
8 Decreased 0 - 5 Decreased 41 - 45 Decreased 16 - 20 Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Agree 8
9 Decreased considerably 6 to 10 Decreased 41 - 45 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree 9
10 Generally stayed the same 26 - 30 Generally stayed the same 21 - 25 Generally stayed the same 0 - 5 Strongly Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree 10
11 Decreased considerably 41 - 45 Increased 46 - 50 Generally stayed the same 11 to 15 Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree 11
12 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Generally stayed the same 46 - 50 Decreased 0 - 5 12
13 Decreased 6 to 10 Decreased 36 - 40 Decreased 6 to 10 Disagree Agree Agree Agree 13
14 Decreased considerably 11 to 15 Generally stayed the same 46 - 50 Decreased 6 to 10 Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree 14
15 Decreased 6 to 10 Generally stayed the same 46 - 50 Decreased 0 - 5 Agree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree 15
16 Decreased considerably 6 to 10 Generally stayed the same 46 - 50 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Agree Agree Disagree Agree 16
17 Decreased considerably 11 to 15 Decreased 46 - 50 Decreased considerably 6 to 10 Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 17
18 18
19 Decreased 31 - 35 Decreased 41 - 45 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree 19
20 Increased 6 to 10 Generally stayed the same 6 to 10 Generally stayed the same 0 - 5 Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree 20
21 Decreased 11 to 15 Generally stayed the same 46 - 50 Decreased 0 - 5 Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree 21
22 Decreased 26 - 30 Decreased considerably 16 - 20 Decreased considerably 6 to 10 Agree Agree Disagree Agree 22
23 Decreased 26 - 30 Decreased considerably 46 - 50 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Agree Agree Agree Agree 23
24 Generally stayed the same 26 - 30 Generally stayed the same 46 - 50 Decreased considerably 6 to 10 Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree 24
25 Decreased 11 to 15 Generally stayed the same 46 - 50 Decreased 0 - 5 Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree 25
26 Decreased 6 to 10 Increased 46 - 50 Decreased 0 - 5 Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree 26
27 Decreased 0 - 5 Increased 46 - 50 Decreased 6 to 10 Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree Disagree 27
28 Decreased 6 to 10 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Decreased 0 - 5 Disagree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree 28
29 Decreased 21 - 25 Generally stayed the same 41 - 45 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Agree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree 29
30 Decreased considerably 6 to 10 Generally stayed the same 46 - 50 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree 30
31 Decreased considerably 16 - 20 Decreased 46 - 50 Decreased considerably 16 - 20 Agree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree 31
32 Decreased 26 - 30 Generally stayed the same 46 - 50 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Agree Agree Strongly Disagree Agree 32
33 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Increased considerably 46 - 50 Decreased 0 - 5 Agree Disagree Agree Agree 33
34 Decreased 26 - 30 Generally stayed the same 41 - 45 Decreased 6 to 10 Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree 34
35 Decreased 11 to 15 Generally stayed the same 46 - 50 Decreased 0 - 5 Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree 35
36 Decreased considerably 6 to 10 Generally stayed the same 36 - 40 Decreased 0 - 5 Agree Agree Disagree Agree 36
37 Decreased 6 to 10 Generally stayed the same 26 - 30 Decreased 0 - 5 Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree 37
38 Decreased 26 - 30 Increased 46 - 50 Decreased 11 to 15 Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree 38
39 Decreased 16 - 20 Generally stayed the same 46 - 50 Decreased considerably 6 to 10 Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree 39
40 Decreased considerably 11 to 15 Generally stayed the same 46 - 50 Decreased considerably 26 - 30 Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Agree 40
41 Decreased considerably 6 to 10 Decreased 41 - 45 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Agree Agree Agree Agree 41
42 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Increased 46 - 50 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree 42
43 Decreased considerably 21 - 25 Decreased 41 - 45 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree 43
44 44
45 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Increased considerably 46 - 50 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Agree Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree 45
46 Decreased considerably 6 to 10 Decreased 46 - 50 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Agree 46
47 Decreased 21 - 25 Generally stayed the same 46 - 50 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree 47
48 Generally stayed the same 26 - 30 Generally stayed the same 36 - 40 Generally stayed the same 6 to 10 Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree 48
49 Generally stayed the same 11 to 15 Decreased 46 - 50 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Disagree 49
50 Decreased 11 to 15 Increased considerably 46 - 50 Increased 6 to 10 Agree Agree Agree Agree 50
51 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Increased 41 - 45 Increased 16 - 20 Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree 51
52 Decreased 21 - 25 Generally stayed the same 46 - 50 Decreased 6 to 10 Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree 52
53 Decreased 26 - 30 Decreased 26 - 30 Decreased considerably 6 to 10 Agree Agree Agree Agree 53
54 Generally stayed the same 0 - 5 Increased considerably 41 - 45 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree 54
55 Decreased 26 - 30 Generally stayed the same 36 - 40 Decreased 6 to 10 Agree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree 55
56 Decreased 16 - 20 Decreased 46 - 50 6 to 10 Agree Agree Agree Agree 56
57 Decreased considerably 6 to 10 Generally stayed the same 36 - 40 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Agree 57
58 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Decreased 46 - 50 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree Agree 58
59 Decreased 6 to 10 Increased 46 - 50 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree 59
60 Decreased 0 - 5 Generally stayed the same 26 - 30 Decreased 36 - 40 Agree Agree Agree Agree 60
61 Decreased 21 - 25 Increased 46 - 50 Decreased 21 - 25 Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree 61
62 Decreased considerably 11 to 15 Increased considerably 46 - 50 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 62
63 Generally stayed the same 41 - 45 Generally stayed the same 36 - 40 Generally stayed the same 0 - 5 Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree 63
64 Decreased 6 to 10 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Decreased 0 - 5 Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree 64
65 Decreased 36 - 40 Increased considerably 46 - 50 Increased 16 - 20 Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Agree 65
66 Generally stayed the same 11 to 15 Generally stayed the same 16 - 20 Generally stayed the same 11 to 15 Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree 66
67 Decreased 16 - 20 Generally stayed the same 41 - 45 Decreased considerably 6 to 10 Agree Agree Agree Agree 67
68 Decreased considerably 6 to 10 Generally stayed the same 46 - 50 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Disagree Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 68
69 Generally stayed the same 26 - 30 Decreased 46 - 50 Decreased 0 - 5 Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree 69
70 Decreased 46 - 50 Generally stayed the same 46 - 50 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Agree Agree Agree Disagree 70
Dec Con 23 4 31 SD 1 0 4 5 SD
%Dec Con 32.86% 5.71% 44.29% % SD 1% 0% 6% 8% % SD
Dec 35 17 25 D 8 4 17 6 D
% Dec 50.00% 24.29% 35.71% % D 12% 6% 25% 9% % D
Same 9 31 8 A 39 27 33 37 A
% Same 12.86% 44.29% 11.43% % A 58% 40% 49% 56% % A
Inc 1 9 3 SA 19 36 13 18 SA
% Inc 1.43% 12.86% 4.29% % SA 28% 54% 19% 27% % SA
Inc Con 0 7 0 Tot Resp 67 67 67 66 Tot Resp
% Inc Con 0.00% 10.00% 0.00% Resp Rate 96% 96% 96% 94% Resp Rate
Tot Resp 68 68 67
Resp Rate 97.14% 97.14% 95.71%
Mode 6.0-10 Mode 46-50 Mode 0-5
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

283

PARTICIPANT Q16e Q17a Q17b Q17c Q17d Q17e Q17f Q18a Q18b Q18c
1 Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree
2 Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree
3 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree
4 Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree
5 Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Agree Agree
6 Strongly Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree
7 Strongly Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree
8 Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Agree Agree
9 Agree Agree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree
10 Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree
11 Disagree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Agree
12
13 Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Agree Agree
14 Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Agree Agree
15 Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Agree
16 Disagree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Disagree
17 Strongly Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree
18
19 Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree
20 Strongly Disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Agree Agree
21 Strongly Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Disagree
22 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
23 Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree
24 Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree
25 Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree
26 Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree
27 Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Agree
28 Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree
29 Disagree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree
30 Disagree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree
31 Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree
32 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Strongly Disagree Agree Agree
33 Disagree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
34 Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree
35 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree
36 Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree
37 Agree Agree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree
38 Disagree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree
39 Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree
40 Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Strongly Agree Agree
41 Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Disagree
42 Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree
43 Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree
44
45 Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Disagree
46 Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree
47 Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree
48 Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
49 Disagree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree
50 Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Agree
51 Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree
52 Disagree Agree Strongly Disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Agree Agree
53 Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree
54 Disagree Disagree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Agree Agree
55 Disagree Disagree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree
56 Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
57 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Agree
58 Strongly Disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree
59 Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree
60 Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree
61 Agree Agree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree
62 Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
63 Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree
64 Disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree
65 Disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree
66 Agree Agree Strongly Disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree
67 Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree
68 Disagree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly DisagreeStrongly DisagreeStrongly Disagree
69 Disagree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree
70 Disagree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree
SD 26 5 13 1 1 2 10 10 1 5
% SD 39% 7% 19% 2% 2% 3% 15% 18% 1% 7%
D 29 15 36 1 1 6 13 23 1 7
% D 43% 22% 54% 2% 2% 9% 19% 42% 1% 10%
A 11 35 17 33 36 44 39 20 35 34
% A 16% 52% 25% 51% 55% 66% 58% 36% 52% 51%
SA 1 12 1 30 27 15 5 2 30 21
% SA 1% 18% 1% 46% 42% 22% 7% 4% 45% 31%
Tot Resp 67 67 67 65 65 67 67 55 67 67
Resp Rate 96% 96% 96% 93% 93% 96% 96% 79% 96% 96%
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

284
Appendix H

Quantitative Survey Results – Purposefully Sampled Population

Q1 Gender
Q2 Age
Q3 Which cohort are you a member of?
Q4 Marital status
Q5 Do you have children?
Q6 How old is your child/are your children?
Q7 What is your current employment status?
Q8 How challenging has it been balancing your doctoral studies with work, family, and other commitments?
Q9 Approximately how many hours per week do you dedicate to your doctoral studies?
Q10 Since starting my doctoral program, time with my family has
Q11 Since starting your doctoral program, approximately how many hours per week do you spend engaged with your family?
Q12 Since starting my doctoral program, the amount of time I spend fulfilling professional/work duties has
Q13 Since starting your doctoral program, approximately how many hours per week do you spend fulfilling your professional/work duties?
Q14 Since starting my doctoral program, the amount of time I spend on commitments other than work and family has
Q15 Since starting your doctoral program, approximately how many hours per week do you spend on commitments other than work and family?
Q16a I believe I am capable of successfully balancing work, school, family, and my other responsibilities.
Q16b Time spent studying will improve my chances of successfully completing my courses.
Q16c Sacrificing time otherwise spent with family, friends, or on myself to have more time for my academic studies is worth it.
Q16d My doctoral program provides sufficient training regarding how to conduct research for the dissertation writing process.
Q16e My doctoral program monitors whether students have productive relationships with their dissertation chairs.
Q17a My doctoral program provides opportunities to interact socially with my peers and classmates.
Q17b My doctoral program provides opportunities to interact socially with my professors and advisors.
Q17c My doctoral program’s being offered online is a good fit for the students enrolled in the program.
Q17d My doctoral program’s being offered in a cohort model is a good fit for the students enrolled in the program.
Q17e The curricular content of my doctoral program is appropriate and applicable.
Q17f My doctoral program communicates important information to me accurately and in a timely manner.
Q18a My doctoral program is supportive of students dealing with financial hardship.
Q18b I believe it is possible to earn my doctorate in a reasonable amount of time through this program.
Q18c Overall, my doctoral program has met my expectations.
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

285

PARTICIPANT Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 PARTICIPANT
1 Male 49 3 Married Yes 13 and 16 Employed full-time Very challenging 21 - 25 1
2 Male 37 3 Married Yes 7 and 3 Employed full-time Very challenging 11 to 15 2
3 Male 41 3 Married Yes 7 Employed full-time Extremely challenging 6 to 10 3
4 Male 35 3 Married Yes 8, 5, 3 Employed full-time Moderately challenging 0 - 5 4
5 Male 37 3 Divorced Yes 9 and 4 Employed full-time Very challenging 6 to 10 5
6 Male 35 3 Married Yes 7, 9, and 11 Employed full-time Very challenging 21 - 25 6
7 Male 33 3 Married Yes 3 and 7 mos Employed full-time Extremely challenging 6 to 10 7
8 Male 46 1 Married Yes 12 and 15 Employed full-time Very challenging 6 to 10 8
9 Male 30 3 Married Yes 11 and 7 Employed full-time Extremely challenging 6 to 10 9
10 Male 37 2 Married Yes 3 and 6 Employed full-time Very challenging 11 to 15 10
11 Male 43 1 Married Yes 15 and 7 Employed full-time Not challenging at all 31 - 35 11
12 Male 42 3 Married Yes 3 Employed full-time Moderately challenging 26 - 30 12
13 Male 45 2 Married Yes 4 Employed full-time Very challenging 16 - 20 13
14 Male 40 3 Married Yes 8 and 6 Employed full-time Very challenging 6 to 10 14
15 Male 49 2 Married Yes 2 and 14 Employed full-time Very challenging 11 to 15 15
16 Male 49 3 Married Yes 15 Employed full-time Extremely challenging 16 - 20 16
17 Male 46 2 Married Yes 12 Employed full-time Not challenging at all 0 - 5 17
18 Male 37 3 Single Yes 16 Employed full-time Extremely challenging 21 - 25 18
19 Male 43 3 Divorced Yes 14 Employed full-time Very challenging 21 - 25 19
20 Male 66 3 Married Yes 27, 22, and 17 Employed full-time Extremely challenging 26 - 30 20
21 Male 39 3 Married Yes 10 and 7 Employed full-time Very challenging 26 - 30 21
22 Male 37 3 Married Yes 5 and 5 Employed full-time Very challenging 21 - 25 22
23 Male 40 2 Married Yes 4 and 2 Employed full-time Extremely challenging 6 to 10 23
Cohort 1 2 Kids 23 Extreme 7 Dec Con
% Cohort 1 8.70% % Kids 100.00% % Extreme 30.43% %Dec Con
Cohort 2 5 No Kids 0 Very 12 Dec
% Cohort 2 21.74% % No Kids 0.00% % Very 52.17% % Dec
Cohort 3 16 Tot Resp 23 Moderate 2 Same
% Cohort 3 69.57% Resp Rate 100.00% % Moderate 8.70% % Same
Tot Resp 23 Slight 0 Inc
Resp Rate 100.00% % Slight 0.00% % Inc
Single 1 Not 2 Inc Con
Total Resp 23 % Single 4.35% % Not 8.70% % Inc Con
Male 23 Married 20 Tot Resp 23 Tot Resp
Female 0 % Married 86.96% Resp Rate 100.00% Resp Rate
Divorced 2 Full Time 23
Average Age 41.57 % Divorced 8.70% % Full Time 100.00% Mode 6 to 10
Median 40.00 Separated 0 Part Time 0
Mode 37.00 % Separated 0.00% % Part Time 0.00%
Min 30 Other 0 Unemployed 0
Max 66 % Other 0.00% % Unemployed 0.00%
Range 36 Tot Resp 23 Other 0
Resp Rate 100.00% % Other 0.00%
Tot Resp 23
Resp Rate 100.00%
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

286

PARTICIPANT Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16a Q16b Q16c Q16d PARTICIPANT
1 Decreased 11 to 15 Decreased 36 - 40 Decreased 0 - 5 Agree Agree Agree Agree 1
2 Decreased 26 - 30 Increased considerably 46 - 50 Decreased 16 - 20 Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 2
3 Decreased 11 to 15 Decreased 46 - 50 Decreased 6 to 10 Agree Agree Agree Agree 3
4 Generally stayed the same 26 - 30 Generally stayed the same 21 - 25 Generally stayed the same 0 - 5 Strongly Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree 4
5 Decreased 6 to 10 Decreased 36 - 40 Decreased 6 to 10 Disagree Agree Agree Agree 5
6 Decreased considerably 11 to 15 Generally stayed the same 46 - 50 Decreased 6 to 10 Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree 6
7 Decreased considerably 11 to 15 Decreased 46 - 50 Decreased considerably 6 to 10 Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 7
8 Decreased 31 - 35 Decreased 41 - 45 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree 8
9 Decreased 26 - 30 Decreased considerably 16 - 20 Decreased considerably 6 to 10 Agree Agree Disagree Agree 9
10 Decreased 26 - 30 Decreased considerably 46 - 50 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Agree Agree Agree Agree 10
11 Generally stayed the same 26 - 30 Generally stayed the same 46 - 50 Decreased considerably 6 to 10 Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree 11
12 Decreased 21 - 25 Generally stayed the same 41 - 45 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Agree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree 12
13 Decreased 26 - 30 Generally stayed the same 41 - 45 Decreased 6 to 10 Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree 13
14 Decreased considerably 6 to 10 Generally stayed the same 36 - 40 Decreased 0 - 5 Agree Agree Disagree Agree 14
15 Decreased 26 - 30 Increased 46 - 50 Decreased 11 to 15 Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree 15
16 Decreased 21 - 25 Generally stayed the same 46 - 50 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree 16
17 Generally stayed the same 26 - 30 Generally stayed the same 36 - 40 Generally stayed the same 6 to 10 Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree 17
18 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Decreased 46 - 50 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree Agree 18
19 Decreased 6 to 10 Increased 46 - 50 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree 19
20 Decreased 21 - 25 Increased 46 - 50 Decreased 21 - 25 Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree 20
21 Decreased 36 - 40 Increased considerably 46 - 50 Increased 16 - 20 Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Agree 21
22 Decreased 16 - 20 Generally stayed the same 41 - 45 Decreased considerably 6 to 10 Agree Agree Agree Agree 22
23 Decreased 46 - 50 Generally stayed the same 46 - 50 Decreased considerably 0 - 5 Agree Agree Agree Disagree 23
Dec Con 4 2 11 SD 1 0 1 1 SD
%Dec Con 17.39% 8.70% 47.83% % SD 4% 0% 4% 4% % SD
Dec 16 6 9 D 1 0 6 2 D
% Dec 69.57% 26.09% 39.13% % D 4% 0% 26% 9% % D
Same 3 10 2 A 14 13 15 15 A
% Same 13.04% 43.48% 8.70% % A 61% 57% 65% 65% % A
Inc 0 3 1 SA 7 10 1 5 SA
% Inc 0.00% 13.04% 4.35% % SA 30% 43% 4% 22% % SA
Inc Con 0 2 0 Tot Resp 23 23 23 23 Tot Resp
% Inc Con 0.00% 8.70% 0.00% Resp Rate 100% 100% 100% 100% Resp Rate
Tot Resp 23 23 23
Resp Rate 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Mode 26 - 30 Mode 46-50 Mode 0-5
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

287

PARTICIPANT Q16e Q17a Q17b Q17c Q17d Q17e Q17f Q18a Q18b Q18c
1 Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree
2 Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree
3 Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree
4 Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree
5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Agree Agree
6 Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Agree Agree
7 Strongly Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree
8 Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree
9 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
10 Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree
11 Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree
12 Disagree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree
13 Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree
14 Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree
15 Disagree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree
16 Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree
17 Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
18 Strongly Disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree
19 Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree
20 Agree Agree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree
21 Disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree
22 Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree
23 Disagree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree
SD 6 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
% SD 26% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 4% 6% 0% 0%
D 12 4 13 0 0 1 4 7 0 1
% D 52% 17% 57% 0% 0% 4% 17% 39% 0% 4%
A 4 13 9 12 12 14 17 9 11 12
% A 17% 57% 39% 52% 52% 61% 74% 50% 48% 52%
SA 1 6 0 11 11 8 1 1 12 10
% SA 4% 26% 0% 48% 48% 35% 4% 6% 52% 43%
Tot Resp 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 18 23 23
Resp Rate 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 78% 100% 100%
DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

288
Appendix I
Sample Post-Asynchronous Module Survey Measuring Kirkpatrick Levels 1 and 2
Please answer the following questions regarding this asynchronous module
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
1. This content held my interest. (Level 1 Engagement)
2. This content was relevant to me. (Level 1 Relevance)
3. I am satisfied with my learning experience today.
(Level 1 Customer Satisfaction)

4. From the definitions below, chose the one that most closely describes your understanding of
effective time management. (Level 2 Conceptual Knowledge)
a. Never being late to an appointment
b. Eliminating items from your day’s schedule when it is clear you will not have enough time to
complete them
c. Prioritizing items requiring your attention and keeping to a schedule that attempts to address as
many items as possible
d. Leaving your day unscheduled so that you can address issues as they arise

5. Read the attached excerpt. Based on the priorities and deadlines presented, which of the following
should NOT be a priority for James? (Level 2 Procedural Knowledge)
a. The appointment he is trying to make Monday evening
b. The team meeting Wednesday afternoon
c. The presentation he is making Thursday morning
d. The assignment due Friday by 11:59pm
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
6. Understanding how to establish priorities and create
realistic schedules, timeframes, and deadlines is valuable
to me (Level 2 Attitude)

7. I feel confident I can apply this unit’s content, today
and going forward (Level 2 Confidence)

8. I am committed to applying this unit’s content, today
and going forward (Level 2 Commitment)

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

289
Appendix J
Sample Blended Evaluation Measuring Kirkpatrick Levels 1 – 4
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
1. This unit’s content has been applicable to me.
(Level 1 Relevance)

2. Which parts of this unit’s contents were most relevant? (Level 1 Relevance)

3. Which parts of this unit’s contents were least relevant? (Level 1 Relevance)

4. How could this unit’s contents be improved? (Level 1 Student Satisfaction)

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
5. I feel confident in my ability to apply what I learned
this unit. (Level 2 Confidence)

6. I have successfully applied what I learned this unit.
(Level 3 Transfer)

7. If you selected Strongly Disagree or Disagree for Question 6 above, please indicate the reason(s)
(check all that apply). (Level 3 Transfer)
a. I do not have the necessary knowledge and skills
b. What I learned is not relevant to me
c. I do not fully understand what is expected of me
d. I do not have the resources I need to apply what I learned
e. I do not believe applying what I learned will make a difference
f. No one is tracking what I am or am not doing anyway
g. Other (please explain)

8. What additional support, if any, do you need to successfully implement what you learned this unit?
(Level 2 Confidence, Required Drivers – Encouraging)

DOCTORAL ATTRITION AND A REDEFINED FATHERHOOD

290
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
9. I am encouraged to apply what I learned by my
academic advisor. (Required Drivers – Encouraging)

10. I receive adequate and appropriate feedback from my
academic advisor. (Required Drivers – Encouraging)

11. I have been acknowledged and/or recognized for
successfully applying what I learned this unit.
(Required Drivers – Rewarding)

12. I have been acknowledged and/or recognized for
timely completion of program milestones and meeting
program deadlines. (Required Drivers – Rewarding)

13. I have been supported and encouraged when I have
asked my academic advisor for help and/or guidance.
(Required Drivers – Rewarding)

14. I am held accountable for applying what I learned.
(Required Drivers – Monitoring)

15. I am held accountable for making progress in my
doctoral program. (Required Drivers – Monitoring)

16. I am already seeing positive results from applying
what I learned. (Level 4 Leading Indicators)

17. I have seen an impact in the following areas because of applying what I have learned this unit
(check all that apply): (Level 4 Leading Indicators)
a. Increased quality of work (at work, home,
school, etc.)

b. Improved productivity
c. Increased personal confidence
d. Improved/stronger relationships
e. Better organization
f. Other (please explain)

18. Please share any suggestions you have for improving this learning experience.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study applies the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework to better understand the influences negatively affecting doctoral completion rates. The purpose of this study was to understand the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors impacting working fathers’ ability to achieve their performance goal of graduating on time from their doctoral program. The mixed methods approach of the study utilized a parallel sequential design, as quantitative survey and qualitative interview data were collected one after another and from the same pool of participants (with a purposeful sampling chosen for qualitative interviews chosen to represent the population to be examined). Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted upon survey results to identify central tendencies and nominal data reflecting participants’ feelings and observations. Interviews were coded in a multiphase approach, with the assignment of a priori codes developed with input from the literature. Findings indicate multiple knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences present that leave doctoral students vulnerable to attrition. Doctoral students and working fathers pursuing their doctorates demonstrated similarities in risk, with working fathers found to be at increased risk due to the added strain of remaining engaged as fathers during their doctoral studies. This study begins to bridge a gap between the two bodies of research regarding doctoral attrition and the evolving role of fathers and contributes to a new line of work examining steps to be taken to improve doctoral completion rates of an at-risk population.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The moderating role of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on employee turnover: A gap analysis

PDF

Improving Hispanic student performance in English language arts and math: a small California school case study

PDF

Increasing institutional retention: a gap analysis

PDF

The barriers and facilitators of academic success for Black male students at a community college: a gap analysis

PDF

Adjunct life in a full time world: evaluation of worklife experiences and risk for burnout in social work field faculty

PDF

An examination of the facilitators of and barriers to effective supervision from the perspective of supervisors in a federal agency using the gap analysis framework

PDF

An examination using the gap analysis framework of employees’ perceptions of promising practices supporting teamwork in a federal agency

PDF

Knowledge, motivation and organizational influences impacting recruiting practices addressing the gender gap in the technology industry: an evaluation study

PDF

Factors contributing to student attrition at a healthcare university: a gap analysis

PDF

The issue of remediation as it relates to high attrition rates among Latino students in higher education: an evaluation study

PDF

A gap analysis of course directors’ effective implementation of technology-enriched course designs: An innovation study

PDF

Gap analysis of employee satisfaction at a national park: Round Hill Park

PDF

Establishing a systematic evaluation of an academic nursing program using a gap analysis framework

PDF

Lack of culturally relevant teaching in international bilingual schools: a gap analysis

PDF

Critical factors impacting the exodus from teaching ranks: an evaluative study of an independent Christian school

PDF

Staff engagement within an academic shared governance model for nursing education: an evaluation study

PDF

The use of differentiation in English medium instruction in Middle Eastern primary schools: a gap analysis

PDF

An examination of supervisors’ perspectives of teamwork in a federal agency: promising practices and challenges using a gap analysis framework

PDF

The attrition and lack of medical follow-up of patients in research in a primary care setting: a gap analysis

PDF

Achieving high levels of employee engagement: A promising practice study

Asset Metadata

Creator Garcia, Juan Silva (author)

Core Title Examining the relationship between doctoral attrition and a redefined fatherhood: a gap analysis

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 03/05/2018

Defense Date 03/05/2018

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag doctoral attrition,doctoral persistence,doctorate,fatherhood,Fathers,OAI-PMH Harvest,working fathers,work-life balance

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Sundt, Melora (committee chair), Ferrario, Kimberly (committee member), Hanson, Kathy (committee member)

Creator Email garciajs@usc.edu,juan.silva.garcia@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-481349

Unique identifier UC11266790

Identifier etd-GarciaJuan-6074.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-481349 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-GarciaJuan-6074.pdf

Dmrecord 481349

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Garcia, Juan Silva

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA