A study of doctoral student -advisor satisfaction: Considering gender and ethnic grouping at a private research university

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Request accessible transcript

Transcript (if available)

Content A STUDY OF DOCTORAL STUDENT-ADVISOR SATISFACTION;
CONSIDERING GENDER AND ETHNIC GROUPING AT A PRIVATE
RESEARCH UNIVERSITY
by
Jack Edward King, Jr.
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2004
Copyright 2004 Jack Edward King, Jr.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3140498
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform 3140498
Copyright 2004 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Acknowledgements
For the unsuspecting, I am an avid WInnie-the-Pooh fan! Eeyore is
a beloved inhabitant of Pooh’s 100 Aker Wood. Spending much of his day in
his little Gloomy Place among the Wood eating thistles, this gray donkey
given to unhappiness and dour wit once remarked: ‘This writing business.
Pencils and what-not. Over-rated, if you ask me. Siliy stuff. Nothing in it. ”
There were times—many times—along the way when the same thoughts
occurred to me. A singular revelation kept the wind beneath my wings: we
do nothing alone. To think otherwise finds one in his very own gloomy place,
prostrate with no one to help him upright, for he is certain to stumble and
fall—mightily. I, too, have fallen often; with each tumble, a willing heart and
outstretched hand were in my corner of the Wood graciously setting me back
on my feet and back on the trail. Indeed, I would be remiss if I did not tell
you this work is an affectionate celebration of the kindness offered by a host
of well-wishers who prodded me along this "expotition" when, at times, I too
saw nothing in it. I have the following to thank for the culmination of a literary
work that, in its own time perhaps, might become a companion and friend to
educators around the Wood ... around the block ... or, perhaps, around the
globe.
I welcomed the support I received from each member of my
dissertation advisory committee, and I owe each one much gratitude for their
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
role in shaping the final product. Dr Melora Sundt served as my chair;
without her thought-provoking questions, her responsiveness, and her
confidence in my ability, I might have given up on this project a long time
ago. Dr Stuart Gothold guided much of my wandering as a much-
appreciated mentor throughout the research and writing processes. Along
the way. Dr Gilbert Hentschke taught me much about myself. To each, I
offer my thanks for your feedback and suggestions on this program of study.
I appreciate that you cared about my progress and took the time to work with
me in sorting out the various and sundry hurdles strewn among the rough-
hewn stones that shaped my journey along this path through the Wood.
These acknowledgements need to include The Phantom Tollbooth, by
Norton Juster (1961), from which the quotations at the beginning of each
chapter were drawn. One of my favorite children’s books, I look fonward to
the many opportunities my daughter, Gretl, and I can share reading this
masterful work together as she grows older. For my daughter. I’m certain
Milo’s adventures with words and numbers will bring much entertainment; for
me, they shall always bring inspiration ... and admiration.
To my extended family and friends, thank you for your friendship, for
your love, for taking my mind away from doctoral pursuits, and for knowing
not to ask the dreaded question too many times!
To Norm I send a warm “Mahalo!” for being a best friend and a best
man! The journey has been long; I appreciated your company!!
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
My precious daughter, Gretl Lynn, arrived in this world as the child of
a dissertation-writing dad, not realizing that most dads do not devote what
has become far too many hours each day sequestered in a room with
computers, rows of books, and piles of paper filling every nook and cranny.
Putting on little Miss Gretl’s pajamas, combing her hair, exploring storybooks
together, and playing chase until Mommy came to the rescue each evening
will forever warm my heart as bright and happy moments that colored my
dissertation days Beautiful. She and I are DELIGHTED to share more
“daddy time” now that I have finally become the Dr. Dad that she has so
patiently awaited.
My darling wife, Wendy Lynn, deserves a standing ovation; her
constant devotion and unending encouragement motivated me in the
completion of my dissertation and my doctorate when I was ready to move
on to other more important matters of life. She often gave me the time and
the space I needed as she juggled parental duties and household chores
without complaint. I thank Wendy for saying “I do!” and I thank God for both
the unconditional love and support she has given me as well as the promise
of our future snuggled together in the warmth of one another’s love.
I thank Him, too, for the faith, wisdom, strength, good courage, and
determination to pursue—and reach—one of many goals. “Now to Him who
is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to His
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
power that is at work within us, to Him be glory in the church and in Christ
Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.” (Eph 3:20-21)
Although this dissertation bears my name, this achievement was not
accomplished in solitude. I dedicate this work to those who visited me in my
corner of the Wood. To each of you, I am ever grateful and forever indebted.
I promise I shall not forget you, “not even in a hundred years.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................II
List of Tables ................................................................................................. viii
List of Figures ....................................................................................................Ix
Abstract ............................................................................................................. x
Chapter One: AN INTRODUCTION ....................................................................1
Changing demographics of graduate students ........................................7
Women in graduate education ......................................................8
People of color and graduate education ...................................... 1 1
What we know about graduate student departure .................................. 12
Purpose of the study .............................................................................22
Assumptions ...........................................................................22
Delimitations of the Study ..................................................................... 23
Limitations of the Study ........................................................................23
The end of the beginning ......................................................................25
Chapter Two: REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE AND THEORY .............27
Underpinnings of Student Persistence .................................................. 32
Spady ....................................................................................... 33
Tinto ......................................................................................... 36
Bean ......................................................................................... 51
Chickering .................................................................................60
Astin ......................................................................................... 65
Pascarella and Terenzini ..........................................................75
Nontraditional students ..............................................................81
Graduate students .................................................................. 97
The Role of the Advisor ...................................................................... 113
Undergraduate advising .......................................................... 117
Graduate advising ...................................................................120
Mentor .................................................................................... 125
Graduate mentor .....................................................................132
Challenges and concluding remarks ..................................................136
What does it all mean? .......................................................... 139
Chapter Three: METHODOLOGY AND THE RESEARCH DESIGN ..............143
An integrated methodology ................................................................. 148
An integrated design ...........................................................................148
Bias .........................................................................................149
Validity ................................................................................................150
Discrepant evidence ...............................................................151
Reliability ............................................................................................ 152
Transferability ...........................................................................153
V I
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter Three: METHODOLOGY AND THE RESEARCH DESIGN (continued)
Data ................................................................................................... 154
Survey instrument ....................................................................155
Population ............................................................................... 157
Data Collection .......................................................................157
Research using secondary analyses of existing data sets ................. 159
Surveys and survey research ............................................................ 161
Representative sampling ......................................................... 163
A school of education at a private research university ........................164
Sample ....................................................................................165
Instrumentation ....................................................................... 165
Scales ..................................................................................... 167
Statistical assumptions .......................................................... 169
Chapter Four; RESULTS OF THE STUDY ................................................... 171
Data analysis .....................................................................................172
Time to degree .......................................................................173
Summary of findings related to each research question ...................... 174
The extent men and women experience differences among their
relationships with advisors .......................................................174
The extent ethnic groupings experience differences among their
relationships with advisors ..................................................... 177
Additional Findings ............................................................................. 186
Chapter Five: CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................... 188
Findings unique to this study ...............................................................190
Student-advisor relationship .................................................... 193
Time-to-degree ....................................................................... 197
Gender .................................................................................... 198
Future Work ....................................................................................... 200
The growing relevance/influence of qualitative study ............... 201
The feasibility of standardized data collection/reporting ............203
The changing demographics of students and faculty ............... 205
Time-to-degree .......................................................................206
Women and underrepresented minorities ................................206
Noncompleters ........................................................................207
The defining characteristics of the doctorate and the doctoral
student .......................................................................................208
Summary ............................................................................................209
Bibliography ...................................................................................................215
Vll
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
List of Tables
Table Page
1 Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to their
student status, by type of institution: 1999-2000 (NPSAS, 2000) 86
2 Descriptive statistics, Gender 175
3 Descriptive statistics. Ethnic Background 180
4 Tests of Normality 181
5 Ranks, Ethnic Background 183
6 Gender satisfaction by degree objective 186
7 Ethnic Group satisfaction by degree objective 187
V lll
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
List of Figures
Figure Page
1 Percent of female doctorate recipients, by broad
field 1971. 1981, 1991,2001 10
2 Doctorates awarded to minority U.S. citizens, by race/
ethnicity 1981-2001 12
3 Percentage of undergraduates with nontraditional
characteristics: 1992-93 and 1999-2000 (NPSAS, 2000) 88
IX
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore the advising relationship—the
student’s relationship with the dissertation chair—and the impact that
relationship may have on completion of the doctoral degree. This study used
a descriptive qualitative and quantitative research design hinged to an
exploratory methodology that examined the relationships that existed among
a set of variables within a particular population of doctoral students. The
participants in this study, all volunteers, were secured from a population of
560 doctoral students enrolled in one discipline (Education) at a private
research university; 220 surveys were returned for a 39 percent response
rate. The surveys—a modified version of Golde and Dore’s 2001 survey of
doctoral education—were administered in 2002. For purposes of this study,
two variables (gender and ethnicity) were selected and analyzed with respect
to two opposing scales (“I currently have the advisor I want” and “If I did it
over again, I would select a different advisor”) in an effort to address issues
affecting the doctoral student-advisor relationship. Doctoral student
respondents rated items related to their expectation and satisfaction with
their relationship with the dissertation chair on a Likert scale. This study
reinforced the findings of other researchers into doctoral persistence.
Overall, the results seemed to indicate that female doctoral students had a
more negative perception of their relationship with their advisor than did their
male counterparts. Specifically, female students were less satisfied with their
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
current advisors and they were more likely to select a different advisor given
the opportunity. Though the results were somewhat mixed, the indicators
suggested African Americans were more satisfied with their current advisors
and less likely to choose a different advisor than all other ethnic groupings.
Caucasian students were least satisfied with their advisors and most inclined
to select a different advisor given the opportunity. In a comparison of
national norms, the data indicated that doctoral students attending this
particular university were not significantly more or less satisfied with their
relationship with the chair.
XI
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter One
AN INTRODUCTION:
“ In this box are all the words I know,” he said. “ M ost o f them you w ill never
need, some you w ill use constantly, but with them you m ay ask all the
questions which have never been answered and answer all the questions
which have never been asked. A ll the great books o f the past and
all the ones yet to come are made with these words. With them
there is no obstacle you cannot overcome. A ll you must learn to do
is use them well and in the right places.”
— Juster (1961, p.99)
One of the most studied areas in higher education is student
persistence (Braxton, 2000; Tinto, 1993). Numerous studies have sought to
develop, test, and modify models dealing with “traditional” students-that is,
fulltime post-secondary students between the ages of 18 to 24 years. By
contrast, relatively few studies have addressed the needs of “non-traditional”
students-those who do not fit this definition. Indeed, most of what we know
about persistence is related to undergraduates. For example, undergraduate
rates of persistence have received much attention over the last decade,
particularly with the initiation of Federal and state accountability requirements
for institutions of higher education. Formal accountability processes,
however, generally have not included data on the persistence of graduate
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
students. Consequently, the availability of published studies on graduate
retention is limited; even fewer studies report data on the persistence of
doctoral students. This study stands in contrast to the norm with its focus on
graduate student—particularly doctoral student—persistence.
Forty to sixty percent of students who begin doctoral studies in
selective colleges do not persist to graduation (Berelson, 1960; Bowen &
Rudenstine, 1992; Lovitts, 2001; Tinto, 1993). Moreover, the longer the time
spent in graduate school, the greater are the chances that the student will not
persist to the degree. Implications for the field of education are far-reaching;
at the doctoral level, education was second only to the broad field of life
sciences as the area of study that awarded the largest number of doctoral
degrees (6,324) in 2001 while the amount of time needed to complete the
degree continues to be longer in education (19.0 years) than any other field
(NORC, 2002). Because doctoral experiences are both compelling and
complex, doctoral persistence cannot be characterized as a solitary event,
nor can it be attributed to a singular cause. Tinto’s (1993) research
delineates a “longitudinal model of graduate persistence,” suggesting various
stages of persistence define a doctoral student’s progress toward their
terminal degree. Some stages are defined by specific student characteristics
(e.g., a strong goal orientation) while other stages are influenced more by
external factors (e.g., financial aid). “Events,” Tinto (1993) suggests, “are
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
continually being shaped by past events and, to some degree, molded by the
anticipation of future events” (Tinto, 1993, p.235).
Tinto (1993) proposes three distinct stages of doctoral persistence,
namely “that of transition and adjustment, that of attaining candidacy or what
might be referred to as the development of competence, and that of
completing the research project leading to the awarding of the doctoral
degree” (p.235). Lovitts (2001) also describes the process of graduate
education in finite terms that mark distinct stages that are neither continuous
nor unchanging (p.40). She notes, “Each stage has its own characteristic
structures, requirements, and socialization processes that students must
negotiate successfully—academically, socially, and emotionally—to attain the
Ph.D.” (p.40). Most references in the literature employ a three-stage model
not unlike Tinto’s conceptualization (i.e., Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992). The
final stage of doctoral persistence—the research stage—is at the heart of this
study. It is this stage that “covers that period of time from the gaining of
candidacy through the completion of a doctoral research proposal, to the
successful completion of the research project and defense of the
dissertation” (Tinto, 1993, p.237). Moreover, it is this stage that is more likely
to reflect not only the nature of an individual’s abilities but also the influence
an individual faculty member exerts as a mentor and advisor (Clewell, 1987).
“During [the final] stage of doctoral persistence,” Tinto (1993) asserts,
“the nature of faculty interaction shifts from that involving a number of faculty
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
within a department to the specific behaviors of a very few faculty” (p.237),
namely, the advisor and dissertation committee members. As one might
expect, “persistence at this stage may be highly idiosyncratic in that it may
hinge largely if not entirely upon the behavior of a specific faculty member”
(Tinto, 1993, p.237). Put more succinctly, once a student has reached
candidacy, it is “the faculty-mentor relationship that is most likely to shape
completion” (Tinto, 1993, p.241). Why? In elementary terms, it is at the
beginning of this stage that many students find themselves confronting a
“crucial turning point.” It is that moment, O’Donnell (1992) posits,
when course-work is completed and the dissertation must be faced.
The systemic weakness is that we treat new graduate students as
superannuated and underprivileged undergraduates, expecting them
to 'take courses’ and 'write papers', things they have been doing for
years; and then suddenly, two or three years later, we expect them to
break out of the chrysalis and fly on their own power. No easy stunt;
no wonder many fall flat on their faces.
Getting to—and getting through—this stage is a journey along unfamiliar
territory for most. Uncertainty about how to complete the process—not to
mention failing to complete the process—is a real source of anxiety for many
graduate students.
While we can determine the number of students completing doctoral
programs each year (i.e., NORC, 2002), less information exists on students
who have not yet completed their doctoral programs of study. The proportion
of students that has departed from doctoral programs prior to completing the
degree is not known (Baird, 1993); however, a number of published sources
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
have noted that attrition rates of 50 percent or higher are common among
doctoral candidates, and reportedly have been on the increase during the
past three decades (Baird, 1993; Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Lovitts, 2001;
Tinto, 1993). Moreover, retention and attrition data disaggregated by gender,
ethnicity, or class backgrounds are usually unavailable for doctoral students.
We do know some things about why doctoral students quit before
earning their degree. Among the chief causes affecting the departure
decision are inadequate financial resources, dissatisfaction with the doctoral
program, and poor relations between students and faculty (Jacks, Chubin,
Porter, & Connolly, 1983). The purpose of this study is to explore the impact
of the advising relationship—the student’s relationship with the dissertation
chair—and the impact that may have on completion of the doctoral degree.
This study first will consider the influence of America’s system of
education upon the characteristics and attributes of today’s generation of
graduate students. I then will introduce a brief discussion of the research on
factors influencing retention and persistence including what we know about
the role of the graduate student-advisor relationship. My central concern is
to better understand how events within the graduate student-advisor
relationship come to shape the process of doctoral persistence. In particular,
I am interested in students’ expectations of their chairs, and how faculty
members’ ability to meet those expectations influences the student’s decision
to complete the degree.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
As a result of this and similar research, institutions, while actively
supporting the student’s desire to persist, may find themselves in a better
position to enhance the rates of doctoral completion by having a better
understanding of the activities and institutional policies needed to retain more
of their graduate students. Recently, Tierney (1998) collated the views of a
number of leading authors on high performance restructuring in a book
entitled. The Responsive University, which together formed a whole model
for excellence in higher education. The emphasis is on development of new
internal relationships through communication and partnerships.
Responsiveness, the authors contend, comes from service orientation with a
focus on customers: this means student-centered in programs, community-
centered in outreach, and nation-centered in research. There remains a
need to move from the traditional production function of instruction to using
new tools to meet the changing needs of students. Ultimately, “the key to
successful student retention lies with the institution, [and] in its faculty and
staff” (Tinto, 1993, p.4). To borrow Tierney’s (1998) words, it remains their
obligation as a responsive college or university to modify contexts—political,
economic, social, and intellectual—in order that their policies and practices
might respond to the changing needs and characteristics of today’s students
(p.39). These changing characteristics are the focus of the next section.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Changing demographics of graduate students
Unlike the average age of undergraduates, which has steadily
increased in the last twenty years, the average age of our graduate student
population has remained stable. On the whole, the median age of doctoral
recipients in 1987 was 33.6 years (NRG, 1989b) while, by comparison, it was
33.3 years in 2001 (NORC, 2002). Students in professional programs tend
to be older than those attending traditional graduate programs (Table 1).
Indeed, the median age of doctorate students in the broad field of Education,
consistently increased each year. Today, Education continues to maintain
the highest median age of doctoral recipients: 43.0 years in 1993, 43.3 years
in 1996, and 43.8 years in 2001 (NORC, 2002). The median age at degree
completion varies with field of study. Doctorate recipients in the broad fields
of science and engineering typically earn their degrees while in their early
30s; the median age for all 2001 doctorate recipients in the science and
engineering fields was 31.7 years old. By contrast, age at doctoral
completion was 35.0 years in the humanities, 37.8 years in the
professional/other fields category and, as previously stated, 43.8 years in
education (NORC, 2002, p.24). Traditionally speaking, doctoral candidates
in education often accumulate considerable work experience before pursuing
the doctorate; their return to school is often a calculated investment directly
tied to professional goals or, perhaps, their dedication to the field.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The proportions of people of color and women Ph.D.’s are on the
Increase. Of the doctorates awarded In 2001, 22,769 went to men and
17,901 to women; women received 44.0 percent of all doctorates granted In
2001, the highest percentage ever for women. Over the past 30 years, the
upward trend for female doctorates has been unmistakable. While the
number of doctorates going to U.S. males was relatively level across the
1990s, for example, the number earned by U.S. women Increased every
year, as compared to the year before, with the exception of 1999 and 2001
(NORC, 2002, p.20). The share of doctorate degrees awarded to women Is
expected to remain stable at 44 percent through 2012 (NOES, 2002b, p.64).
Women In graduate education. Women In graduate education have
been described as “the new majority” (Syverson, 1997). “One of the most
momentous trends In higher education over the last two decades,” Syverson
(1997) exclaims, “has been the Increase In participation of women at the
post-secondary level In the United States.” Since 1984, the number of
women In graduate schools has exceeded the number of men. According to
the NOES (2002), 526,000 women students accounted for 44 percent of
graduate enrollment In 1974; twenty-five years later, that number had
Increased 13 full percentage points outpacing their male counterparts 5-to-1
to achieve parity at almost every level of graduate education—the number of
male graduates Increased from 663,000 to 766,000 while the number of
females skyrocketed from 526,000 to 1,041,000. Women are most heavily
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
represented in education, social sciences, and humanities and least well
represented in physical sciences and engineering. Although women are
over-represented in certain areas and under-privileged in others, discernable
and significant change over time is prevalent in a host of broad fields: in the
last quarter century, the percentage of females has grown from 9.3 to 25.2
percent in physical sciences, from 1.9 to 16.9 percent in engineering, from
20.2 to 47.2 percent in life sciences, from 26.3 to 54.4 percent in the social
sciences, and from 34.3 to 50.6 percent in the humanities (Figure 1) (NORC,
2002, pp. 12-13).
With respect to the broad fields of study (Figure 1), women constituted
64.6 percent of all education doctorates for 2001, the majority in the social
sciences (54.4 percent), half in the humanities (50.6 percent), 47.3 percent
in the life sciences, 42.7 percent in business/professional fields, 25.2 percent
in the physical sciences, and 16.9 percent in engineering (NORC, 2002,
p.12).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Figure 1. Percent of female doctorate recipients, by broad field, 1971,1981,1991,2001
Sci
Engr Life Sci Sociai Hum.
Sci
Educ Other
Among blacks, various Hispanic groups, and American Indians, women
constituted a majority, earning between 55.0 percent and 63.4 percent of
doctorates received by persons of those races or ethnicities (NORC, 2002,
p.18).
Indeed, women made up 49.5 percent of U.S. citizens who earned
doctorates in 2001, slightly increasing their share over the 49.4 percent
earned in 2000. The vice president for research and information services at
the Council of Graduate Schools describes the phenomenon as “very
encouraging. This is a figure that has changed measurably over the past 20
years, and that’s a really remarkable change” (Fogg, 2002). In 1976,
females comprised 23.3 percent of all doctorate recipients; in 1991, that
percentage was 37.1, growing to 40.1 percent in 1996 (NORC, 2002, p.12).
10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
People of color and graduate education. American minorities have
been underrepresented in graduate education for more than 50 years
(Johnson, 1996). Existing data and literature on doctoral persistence
indicate a national failure to attract and retain minority graduate students. As
a consequence, persistence rates are disturbingly low; however, the 2001
Survey of Earned Doctorates report held some good news. A total of 4,254
members of U.S. racial/minority groups were awarded doctorates,
representing 16.1 percent of the U.S. citizens, the largest percentage ever,
earning research doctorates in 2001 (NORC, 2002, p. 14). The 2001 number
of minority doctorate recipients is 27.6 percent higher than the total five years
earlier (1996) and 72.2 percent higher than 10 years ago in 1991 (NORC,
2002, p.14). Among the U.S. citizens who identified their race/ethnicity (98.3
percent), African Americans earned 1,604 doctorates, Hispanics earned
1,119 doctorates, Asian Americans (including Pacific Islanders) earned 1,382
doctorates, and American Indians (including Alaskan Natives) earned 149
doctorates (Figure 2). U.S. minorities (combining Asians, blacks, Hispanics,
and American Indians) had their largest presence in the broad field of
education (20.1 percent of U.S. citizens earning doctorates) (NORC, 2002,
p.16). Turning our attention away from a discussion about those students
who attend graduate school, we find ourselves in the midst of rising attrition
rates among graduate students. Graduate students depart for a number of
reasons. It is reasonable to believe that, given the proper attention, some
11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
might change their mind. Stepping up to a myriad of educational challenges
to meet the ever-changing needs of graduate students—particularly doctoral
students—is an ongoing challenge that demands our best efforts.
Figure 2; Doctorates awarded to minority U.S. citizens, by race/ethnicity, 1981-2001
1.800
1.600
1.400 ■■
1,200 ■■
1,000
800 ••
600 ••
400 ■■
200 ■■
2001 1981 1986 1991 1996
Black
Asian
- * r - Hispanic
Am Indian
Year
What we know about graduate student departure
For every doctoral student who finishes his or her degree another
student decides to leave before graduating. The Path to the Ph.D.
(Greenwood & Jaworski, 1996) provides a roadmap of the studies being
done to assess attrition rates in graduate programs by broad fields of
discipline. The executive summary notes that deans and faculty in the 1960s
estimated attrition rates of 20-40 percent for selected fields in science and
the humanities; however, the percentage for humanities and social sciences
12
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
tended to be higher. Between 1967-1971, for example, the attrition rate for
graduate students enrolled in English, history, and political science programs
combined was 41.9 percent; from 1972-1976 it was 49.6 percent (the rates
during this period for mathematics and physics combined were only 33.1
percent and 35.4 percent, respectively) (Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992, p. 132;
Greenwood & Jaworski, 1996, p.25). Nationally, graduation rates for current
doctoral students have been estimated to fall anywhere between 30 and 70
percent (Herzig, 2002; Lovitts, 2001; Nerad & Miller, 1996).
A consistent pattern of attrition can be tracked back as far as 1950
(Tucker, Gottlieb, & Pease, 1964). By discipline, the sciences exhibit the
lowest attrition rates (roughly 30 to 50%), the humanities exhibit the highest
attrition rates (roughly 50 to 70%), and the social sciences attrition rates fall
somewhere in between (roughly 40 to 65%) (Benkin, 1984; Berelson, 1960;
Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Tucker, Gottlieb, & Pease, 1964). Overall, one
out of every two doctoral students who start Ph.D. programs leave without
the degree (Lovitts, 2001).
Doctoral students leave for any number of reasons. Leaving—and not
leaving—is captured in terms like persistence, retention, withdrawal, and
attrition. Admittedly, these terms seem straight-forward and easy to
understand; the trick, however, is to understand them in context. As a matter
of course, persistence and retention typically refer to the act of remaining
enrolled at a college or university while withdrawai and attrition refer to the
13
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
act of leaving. Despite increased attention to doctoral student retention,
graduate schools have faced persistently high attrition rates. In 1960,
graduate attrition was placed somewhere between 20 percent (according to a
survey of faculty) and 40 percent (according to deans) (Berelson, 1960). In
1978, the National Research Council’s Board on Human Resource Data and
Analyses reported that the number of Ph.D.s awarded in the United States
essentially doubled in each decade over the last century: from about 300 in
1900 to more than 33,000 in 1974. Twenty-five years later, data from the
2001 Survey of Earned Doctorates revealed that U.S. universities awarded
over 44,000 doctorates (NORC, 2002). About the same number of
individuals, presumably, did not finish. The number of earned doctor’s
degrees is expected to increase to 46,800 in 2012 (NOES, 2002b, p.64).
What we know about graduate student persistence is largely informed
by the research on undergraduate persistence. Two theories in particular
have provided a comprehensive framework on college departure decisions.
These two theoretical frameworks are Tinto's (1975) Student Integration
Model and Bean's (1980) Student Attrition Model. Tinto (1975, 1982b, 1987)
viewed dropout behavior as a longitudinal process. In his work on college
persistence, Tinto (1993, 1997) emphasized the importance of social and
academic integration. The more a student’s experiences serve to integrate
the student socially and intellectually into the life of the institution, the more
likely the student is to persist until degree completion. Tinto’s model contains
14
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
temporal stages where students’ perceptions regarding their enrollment
status are continuously reformed and reevaluated. On the one hand, the
greater the congruence between the student's values, goals, and attitudes
and those of the college, the more likely the student will persist at the college
(Tinto, 1975, 1987). On the other hand, Tinto (1975) asserts, "a person will
tend to withdraw from college when he perceives that an alternative form of
investment of time, energies, and resources will yield greater benefits,
relative to costs, over time than will staying in college” (p.98). In other words,
if external activities become more attractive than college completion, a
student will drop out.
Bean (1980) borrowed the structure of his initial Student Attrition
Model from Price’s causal model of organizational turnover but replaced
variables related to the work environment with variables that would be more
appropriate for studying student attrition behavior. According to Cabrerra,
Castaneda, Nora, and Hengstler (1992), Bean’s work “builds upon process
models of organizational turnover and models of attitude-behavior
interactions” (p. 145). Students’ experiences, along with the different
components of institutions (i.e., institutional quality, courses, and friends), are
presumed to affect their beliefs. His model presumes that students’ beliefs
shape their attitudes, and their attitudes in turn shape their behavioral
intentions. In this way. Bean’s (1980) model “stresses the importance of
behavioral intentions, to stay or leave, as predictors of persistence”
15
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(Cabrerra, Castaneda, Nora, & Hengstler, 1992, p.145). The model also
“recognizes that factors external to the institution can play a major role in
affecting both attitudes and decisions while the student is attending college”
(Cabrerra, Castaneda, Nora, & Hengstler, 1992, p. 145).
Not surprisingly, student persistence is one of the most studied areas
in higher education literature (Braxton, 2000; Tinto, 1993). While most of the
research has targeted undergraduate persistence, we do know some things
about persistence at the doctoral level. In the U.S., “the higher, the more
selective, the level of education, the lower the rate of completion” (Tinto,
1993, p.230). Specifically, Tinto (1993) highlights a few general research
findings:
In the nonselective secondary schools of America, approximately 25
percent of all students fail to graduate. In more selective four-year
colleges and universities, between 35 and 40 percent of entering
students fail to obtain a degree. In the most selective institutions, the
graduate and first-professional schools, our best estimates is that up
to 50 percent of all beginning students fail to complete their doctoral
degree programs (p.230).
Lovitts (2001) contends departure has less to do with academic ability
and more to do with real barriers to student persistence: she zeros in on
graduate departments, disciplines, and advisor-student relationships,
asserting that students’ background characteristics do not affect persistence
as much as what happens to them after they arrive. The causes of
departure, Lovitts (2001) argues, include lack of information, the absence of
community, disappointment with the learning experience, and poor quality in
16
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the advisor-advisG© relationship. A key point to keep in mind when
considering failure is that a great number of aspirations that characterize
entering students change over time. Student aspirations, theorize many
researchers, clearly have strong effects on a variety of outcomes, particularly
college choice, student retention, and graduate school enrollment (Astin,
1977; Tinto, 1993). Nevertheless, aspirations can change over time (Astin,
1977). Factors that formulate and change aspirations often result from
socialization interactions and structural processes that differ in magnitude
and direction for each individual. Consequently, not every goal remains
compatible with the aims of the university.
Higher education in general or that offered by a particular institution
may not suit some students. Frequently, some students enter college
without a clear notion of why they are there. Specifically, the report of the
survey of doctoral students by Golde and Dore (2001) noted an "information
deficit" among many students: "Students reported that they decided to enter
a doctoral program without having a good idea of the time, money, clarity of
purpose, and perseverance that doctoral education entails" (p.29). Over
time, a number of students decide to withdraw from higher education or
transfer to other institutions or programs more closely aligned to match their
aspirations. To label such withdrawal as failure is to deny the importance of
the student’s intellectual and emotional maturation.
17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Persistence and retention are not—and should not be—the goals of
higher education. “It is often observed,” notes Ewell (1984),
that retaining students is not in itself an appropriate goal for an
educational institution. There are many reasons, for example, why a
given student ought not continue to be enrolled in a particular
institution. Among these are lack of academic skill, lack of motivation,
and attainment of the student’s own educational goals ... Rather than
being a goal in itself, a high student-retention rate should be the result
of the improved programs and services provided by the institution.
The objective of retention programs should be to provide an effective
curriculum and an appropriate array of support services designed to
meet the identified needs of enrolled and future students (p.7).
Such provisions, mindful of students struggling with a departure decision, are
best conducted through student-centered (Penn, 1999) institutional actions.
Indeed, the decision to leave, Timmons (1978) found, often can be
interpreted as a student’s positive first step towards forming one’s identity,
establishing one’s own priorities, and meeting developmental needs such as
self-responsibility and independence. Pascarella (1982b) has noted.
Not all student withdrawal is bad, nor should it necessarily be the
concern of the institution. Some students may find the academic and
social communities of a campus unsuited to their tastes. Others may
see withdrawal or transfer as a positive step toward goal completion.
Institutions should focus their resources on preventing student
withdrawal that is the result of the qualified student's inability to meet
the institution's academic demands or the student's failure to be
successfully integrated into the campus social environment (p.105).
Perspective—the student’s more so than the institution’s—matters. Clearly
withdrawal can be “bad,” but only in the sense that personal experiences at
an institution are perceived by that person as a failure to complete what he or
she came to the institution to accomplish. The expectation is that success is
18
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
far more common than failure. Understanding the role students’ goals play
on the stage of persistence and withdrawal is a required first step.
Not surprisingly, persistence rates, routinely used to evaluate
institutional effectiveness, have their limitations. Researchers have found
that a broad range of factors that are beyond the ability of colleges and
universities to influence potentially affect persistence: academic aptitude
(Fuertes & Sedlacek, 1994; Kennedy, Gordon, & Gordon, 1995; McGrath &
Braunstein, 1997), student services (Junn, Fuller, & Derrell, 1996; St. John,
2000; Turner & Berry, 2000), financial factors (Cabrera, Nora, & Castafieda,
1992; Cabrera, Stampen, & Hansen, 1990; McGrath & Braunstein, 1997;
Nora & Horvath, 1989), learning communities inside and outside of the
classroom (Baker & Pomerantz, 2000; Johnson, 2000; Tinto, 1997), student-
faculty interactions (Nagda, Gregerman, Jonides, von Hippel, & Lerner, 1998;
Pascarella, 1980), and advising, counseling, and mentoring (Bean 1990;
Campbell & Campbell 1997; Johnes 1997). Several theories have been
advanced to describe and explain persistence. The two most widely used
and comprehensive are Vincent Tinto’s interactional theory (1975, 1987,
1993) and Alexander Astin’s involvement theory (1975, 1977, 1982, 1984,
1993). A more in-depth description and discussion of widely influential
models of student persistence is reserved for Chapter Two, Review of
Relevant Literature and Theory.
19
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Some attrition from graduate programs is anticipated as students
discover that graduate study is not for them; however,
most students enter a doctoral program with a proven track record of
intellectual competence and academic success, and with a strong
urge to pursue graduate study. Somewhere along the line, many
begin to doubt both their own competency and the potential available
resources and responsiveness of their chosen academic environment
and they leave (Parent, 2002).
Have we left them with no other remedy? Tierney (1998), speaking to the
problems plaguing undergraduate education, suggests changes are needed
in higher education if we are to encourage students to finish what they have
begun, but he warns that the changes are “more than the sum of the parts.
... fundamental changes need to occur” if we are to solve the “endemic
problems that plague the academic enterprise” (p.3). More to the point, not
just any change shall do. “Instead of improving a system that exists,” writes
Tierney (1998), “we want to challenge old ways of thinking and acting in
academe by proffering suggestions about new ways of thinking, and hence
acting, in postsecondary institutions” (p.3). Nothing could be truer of
graduate education. Taine puts the doctoral experience into perspective:
Imagine a man who sets out on a voyage equipped with a pair of
spectacles that magnify things to an extraordinary degree. A hair on
his hand, a spot on the tablecloth, the shifting fold of a coat, all will
attract his attention; at this rate, he will not go far, he will spend his
day taking six steps and will never get out of his room (quoted in
Kennedy, 1998, p.74).
Consider for a moment that the humanities and non-laboratory based
social sciences, for example, are typically structured around individualized
2 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
research that takes place in isolation in libraries, archives, and the field.
Students in these disciplines “frequently do not select an advisor or
commence dissertation-related research until they have passed their
qualifying examinations” (Lovitts, 2000); moreover, they do not receive the
same amount of academic and social support as their counterparts in the
science disciplines where students and faculty find themselves in almost
constant contact as part of research teams (Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992).
Indeed, training for Ph.D.’s in the sciences is best described as
apprenticeship: graduate students are encouraged to attach themselves
early and tightly to individual professors, often to the point many apprentices
identify more strongly with the research group of their professor than they do
with the department, or even the university, of which they are a member.
The humanities, on the other hand, do not depend so strongly on the
personality and intellectual style of the individual professor. Consequently,
laissez-faire tendencies commonly associated with graduate students in the
humanities and non-laboratory based social sciences tend to distract us in
much the same way an extraordinary looking glass keeps the man in his
room. With so many distractions, we find ourselves taking too few steps,
reluctant to venture out in a world wherein change beckons us to leave our
room.
2 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Purpose of the study
The purpose of this study Is to understand what noticeable correlation we
might derive from the student-advlsor relationship and Its Impact on the
departure decisions for students seeking a doctoral degree at this private
research university. To help bolster our understanding, a series of questions
demand our attention:
• To what extent are doctoral students satisfied with their relationship to
their advisor?
• To what extent do men and women experience differences among
their relationships with advisors?
• To what extent do ethnic groupings experience differences among
their relationships with advisors?
Assumptions. For this study, the following assumptions were made:
• The graduate school of Interest maintains accurate records.
• The doctoral students’ admittance to candidacy demonstrates a
commitment to earning a doctorate.
• The respondents provided honest responses to the
survey/questionnaire. This study relies on the reflections of [current
and/or former] students. It Is assumed that time did not substantially
distort their recollections of the character of the doctoral process.
• The measures were reliable and valid Indicators of the concepts to be
studied.
• The data were accurately recorded and appropriately analyzed.
• The research, data gathering, findings, and conclusions represent
"good research."
• The ethnicity, gender, and age of doctoral students were accurately
Identified.
• Perhaps the most Important assumption Is that the Institution’s
“viability Is strengthened when the focus of the discussion Is the
student and what he or she learns” (Bllmling & Whitt, 1999, p. 19).
2 2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Delimitations of the Study
1) This study restricted its secondary analysis of doctoral student-
advlsor relationships to existing data for two degree programs within one
academic discipline (Education) at a private research university.
2) For this study, the data used were limited to doctoral students
attending during the 2001-2002 academic year.
3) This study focused on student biographic and demographic
information, specialization, campus, enrollment status, degree objective (PhD
or EdD), program completion stage, an assessment of the doctoral program
with regard to the coursework, program requirements, exams, program
flexibility, and annual progress reviews at the time of the study, and other
affective measures.
Limitations of the Studv
1) This study was limited to doctoral students who agreed to
participate voluntarily. Others declined to participate. Accordingly, it is
possible that the experiences and perceptions of the volunteers differed in
some significant way from those who did not participate, thereby affecting the
results of the study.
2) This study was limited to the number of doctoral students surveyed
and the amount of time available to conduct this study.
23
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3) Results of this study may not be generalized to any other discipline
or institution. Generalizing the results of this study to another institution often
fails to be an accurate reflection of persistence at that particular institution
because most scholarly studies, including this study, tend to use a limited
student population about a given institution. Indeed, this study focused on a
very specific group of students—doctoral students who have recently (within
the last two years) participated in the doctoral programs offered by one
university. The results can, however, be ideographically interpreted in terms
of particulars to the case (that is, used to begin to identify those factors
shaped by the graduate student-advisor relationship that appear
consistently—across students and schools—to influence students’ views of
their doctoral programs, and their decisions to leave those programs), and
tentatively applied (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
4) This study focused on two doctoral programs within one academic
discipline (education).
5) This study used self-reported surveys and, as such, the data were
prone to a certain amount of bias. Validity of this study was limited to the
reliability of the instrument used.
6) This study elicited information only from current doctoral students.
The analysis and differentiation among influences of factors on degree
progress at different stages of the graduate education process was beyond
the scope of this study. A more accurate interpretation of the factors
24
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
affecting departure decisions would have been realized if noncompleters
were included in the sample rather than limiting the study to currently
enrolled students.
7) Pertinent demographic information pertaining to faculty advisors
from this particular school of Education was not available.
The end of the beainnino
This study is organized into five chapters. This, the first chapter,
introduces an overview of the research problem and the theoretical
framework proposed for approaching the problem. It concludes with national
statistics about graduation rates for terminal degrees over time. With its
considerable depth of documentary detail and balance of perspectives, the
analysis of the literature introduced in the next chapter. Review of Relevant
Literature and Theory, encourages researchers to embrace a greater
understanding of the literature in two primary areas—the literature related to
doctoral persistence across the academy, and the literature pertaining
specifically to the role advising in doctoral study plays on the departure
decision stage—that invites us, for example, to the periphery of a prevailing
and influential shift from laissez-faire environments that presume graduate
students are on their own to a more friendly environment that fosters
improved student-advisor relationships as one of several critical components
of graduate student degree attainment. Chapter Two examines the evidence
25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
regarding student retention as it relates to undergraduates and, where
available, graduate students. The third chapter, Research Design and
Methodology, describes the sample selection, instrumentation, and data
analyses.
Chapter Four, The Results of the Data, presents the outcomes of the
thematic and content analysis, offering an in-depth look at the data and the
initial theory-building resulting from the data analysis. The fifth and final
chapter puts forth the Conclusions derived from these results, and makes
recommendations for future research in this area. The review of prominent
contemporary literature and the work of noted authorities that follow set the
stage for his work. The shortage of existing research on doctoral persistence
makes it especially important that this study take an explanatory—rather than
presumptive—stance. The attempt of this study, then, is not to generate
results that can be applied in toto to all doctoral programs in all fields.
Rather, it is shaped to generate a theoretical framework that may produce
findings that will lead to better policy and practices for a particular school of
Education at one private research university. Perhaps the findings can be
used to identify factors that appear consistently—across students and
schools—to influence policy and practices on a broader scale.
26
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter Two
REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE AND THEORY
“ I think I can fin d my own w ay,” said M ilo, not a t all sure that he
could. But, since he didn’t understand the little man a t all, he decided that
he might as well move on—at least until he met someone whose sentences
didn’t always sound as i f they would make as much sense backwards
as forw ards.
—Jvister (1961, p.19)
Studies of persistence dominate higher education literature, receiving
“careful scrutiny both within universities and among those responsible for
national policy” (AAU, 2000). Within universities, a substantial literature has
developed to facilitate discussions regarding many varied aspects of college
student persistence. Indeed, Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) found that “the
volume of literature directly or indirectly addressing this area of inquiry during
the last twenty years is extensive to the point of being unmanageable”
(p.387). Of course, one need not read every report to get a sense for the
magnitude of persistence research. Internet searches, annotated
bibliographies, and database queries (e.g., ERIC) demonstrate the
importance of persistence to the Academy. Numerous models, frequently
the object of considerable research, have been developed, tested, and
27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
revised in recent years (e.g., Astin, 1971, 1993b; Bean, 1983; Cabrera, Nora,
& Castaneda, 1992; Tinto, 1975,1987). Colleges commonly adopt policies,
deliver programs, provide services, and implement strategies founded upon
theories of student persistence substantiated in the literature—theoretical
constructs that frequently focus on economic, societal, psychological,
environmental, organizational, and interactionalist factors best suited to
predict the consequence of the student’s departure decision (Astin, 1975;
Bean, 1980; Cabrerra, Castafieda, Nora, & Hengstler, 1992; Tinto, 1975,
1993).
Theories of prominent (Astin, 1975; Bean, 1980, 1982; Tinto, 1975,
1993) empirical research on student persistence have been thoroughly
tested and extended (Allen & Nora, 1995; Cabrera, Castafieda, Nora, &
Hengstler, 1992; Chapman & Pascarella, 1983; Churchill & Iwai, 1981; Cope
& Hannah, 1975; Eaton & Bean, 1995; Nora & Cabrera, 1993; Pascarella &
Terenzini, 1983; Stage, 1989; Stampen & Cabrera, 1986; Terenzini &
Pascarella, 1980). Studies have looked at persistence in relation to differing
student populations (e.g., minority students (Bean & Hull, 1984; Fuertes &
Sedlacek, 1994; Grandy, 1998; King & Chepyator-Thomson, 1996; Nora,
1987; Ting, 2000), commuter students (Johnson, 1997), two-year college
students (Bers & Smith, 1989; Pascarella, Smart & Ethington, 1986), transfer
students (McCormick & Carroll, 1997), nontraditional and adult students
(Bean & Metzner, 1985; Shields, 1994), and graduate students (Cooke, Sims
28
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
& PoyrefittG, 1995; King & Chepyator-Thomson, 1996)). Because much of
the research on persistence has been assessed through the lens of
traditional students, the preponderance of researchers are influenced by
quantitative methods designed to correlate among multiple variables
projecting an institutional perspective on the persistence phenomenon.
Research suggests the importance of persistence transcends the institutional
perspective and, as such, demands a more thorough review.
Among those responsible for national policy, a growing federal interest
in measuring and tracking persistence is unden/vay, raising “the troubling
prospect of the federal government assuming ministry-like control over
standards of academic quality” (King, 2002, p.4). In an environment of great
competition for students and resources, persistence plays an important role
in policy development. There is a continued quest and interest to understand
more accurately the reasons associated with the persistence of students in
higher education. Indeed, the need to know exactly why students are
choosing to stay or leave college has never been greater. At the graduate
level, the National Science Foundation (1998) implored those participating in
a 1997 workshop on graduate student attrition to focus on accurate,
complete, and detailed information on the extent, causes, and consequences
of attrition as a successful means to facilitate
informed policymaking on a wide range of issues to include allocation
of financial resources to graduate students, increasing participation
and success rates of underrepresented groups, preserving the
29
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
univGrsity’s role as a rGsourcG for new knowledge, Innovation and
highly trained workers, and meeting increased demands for
accountability in performance of individual universities, programs and
departments.
A short time later, the Association of American Universities (AAU) reported
that policy makers have raised a number of additional concerns specifically
relevant to doctoral studies in the U.S. that demand our undivided attention:
“the place of foreign students in U.S. graduate programs, a possible
oversupply of Ph.D.s, and the nature of Ph.D. education at a time of great
change in American society” (2000).
The confidence of American higher education continues to be called
into question as the uncertainties of change draw criticism on the failure of
higher education to actively engage students in teaching and learning. A
number of criticisms at the graduate level are self-evident and well
documented. Among them, the narrowness of the curriculum, the lack of
experience provided by Ph.D. programs, the universities’ unresponsiveness
to the needs of the workforce, the lengthening time to degree, the large
number of foreign students in our graduate programs, the low participation by
women and domestic minority groups, the inaccessibility of research faculty,
the lack of guidance to graduate students, and the suspicion that time to
degree is prolonged to provide a source of cheap labor for faculty advisers
frequently frustrate our students’ progress.
30
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant
Colleges (NASULGO, 1987) and the Boyer Commission on Educating
Undergraduates in the Research University (1995) are among the critics.
Their reports, Returning to Our Roots: The Student Experience (Kellogg
Commission, NASULGC, 1987), and Reinventing Undergraduate Education:
A Biueprint for America’s Research Universities (Boyer Commission, 1995),
respectively, emphasize the urgency for colleges and universities to make
students the first priority of the institution. Concerns over dropout,
withdrawal, attrition, retention, and persistence, pervasive in the research
community, typically materialize in studies and reports focused on students
long before they embark on graduate school admittance. As a point of
reference, approximately three-fourths of all noncompleters leave during their
first year of college (Tinto, 1993). Colleges and universities across the
country—indeed, around the world—presumably have conducted thousands
of studies on student persistence. When asked about their retention efforts,
most colleges and universities often point to some form of individual tutoring,
orientation, or mandatory advising to help first-year students adjust.
Not surprisingly, many of the more influential studies focus on
retention during the first year of college, notably the most crucial year for
many students (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Over the last three decades,
student retention research has evolved in multiple directions: the majority of
theories have focused on students’ academic and social integration into the
31
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
institution (e.g.. Tinto, 1987, 1993), while remaining theories considered the
role of family and friends (e.g., Nora, 1987) and, more recently, the impact of
financial aid (e.g., Cabrera, Nora, & Castaneda, 1992,1993) and time-to-
degree (e.g., Nerad & Cerny, 1991), among others. The early work of
prominent researchers such as Spady, Tinto, Bean, Chickering, Astin,
Pascarella, and Terenzini has matured, providing both the foundation for
emergent theories of student retention and the scaffolding for reliably
studying the vast expanse of college student experiences. An overview of
several prominent theories and models of undergraduate student persistence
follows, setting the stage for a more detailed analysis of the causes and
cures of graduate student persistence, with a particular focus on the role
advisors play in the graduate student’s departure decision.
Underoinnincs of Student Persistence
Theoretical and empirical literature on student persistence represent
numerous studies to have examined a wide range of variables, including
demographics, aspirations, motivation, personality, values, and institutional
characteristics (Bean, 1982), that impact the departure decision. While
statistics remain fairly constant, concern about retention and attrition rates in
higher education continues to grow with each passing year. The sheer
volume of studies attests to the interest in and importance of student
persistence in higher education. But the “classics,” often held in high esteem
32
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
by faculty and widely recognized as required reading for all students of
higher education, are few by comparison. They might include Feldman’s and
Newcomb’s book, The Impact of College on Students, How College Affects
Students by Pascarella and Terenzini, and Astin’s “landmark” book (Tierney,
1992), Four Critical Years, arguably the “single most cited work in higher
education literature” (Astin, 1993, p.xi). Astin’s latest book. What Matters in
College? Four Critical Years Revisited, and Tinto’s (1975, 1993) Leaving
College might also find prominent places on the shelf among other
indispensable resources for higher education students. Much of the work
found in classic literature is based on the anthropological and social
developments attributed to the more prominent “founding fathers” of student
retention theory: Spady, Tinto, Bean, Chickering, Astin, Pascarella, and
Terenzini.
Soadv. The first significant research on the issue of student
persistence was introduced by Spady (1970). In Spady’s model, the
interplay or interaction between the student and the institution allows the
student the chance to assimilate successfully into the academic and social
system of the college. Prior to the 1970s, research concerning college
student persistence was more descriptive than theory-based. As such, this
early body of work failed to explain the variation in student attrition
(Pascarella & Terenzini, 1979; Spady, 1970; Tinto, 1975). Spady’s (1970)
model of the undergraduate withdrawal process, based on his study of
33
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Durkheim’s (1897/1951) theory of suicide, underlies the first sociological
model of the attrition process in higher education. Durkheim argued that
suicide is a result of a person breaking ties with the social system because of
a lack of integration into society. The likelihood of suicide increases when
there is insufficient moral consciousness (low normative congruence) and
insufficient collective affiliation (low friendship support) (Durkheim, 1951).
Durkheim’s (1951) concept establishing social support systems could reduce
suicide was considered groundbreaking and led the way to applications
informing the attrition research of Spady (1970), Tinto (1975), and Pascarella
(1980).
Spady claims that these same types of integration directly affect
student persistence. He suggests that withdrawal is a result of students not
becoming integrated into the higher education environment. The degree to
which the rewards within either system are perceived as insufficient is the
degree to which the student is likely to drop out. The extent to which a
student feels a bond and connection with the environment and established
support relationships with friends determined the basis for social success in
this model. Academic success was characterized by grades, which provided
an extrinsic reward, and intellectual development that, in turn, provided an
intrinsic reward. Spady’s (1970) model proposes that social integration
(manifested by shared group values, academic performance, normative
congruence, and support of friends) increases institutional commitment, in
34
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
turn, increasing the likelihood that a student will persist. Spady (1971) later
suggests that student background characteristics such as family, personal
characteristics, and skills expose students to influences, expectations, and
demands which, in turn, affect the student’s level of integration thereby
influencing the departure decision. Full integration, in his terms, calls for
meeting the demands of the college’s social and academic systems.
Today’s understanding of the significance of a strong sense of
inclusive educational and social community on campus rests in the earlier
merger of the theoretical work of Durkheim and van Gennep, as tempered by
Spady’s sociological approach to integration. Durkheim provides the
concepts of social integration and academic integration while van Gennep
loans the concept of ‘rites of passage’ as the process for inter-generational
transfer of knowledge and culture. The resultant theory of departure, one
that better explains the complex process of events leading individuals to
withdraw from college and, consequently, helps the college community come
to grips with the actions and attitudes required to emphasize student learning
as the primary objective of postsecondary education, is attributed to Tinto
(1975). According to Tinto (1975, 1993), if one wishes to develop a
theoretical model of dropout from college that seeks to explain the
longitudinal process of interaction that leads differing persons to various
forms of persistence or dropout behavior, one must build into the model sets
35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
of individual characteristics and dispositions relevant to educational
persistence.
Tinto. The most intensive study of students leaving college is
unquestionably the work of Tinto. Developed almost thirty years ago and
subsequently supported by many researchers (e.g., Astin, 1985; Bers &
Smith, 1991; Fox, 1986; Friedlander& MacDougall, 1992; Grosset, 1991;
Halpin, 1990; Mutter, 1992; Pascarella, Smart, & Ethington, 1986; Webb,
1988), Tinto’s (1975, 1987,1993) interactive model of student departure
remains the most widely examined, tested and, to a large degree, accepted
replication of retention phenomenon since it was first published in 1975
(Halpin, 1990; Pascarella & Chapman, 1983; Pascarella, Duby, & Iverson,
1983; Terenzini & Pascarella, 1980). Not surprisingly, Tinto’s (1975, 1987,
1993) model of undergraduate attrition is considered the classic work in the
field.
Looking back on recent evidence and to what degree past
understandings should be changed to better reflect the current body of
knowledge and experience on student retention, Tinto (1987) proposed a
theory that focused on the role that institutions play in influencing the social
and intellectual development of their students. In studying the attrition
process, Tinto (1975, 1987, 1993) developed an explanatory, predictive—
rather than merely descriptive—model that is longitudinal and regards
persistence as a function of the quality of a student's interactions with the
36
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
college environment. Tinto asserts that the two primary factors related to a
student’s persistence are the personal characteristics of the student, which
include commitment to the institution and educational goals, and the nature
of the student's interaction with the college. Building on Spady’s earlier work,
Tinto (1975) advanced the idea that the fit between the student and the
institution plays a key role in the likelihood of persistence (Cabrera, Nora, &
Castafieda, 1992). Specifically, Tinto (1975) expanded Spady’s retention
model by applying exchange theory to Durkheim’s theory of suicide.
The exchange theory is based on the understanding that humans
avoid costly behavior and seek rewarding statuses, relationships,
interactions, and emotional states (Nye, 1979). According to Tinto (1975),
students apply the exchange theory in determining their academic and social
integration, interpreted as goals and levels of institutional commitment. Tinto
(1975) advocated that an interactive perspective is needed to understand the
nature of the persistence found among college students. If the student’s
personal characteristics (here limited to commitment to the institution and
educational goals) fit the college environment, the results would be
persistence. Said another way, if the perceived benefits of college are higher
than the costs, the student remains in school. A national 9-year study
(Stoecker, Pascarella, & Wolfle, 1988) later corroborates the importance of
the fit between the person and the college environment as a retention factor.
37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The theoretical framework that enables Tinto (1975, 1987, 1993) to
expand his theory on student departure springs from van Gennep’s (1960)
functionalist perspectives on ritual in his seminal work. The Rites of Passage
(originally published in 1909). Van Gennep, a Dutch anthropologist,
suggested points of passage (i.e., portals or thresholds that require rites of
consecration) accompany every change of place, state, social position, and
age. Coining the term rites of passage strictly as an analytical concept, van
Gennep discovered that “transition rites” often share similar features,
including a period of segregation from everyday life, a delineated state of
transition from one status to the next, and a process of reintroduction to the
social order with a new standing.
Anthropologists have collectively theorized that a change from one
group membership to another is accomplished in three stages: separation,
transition, and incorporation. Specifically, rites of passage, according to van
Gennep’s classic anthropological study, are cultural celebrations marking the
stages of the life cycle that directly precedes incorporation into the new
reality, and can be subdivided into rites of separation, rites of transition, and
rites of incorporation. Rites that accompany the passage of a person from
one social status to another in the course of his or her life most closely
resemble rituals in today’s terms. The term ritual, particularly for
anthropologists, refers to traditionally sanctioned social customs, denoting
those aspects of prescribed formal behavior that have no direct technological
38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
consequences. Ritual actions are symbolic in that they assert something
about the state of affairs, but they do not necessarily seek to a/ter the state of
affairs.
Scholars and social scientists, including van Gennep, generally view
rituals and passage rites as essential ingredients in the rejuvenation of
society, often noting that virtually all human societies use ceremonial rites to
mark significant transitions in the social status of individuals. These rites
highlight and validate changes in a person’s status within their society. Van
Gennep’s (1960) metaphorical description of society as "a house divided into
rooms and corridors" (p.26) helps to explain why our more complex society
lacks the rites of passage that are so crucial to smaller and less complex
societies. He explains that the more complex the society, "the thinner are its
internal partitions, and the wider and more open are its doors of
communication” (van Gennep, 1960, p.26). In a semi-civilized (i.e., less
complex) society, on the other hand, “sections are carefully isolated, and
passage from one to another must be made through formalities and
ceremonies" (van Gennep, 1960, p.26).
Though no rigid classification is typically practiced in more complex
societies, individuals still need to become fully integrated into the culture of
the new group as they transition into new statuses. Tinto (1987) stressed
that it was “possible to envision the process of student persistence as
functionally similar to that of becoming incorporated in the life of human
39
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
communities” (p.94); that is to say, the change to a college environment is
characterized by the same three stages earlier noted in anthropologic cultural
studies. Culture, it is worth mentioning, has many definitions. Clyde
Kluckhohn’s Mirror of Man (as quoted in Geertz, 1973, pp.4-5) defines
culture in turn as:
(1) “the total way of life of a people;” (2) “the social legacy the
individual acquires from his group;” (3) “a way of thinking, feeling, and
believing;” (4) “an abstraction from behavior;” (5) a theory on the part
of the anthropologist about the way in which a group of people in fact
behave; (6) “a store-house of pooled learning;” (7) “a set of
standardized orientations to recurrent problems;” (8) “learned
behavior;” (9) a mechanism for the normative regulation of behavior;
(10) “a set of techniques for adjusting both to the external environment
and to other men;” (11) “a precipitate of history;” and turning, perhaps
in desperation, to similes, as a map, as a sieve, and as a matrix.
Geertz (1973), believing with Max Weber, that “man is an animal suspended
in webs of significance he himself has spun,” defines culture as those webs,
and “the analysis of it to be therefore not an experimental science in search
of law but an interpretive one in search of meaning” (p.5).
The hallmark of Tinto’s (1993) revised model is that students should
join supportive, social, and intellectual communities. “College students," as
Tinto (1975) points out, “are moving from one community ... to another, that
of college” (p.94). In so doing, a student moves from one culture to another.
“Culture is not property,” note McDermott and Varene (1995), “of individuals-
as-conditioned” (p.344). Culture “is located in the minds and hearts of men”
(Goodenough, as quoted by Geertz, 1973, p.11). “A society’s culture,”
40
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
according to Goodenough, “consists of whatever it is one has to know or
believes in order to operate in a manner acceptable to its members” (as
quoted in Geertz, 1973, p. 11). So it is “we investigate the properties and
interpretations of the culture in order to come to terms with how some are
silenced and others privileged” (Tierney, 1998b, p.7).
Empirical investigation of Tinto’s model began soon after its
introduction in 1975. Of particular interest to researchers; differences
between male and female students with respect to the relative import of
academic integration, social integration, institutional commitment, and goal
commitment (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1979, 1963); the possibility that higher
levels of academic integration compensate for lower levels of social
integration and vice versa (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1979, 1983); the
possibility that a similar compensatory relationship exists between
institutional and goal commitments (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1983); the
effects of academic and social integration on one another (Stage, 1989b;
Terenzini & Wright, 1987); the function of background characteristics in
departure decisions (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1979, 1983; Stage, 1989;
Terenzini & Pascarella, 1980); and the valid measurement of integration
(Pascarella & Terenzini, 1979; Terenzini, Lorang, & Pascarella, 1981).
Tinto's (1975) model placed a decidedly institutional spin on
explaining the persistence phenomenon, conveniently framing dropout not as
a problem in its own right, but rather a symptom of other conditions.
41
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Providing a definitive theoretical model that describes the process of student
integration into academic and social systems at a particular institution, Tinto
(1975, 1993) theorized that student retention was directly influenced by
academic and social integration. For Tinto, “integration into the dominant
institutional culture was an a priori assumption of success. That is, ... the
operating assumption is that students would and should adopt to their
institutions’ dominant systems of values and mores” (Kuh & Love, 2000,
p.197). Such an interpretation and the assumption on which it is based,
responds Tierney (1992; 2000, p.198),
had the unintended negative consequence of placing a
disproportionate amount of responsibility on students to adapt,
attributing little or no responsibility to the institutions to modify their
policies and practices to respond to the changing needs and
characteristics of students.
Our course of action, Tierney further noted (2000), “is not to develop ways for
people to integrate into the system, but instead to change that system by way
of programs, activities, events, and curricula that affirm and honor individual
identities” (p.220). Data clearly establishes that it is not enough to get more
students into college; we have to simultaneously work on getting more
through college, and that requires student-centered approaches.
Students enter college with various individual characteristics, including
those related to family background, individual attributes, and pre-college
schooling experiences (Tinto, 1975), that form goals and commitments that
interact over time in complex ways with the intellectual and social attributes
42
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
of the institutional culture (Terenzini & Pascarella, 1978, p.34B). The
process of academic and social adaptation, according to Tinto (1987, 1993),
creates the foundation for successful study experiences and persistence in
higher education. In discussing his longitudinal model, Tinto (1993, p.113)
indicates:
Broadly understood, it argues that individual departure from
institutions can be viewed as arising out of a longitudinal process of
interactions between an individual with given attributes, skills, financial
resources, prior educational experiences, and dispositions (intentions
and commitments) and other members of the academic and social
systems of the institution. The individual’s experience in those
systems, as indicated by his/her intellectual (academic) and social
(personal) integration, continually modifies his or her intentions and
commitments. Positive experiences—^that is, integrative ones—
reinforce persistence through their impact upon heightened intentions
and commitments both to the goal of college completion and to the
institution in which the person finds him/herself (Cabrera, Castaheda,
Nora, & Hengstler, 1992). Negative or malintegrative experiences
serve to weaken intentions and commitments, especially commitment
to the institution, and thereby enhance the likelihood of leaving.
Presumably, the extent of integration among the social and academic
spheres of an institution determines the individual’s departure decision
(Tinto, 1993). Yet, student experiences do not always facilitate academic
and social integration. One out of every two freshmen enrolled in colleges
and universities is the astounding statistic for the number of students who
leave before completing their programs. It is this recurring choice to leave—
drop out—that forms the nucleus of Tinto’s (1975) model.
The central idea of Tinto’s (1975) model is that of "integration:" it
claims that whether a student persists or drops out is quite strongly predicted
43
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
by their degree of academic and social integration. The greater the
congruence between the student’s values, goals, and attitudes and those of
the college, the more likely the student will persist at the college (Creamer &
Atwell, 1984; Crockett, 1984; Forrest, 1982; Lenning, Beal, & Sauer, 1980;
Pantages & Creedon, 1978; Pascarella, 1982; Pascarella, Smart, &
Ethington, 1986; Tinto, 1975, 1987). Tinto (1975) suggests students that are
highly integrated into college life—socially and academically—are more likely
to continue as a part of it; those less integrated into college life, conversely,
tend to withdraw or leave.
Social and academic integration, Tinto (1975) found, prompted
students to be more committed to their specific institution and, more
importantly, to increase their commitment to the goal of completing college.
Tinto (1993) best characterized the persistence phenomenon as one that we
need to study by referring to the understandings and experiences of each
person involved. Specifically, Tinto noted (1975, p.96),
In the final analysis, it is the interplay between the individual's
commitment to the goal of college completion and his [or her]
commitment to the institution that determines whether or not the
individual decides to drop out from college and the forms of dropout
behavior the individual adopts. Presumably, either low goal
commitment or low institutional commitment can lead to dropout.
Returning to his decidedly institutional-centric work on student retention,
Tinto (1993) underscored the complexities of a model that attempts to
44
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
capture the idiosyncratic essence of human behavior in a single frame.
Specifically, he wrote,
In many respects, departure is a highly idiosyncratic event, one that
can be fully understood only by referring to the understandings and
experiences of each and every person who departs. Nevertheless,
there does emerge among the diversity of behaviors . . . a number of
common themes. These pertain to the dispositions of individuals who
enter higher education, to the character of their experiences within the
institution following entry, and to the external forces which sometimes
influence their behavior within the institution (Tinto, 1993, p.37).
The student’s departure decision, in its simplest form, is "the outcome of a
multidimensional process involving the interaction between the individual and
the institution" (Tinto, 1993, p.111). “The closer one is to the mainstream of
the academic and social life of the college,” Tinto (1993) explains, “the more
likely one is to perceive oneself as being congruent with the institution
generally” (p.60). “Conversely,” he adds, ’’the more marginal one’s group is
to the life of the college, the more likely one is to perceive oneself as being
separate from the institution” (Tinto, 1993, p.60).
Two recent works of prominence have reiterated this concern for
wholeness in the education of students: Boyer’s (1987), College: The
Undergraduate Experience In America, and Pascarella and Terenzini’s
(1991), How College Affects Students. “The college has an obligation,”
according to Boyer (1987), “to give students a sense of passage toward a
more coherent view of knowledge and a more integrated life. ... Through an
effective college education, students should become personally empowered
45
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and also committed to the common good” (pp.68-69). Pascarella and
Terenzini (1991, p.162) put student development as part of the whole person
concept into perspective:
Historically, America’s colleges and universities have had an
educational and social mission to “educate” in a sense that extends
beyond the cognitive and intellectual development of students. That
broader mission has defined education to include increased self-
understanding; expansion of personal, intellectual, cultural, and social
horizons and interests; liberation from dogma, prejudice, and narrow
mindedness; development of personal moral and ethical standards;
preparation for useful and productive employment and membership in
a democratic society; and the general enhancement of the quality of
graduates’ postcollege lives.
Once students matriculate to postsecondary institutions in their quest for an
effective learning environment, a number of varied preconditions,
characteristics, and experiences presumably influence their decision to
persist or depart.
Consider the bounds of what we know and do not know about entering
students. For example, we know our students’ age, gender, ethnicity,
residence, proposed major, financial aid, high school grade point average,
and ACT or SAT scores. Equally important, there are many things we do not
know: How ready are they for college? Does their family support their
decision to enroll in college? Are they motivated to finish what they have
begun? What are the other commitments on their time? Do they have jobs?
Do they have children? Why did they enroll? What are their educational and
professional goals? What are their life goals? What has the institution done
46
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
to influence the student’s goal commitment and commitment to the
institution? Do the students feel welcomed as they are comfortably
inculcated into the social and intellectual fabric of the institutional systems?
Undeniably, each of these factors affects the departure decision;
accordingly, it is an intimate and personal choice that is impacted by both the
individual and the institution. Nevertheless, the decision to leave college, by
and far, carries negative connotations among most researchers—in
elementary terms, many theorize it makes little sense to recruit students if
most of them leave without degrees. As a consequence, efforts to identify
and treat potential noncompleters have grown considerably; research often
devotes special attention to intervention strategies that colleges typically offer
in their attempts to encourage retention—strategies that suggest the problem
lies not with the institution but with the students themselves. To the college
or university, the student who leaves is just another statistic, the embodiment
of a Darwinian frame of reference that accepts a student’s inability—or
unwillingness—to meet the social and academic demands of college life as
inconsequential. “In short,” Lovitts (1997) notes in a discussion specifically
addressing graduate education, “by blaming students for their own attrition,
faculty exonerate themselves of any role they or the structure of graduate
education may play and thus remove the need to seek explanations in the
nature of graduate education” (p.28). Such a view can be quite self-serving.
47
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Tinto (1993) identifies student departure as taking two forms,
academic dismissal and voluntary withdrawal (p.81). It has been estimated
that 85% of all attrition is due to voluntary withdrawal from college (Cope,
1978, p.4); at most 15 percent of all institutional departures come as a result
of academic failure. “Many educators,” Tinto is credited with suggesting,
“erroneously believe students drop out of college because they cannot pass
their courses. ... But most students leave ... because they have had
unsatisfactory experiences in college, not because they earned poor grades”
(Evangelauf, 1990). Indeed, as Tinto (1987b, 1993) and others (Belt, 1976;
Benkin, 1984; Berelson, 1960; Tucker, Gottlieb, & Pease, 1964) point out,
the lack of academic ability and academic failure account for only a small
portion of all attrition. ’’The fact is,” Tinto (1989) stresses, “that academic
failure accounts for only a third of student attrition nationally. It is but one of
a number of reasons that students leave college.” Simply delineated,
“student departure is a consequence of the interaction between the individual
student and the college or university as an organization” (Braxton, Sullivan, &
Johnson, 1997, p.108).
The efforts of colleges to retain their students, according to Tinto,
have been hampered because they are based on scholarly inquiry that is too
narrow (Evangelauf, 1990). In Tinto’s opinion, the term student retention is
an "unfortunate abbreviation" for complex human behavior (Evangelauf,
1990). Evangelauf (1990), quoting Tinto, points out "If the only question
48
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
institutions ask is, ‘How do we retain students?,’ it's the wrong question.
Education, not retention, is the proper goal of institutional action.” “Lest we
forget,” Tinto (1993) reminds us, “it is one thing to ask what programs
institutions use to retain students. It is entirely another to ask how successful
institutions have come, over time, to develop their retention programs”
(p.138). Astin (1993c) points out in the Chronicle of Higher Education,
A simple retention “rate” tells us a lot more about who an institution
admits than about how effective its retention practices are. ...
institutions that admit large numbers of less-well-prepared students
will tend to have low retention rates, and those with well-prepared
students will tend to have higher rates, regardless of how effective
their retention programs are.
Effective retention programs, we learn from Tinto (1989), are, at their best,
“attempts to restructure the character and quality of a student's educational
experience in college. They seek to provide the essentials of an effective
education by establishing a real community in which students and faculty and
staff members are all equally involved in the learning process.” More often
than not, they are “the best education that colleges and universities have to
offer” (Tinto, 1989).
The fact that individual behavior is “a function of the environment with
which the individual finds themselves” (Tinto, 1993, p.85) is of particular
import to retention research. Tinto (1993) includes “the impact of ... social,
economic, and organizational forces on the behavior of students” within the
broader context of environment (p.86). Organizational theories of departure
49
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
“see the occurrence of student departure as reflecting the impact that the
organization has on socialization and satisfaction of students. [The] central
tenet has been that departure is as much, if not more, a reflection of
institutional behavior as it is of the individuals within an institution” (Tinto,
1993, p.89).
In Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student
Attrition, Tinto (1993) clearly illuminates this point in light of a plethora of
recent evidence that draws attention to what degree past understandings
should be reconsidered if we are to better reflect the current body of
knowledge and experience on student persistence. His updated theory on
student departure responds with a contemporary view of student leaving that
stresses both the limits of institutional action and the unique responsibility
institutions share in the education of their students. This is an important
distinction that may help us better understand what other “classics” are trying
to tell us about student persistence.
Before proceeding with an informed discussion of the contributions of
other prominent retention researchers, it is important to reiterate that much of
Tinto's model was based upon research with traditional-aged student
populations who attended large residential institutions. Its usefulness in the
exploration of the attrition of older (25+) students for whom academic and
social integration within the university are less influential, and for whom
issues like having definite career goals, absence of financial and other life
50
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
problems, and the support of other people outside the university are more
important (Bean & Metzner, 1985; Ryder, 1994; Sandler, 2000) remains
uncertain. Nevertheless, Tinto’s influence remains apparent in the body of
persistence research that focuses on today’s student subpopulations. The
central theme, however, most aptly described by Tinto (1993) himself,
suggests, "We need to develop a theory of student departure which clearly
explains the longitudinal process of student leaving from institutions of higher
education while capturing the complexity of behaviors that underlie that
phenomenon" (p.3).
Bean. Models of corporate attitude—studies of behavioral interactions
and turnover in industrial environments—provided the theoretical framework
that Bean (1980, 1982, 1983) used to study alternative models of
persistence. Borrowing from Price’s (1977) theory of employee turnover,
organizational determinants viewed as the primary influence of satisfaction in
Bean’s (1982) student attrition model emphasized the primacy of student
intentions. Indeed, the strength of an organizational view of student
departure “lies in its reminding us that the organization of educational
institutions, their formal structures, resources, and patterns of association,
does impact on student retention’’ (Tinto, 1993, p.89). Bean’s analogy was
that students leave college for many of the same reasons employees quit
their jobs. Specifically, Bean’s model suggested that as a student interacts
with the institution, the higher the level of satisfaction with those interactions.
51
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the greater the commitment to the institution and the lower the likelihood of
dropout. Adding background variables to his model to reflect the influences
of prematriculation characteristics (e.g., high school grade point average,
standardized test scores, etc.) on the interaction students have with their
institutions. Bean found commitment to the institution to be the most
important variable in explaining dropout.
Bean’s (1982) model recognizes the influence of external (to the
institution) factors on retention, something researchers have found missing
from Tinto’s model (Bean, 1985; Cabrera, Nora, & Castaheda, 1993). Bean
(1985), later stressing the role of on-campus socialization in decisions to
persist or withdraw, found that freshmen institutional fit had the greatest
influence on dropout syndrome. He says:
Regardless of its source, a feeling of belonging or fitting in at the
institution was most important during the freshman year, but also
remained important during the sophomore and junior year (Bean,
1985, p.55).
Bean (1983) reflected on the link between attitudes and behaviors as earlier
theorized by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), who wrote that a person’s intentions
are a function of certain beliefs that influence attitudes toward a behavior. A
person’s behavioral intention, Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) contend, is a
function of two factors: one’s attitude toward the behavior and one’s
subjective norm. A student’s decision to drop out, therefore, is the result of
52
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
past behavior, attitudes, and norms that drive behavior through the formation
of intent. Consequently, attrition is seen as a result of weakened intentions.
Concern over falling enrollments prompts attrition research. Like
Astin’s (1975) earlier work, Bean (1982) noted this important impetus for his
follow-up research: "In a period when demographic data suggests freshmen
enrollments will decline substantially, the importance of improving retention
rates may become more a matter of institutional survival than of academic
interest" (p.292). In this later study, Bean (1982) revised his original causal
student attrition model to introduce 10 new variables while excluding
background variables (e.g., high school grade point average, standardized
test score, parental income, etc.). As hypothesized, he found that a newly
introduced variable, intent to leave, defined as "the estimated likelihood of
discontinuing one's membership in the organization" (Bean, 1982, p.293),
was the best predictor of actual attrition.
At this stage, it is important to reiterate Bean's model focused on
predicting attrition and did not attempt to explain persistence. It is also
important to note the subtle differences between Bean and Tinto. Bean's
(1982) investigations focused on student-centered variables (e.g., work roles,
family responsibilities, and intent to leave) while Tinto's (1975) research
featured institution-centered factors (e.g., academic and social integration
with institutional systems, and commitment to the institution). Bean (1982),
for example, argues that the placement of goal commitment and institutional
53
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
commitment twice in the model poses a conceptual problem for Tinto. Tinto
(1975), however, contends these variables are first a product of students’
pre-entry characteristics and later the product of academic and social
integration. Bean (1982) counters that students will have a single notion of
goal commitment and institutional commitment—the product of both pre-entry
attributes as well as academic and social integration—at any particular point
in their student life; in other words, Bean argues that experience modifies
attitudes. As a consequence. Bean suggests the latter set of variables would
best serve as a predictor of student persistence.
The empirical literature (e.g., Braxton, Sullivan, & Johnson, 1997)
confirms Bean’s position, reporting in general terms that moderate to strong
aggregate support for the proposition that greater levels of commitment to
the institution lead to a greater likelihood of persistence in college. Of
interest is the work of Cabrerra, Castafieda, Nora, and Hengstler (1992) who,
a decade later, confirmed the positive effect of goal commitment on
persistence (Tinto, 1975) and affirmed the impact that forces external to the
institution (Bean, 1980) had on withdrawal. Thus, they identified two highly
significant predictors—one from each model—that converged to help explain
persistence. Moreover, they concluded “... both add relevant knowledge to
the understanding of the college persistence process, but that a model
integrating the leading factors in each theory may contribute to explain this
process better” (Cabrerra, Castarieda, Nora, & Hengstler, 1992, p.161).
54
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The complexities of persistence, particularly for nontraditional
students, are abundantly clear in the wide array of results reported by a host
of different researchers. Not surprisingly, Tinto will be among the first to
acknowledge his model does not adequately address the cures and causes
of departure for all student subpopulations. Said another way, it is apparent
that Tinto’s (1975) student integration model and, to a somewhat lesser
extent, other prominent student attrition models (e.g.. Bean, 1980), have
proven to be rather robust in broadly explaining the persistence
phenomenon. However, the utility of these models begins to diminish as
other researchers continue to test the theories on more highly disaggregated
student populations.
A number of other researchers have contributed to our understanding
of persistence as well. Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) model, for example, is
expanded in Attinasi’s (1986) understanding of retention based on student
perceptions of experiences and attitudes encountered before and during the
college years. According to AttlnasI (1986), the student analyzes Interactions
with the everyday world and acts on perceived meanings. AttlnasI (1986)
used two sociological approaches in this model: symbolic interactlonism and
ethnomethodology. Symbolic interactionism contends that meanings result
from the Interaction of the Individual with others: It Is on the basis of socially
constructed meanings that the Individual makes personal decisions.
Ethnomethodology studies how people perceive, describe, and explain the
55
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
world in which they live. Attinasi’s (1986) model suggests that persistence
results from (1) the student’s perceptions and analysis of various things in
the everyday world, and (2) the student’s acceptance or rejection of the idea
that post-secondary education is significant to the student’s life. Reflecting
Attinasi’s influence, Bean’s (1990) student attrition model later represents
that students’ beliefs about their experiences in school shape their intention
to stay: persistence is likewise affected. Moreover, the variable, student
intent, has become so prominent in the literature that Tinto (1987)
subsequently added it to his revised model.
The success of Tinto’s revised model notwithstanding, Tinto’s (1993)
newest work acknowledges the problems—and many remain—in our current
understanding of student departure. For example, Bers and Smith (1991)
cast doubt on the applicability of Tinto’s model to the community college
student population and Attinasi (1989) questioned Tinto’s methods of theory
development while Tierney (1992) urged that “integration” is an inherently
problematic construct (Braxton, Sullivan, & Johnson, 1997). Tierney (1992),
writing in “An Anthropological Analysis of Student Participation in College,”
assumes the ideas and discourse that administrators utilize influence the
actions that occur on their campuses. In large part, Tierney observed those
actions and policies are ineffectual in stemming the tide of minority student
departure in general, and Native American leave-taking in particular.
56
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Not surprisingly, Tierney (1992,1998b) took issue with Tinto’s widely
accepted theoretical model that viewed college participation as if it were a
"rite of passage" (van Gennep, 1960) where academic and social integration
was essential for student persistence. Tierney argued that Tinto
misinterpreted the anthropological notions of ritual. Social integration,
Tierney (1992, 1998b) contends, is a matter of culture; pragmatic
implications may hold “potentially harmful consequences for racial and ethnic
minorities” (1992, p.603). Tierney (1992), instead, argues for
a radical reorientation of how we conceptualize and, hence, act in the
organizational worlds of academe. The task of conceiving different
theoretical horizons will enable us not only to offer alternative
strategies for developing multicultural environments, but such horizons
also will enable us to reconfigure the social conditions of power that
give voice to some and silence others. In doing so, we will be moving
away from a model of social integration and assimilation and toward a
framework of emancipation and empowerment (p.616).
Consequently, Tierney (1992) concluded by suggesting an alternative model
for student persistence: look at universities as multicultural entities where
difference should be highlighted and celebrated. Culturally speaking,
Tierney’s critique of Tinto’s model has considerable merit but, as Braxton,
Sullivan, and Johnson (1997) suggest, it lacks direction; specifically,
Tierney’s critique failed to “provide information on what a cultural-based view
of the student departure process would look like” (p.200). To take exception
is but the first step; what, exactly, might we do to move toward the framework
of emancipation and empowerment Tierney recommends?
57
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The research indicates many factors attributed to leaving college are
the product of the culture of particular colleges, or factors within the control of
particular colleges. Kuh and Whitt (1988) suggest culture in higher education
can be thought of as “the collective, mutually shaping patterns of norms,
values, practices, beliefs, and assumptions that guide the behavior of
individuals and groups. ... and provide a frame of reference within which to
interpret the meaning of events and actions on and off campus” (pp. 12-13).
Tinto’s theory, Kuh and Love (2000) contend, “tacitly endorses an integration
view of culture in that students are expected to adapt to the institution’s
dominant cultural code or norms in order to succeed, be satisfied, and
persist” (p.200). Integration, in this sense, does not infer the combining of
parts into a whole as one might suspect; instead, as Kuh and Love (2000)
report, the word has come to mean
one part being absorbed into the whole—that is, students are
integrated into institutions. ... From a cultural perspective, this is akin
to being socialized to the institutions. ... imply[ing] little or no
responsibility on the part of the institutions or their stakeholders to
accommodate and adapt policies and practices to respond to
newcomers (p.206).
Consequently, Tinto (1993) suggests, “It is of little surprise to discover that
institutions with low rates of student retention are those in which students
generally report low rates of student faculty contact” (p.66).
Tinto is not alone in his recognition of the effects of “the broader
academic and social context in which students find themselves.” As earlier
58
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
noted, the first major literature overview of college’s impact on students is
Feldman and Newcomb's (1969) The Impact of College on Students,
published in the same year as the first edition of Chickering's (1969)
Education and Identity. Feldman and Newcomb's overview synthesized the
findings of more than 1,500 studies conducted over four decades on the
influence of college on students. “Much of what those in the field of higher
education now understand about the developmental influences of college,”
assert Pascarella and Terenzini (1991), “is based on the work of Feldman
and Newcomb,” who succeeded not only in providing the first comprehensive
conceptual map of generally uncharted terrain but also successfully
generated a number of interesting hypotheses about the ways in which
college influences students (p.xv). Their findings are in line with other
prominent researchers, among them Sanford (1966), Chickering (1969), and
Schlossberg (1989), who have asserted that successful student development
is largely dependent upon the student’s environment, their involvement, and
their emotional sense of belonging.
As one might expect, student development has been defined in
numerous contexts (Moore & Upcraft, 1990), but the general consensus is
that students become more differentiated in their responses to life’s
challenges that center on identity, moral, and cognitive development through
campus experiences. For example, researchers have focused on
"developmental content" (e.g., identity development (Erickson, 1968), moral
59
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
development (Kohlberg, 1975), women’s moral development (Gilligan, 1982),
and Intellectual development (Perry, 1970)). Looking beyond content, the
nature of student development processes Is the focus of other researchers.
Sanford (1962), for example, concentrated on the cycle of differentiation and
Integration associated with growth and development while Chickering (1969),
building on the work of Erlkson (1963, 1968), presented a similar notion
emphasizing Sanford’s concepts of challenge and support.
Chlckerlnc. Erlkson (1963, 1968) developed the first psychosocial
model of development. The model consisted of eight stages with the final
stage focusing on the development of the ego or self-ldentlty. Erlkson
believed development was a life-long process continuing from birth to death.
He suggested that as an adult progressed through life, crises would be
encountered. To adequately cope with a myriad of crises, an Individual had
to develop new skills, attitudes, and beliefs, building on previous experiences
to develop his/her self-ldentlty. Chickering saw this “establishment of Identity
as the core developmental Issue with which students grapple during the
college years” (Evans, Forney, & Guldo-DIBrlto, 1998, p.36) and sought to
create a student development theory that would “apply to this generation of
students as well as future ones” and would be “useful to Institutional leaders
as they cope with retrenchment as well as expansion” (Chickering & Relsser,
1993, p.44). Chickering (1969) created a flexible, seven-vector model to
60
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
further conceptualize the major developmental issues of the American
college student between the ages of 17 or 18 to the middle- or late-twenties.
Of Erikson’s (1968) eight sequential stages, or tasks, of human
development, Chickering noted that two relate directly to college-age
students: stage five, identity versus identity diffusion, and stage six, intimacy
versus isolation. In essence, Chickering (1969) isolated these stages
separating them into seven developmental tasks. Consequently, identity and
intimacy are common themes found throughout his theory. In contrast to
other developmental theorists, Chickering (1969) used the term vector
because each stage "seems to have direction and magnitude" (Chickering,
1969, p.8). Chickering believed that college students encountered different
tasks or challenges throughout their college career that required them to
adapt their behaviors and attitudes so that they could respond to the
challenge. The completion of these tasks is viewed in light of these two
dimensions. First, college students may develop in a positive or negative
direction for each task. Second, the amount of progress made through a
task is represented by magnitude. Accordingly, students advance through
these developmental tasks not only in a direction but also a degree of
magnitude. As students progressed through college, the tasks became more
complex and the students would build on their prior experiences and develop
their identity. Additionally, Chickering observed that students move through
these vectors and that each vector builds upon the previous one. By
61
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
focusing on the direction and magnitude of task achievement and by
including social and emotional factors, Chickering (1969) expanded the
perception of the role of the college experience.
Chickering’s (1969) seven vectors of college student development are
enduring. Chickering’s (1969) analysis of the influence of college on student
development considered three major sources of variation in the socialization
of college students in order to understand the effects of college on students.
These included the initial or pre-enrollment characteristics of students, the
institution’s structural and organizational factors, and student/faculty
interactions. In 1993, Chickering and Reisser revised Education and Identity
(Chickering, 1969), creating a comparable set of developmental vectors
representing the major foundations of student development during the
college years. Perhaps the most significant contribution of the second
edition (Chickering & Reisser, 1993) is the recognition that a theory originally
written to address the developmental needs of the traditionally-aged college
students of the 1960s can be equally pertinent to students of all ages on the
leading edge of a new millennium. Chickering’s original seven vectors
included developing competence, managing emotions, moving through
autonomy and toward interdependence, developing mature interpersonal
relationships, establishing identity, developing purpose, and developing
integrity. Although some of the terminology has changed, the vectors remain
remarkably the same.
62
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Developing Competence reflects a “sense of competence” that “stems
from the confidence that one can cope with what comes and achieve goals
successfully” (Chickering & Reisser, 1993, p.53). Managing Emotions
captures a student’s awareness of their emotions and willingness to accept
them, as well as to express and control them in an appropriate manner.
Essentially, students learn to act on feelings in a responsible manner.
Chickering and Reisser (1993) expand on Chickering’s (1969) earlier work to
include the trials and tribulations of returning adult students. Reisser (1995)
states, "In the new edition we contended that age does not necessarily
correlate with emotional maturity, and we addressed a wider variety of
emotional baggage that younger students and returning adults bring to
college" (p.507).
One of the primary changes in the second edition of Education and
identity (Chickering & Reisser, 1993) is a greater emphasis on
interdependence. Moving Through Autonomy Toward interdependence,
described as the “freedom from continual and pressing needs for
reassurance, affection, or approval from others” (Chickering & Reisser, 1993,
p.117), reflects the recognition that we can achieve emotional and
instrumental autonomy and still rely on one another for support. Another
significant change in the new edition is the acknowledgment of potential
gender differences in approaches to autonomy and interdependence
(Gilligan, 1982). Reisser (1995) acknowledges "that relationships provide
63
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
powerful learning experiences about feelings, communication, sexuality, self
esteem, values, and other aspects of identity, for both men and women"
(p.508). Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships includes the
development of intercultural and interpersonal tolerance and appreciation for
differences, as well as the ability to hold healthy and lasting relationships with
others. This vector reflects a critical function of the college experience is to
promote acceptance of individual differences and an appreciation for cultural
diversity, in turn, leading to a greater capacity for intimacy. To sustain
mature interpersonal relationships students must be capable of trust, open
and honest communication, and unconditional positive regard.
Establishing identity “leads to clarity and stability and a feeling of
warmth for this core self as capable, familiar, worthwhile” (Chickering &
Reisser, 1993, p.50). Reisser (1995) proposes, "Any experience that helps
students define 'who I am', 'who I am not' can help solidify a sense of self....
Personal stability and integration are the result" (p.509). When a student
achieves a stable and realistic self-image, new challenges are less
threatening, and the student is better prepared to respond to new ideas and
concepts or conflicting values and beliefs. Developing Purpose “entails an
increasing ability to be intentional, to assess interests and options, to clarify
goals, to make plans for action” (Chickering & Reisser, 1993, p.50).
Chickering’s last vector. Developing Integrity, involves clarifying one’s
values and behaving based upon one’s personalized values. This final
64
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vector is reflected in student values: (a) humanizing values, which are
relative rather than dualistic (Perry, 1970), and (b) personalizing values,
which refer to the process of "affirming one’s own values and beliefs, while
respecting others' view points" (Reisser, 1995, p.510). Achieving
congruence between values and behavior is perhaps the most important
signal that the student understands integrity. The educational environment,
according to Chickering (1969), frames the influence of student involvement
upon the student’s development. Probably one of the more prominent
researchers in the area of involvement and its impact on the postsecondary
experience is Alexander Astin. Feldman and Newcomb’s many “interesting
hypotheses” mentioned in the earlier discussion of Tinto, it seems, have
been examined by Astin’s (1977) large-scale and methodologically
sophisticated work.
Astin. In his sequel to the widely referenced Four Critical Years,
which examined the predictability of graduation rates from the entry
characteristics of students in light of his tripartite input-environment-outcome
model (1977), Astin (1993) presents substantially broader results obtained
from a longitudinal study of 24,847 students at 309 different institutions who
were initially surveyed as freshmen in 1985 and then again in a follow-up
survey four years later in 1989-90.
Astin’s (1993) data comprises 146 input variables that characterize
entering students, including demographic measures, information about
65
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
parental education and socioeconomic status, pre-coiiege academic
performance measures, and seif-predictions of a number of outcome
variables; 192 environmental variables relating to institutional and faculty
ctiaracteristics, including measures of thie size and type of tfie institution,
faculty demographics and attitudes, institutional emphasis on research, and
the nature and extent of student-faculty and student peer group interactions;
and 82 outcome variables, including measures of academic achievement,
retention, career choice, self-concept, patterns of behavior, self-reported
growth in skills, and perceptions of and satisfaction with the college
experience. The goal of the study was simply to gain a better understanding
of how students are affected by their college experiences. Not unlike his first
study, Astin’s (1993) What Matters in College is related to student
development; however, it focuses on student involvement as a process that
facilitates student development (p.203). Over the last quarter century,
student involvement, as a means to foster student development, has been
the epicenter of Astin’s (1975, 1977, 1984, 1993, 1996, 1998, 1999) work.
As research on persistence expanded after the introduction of Tinto’s
(1975) model, declining enrollment concerns among college administrators
and faculty exacerbated the “dropout problem” (Astin, 1975, p.2). In
summarizing the literature, enrollment instability attracted leading
researchers to investigate the persistence phenomenon (e.g., Astin, 1975;
Bean, 1982). In his examination of the college environment for influences on
6 6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
students’ development and retention, Astin (1975) discovered that almost all
of the following influences directly correlated to students’ levels of
involvement: place of residence, participation in athletics, membership in
student government, activity in honors programs, academic involvement,
type of employment, and interaction between students and faculty (or other
college personnel). Moreover, the literature establishes a range of variables
responsible for varying degrees of influence on student persistence.
Prevalent concerns include academic and social integration, type of
institution and student interactions with it, goals, external influences, pre
college characteristics, and finances. To help investigate these concerns,
Astin conducted longitudinal research using large national data sets from the
Cooperative Institutional Research Program. The most persuasive types of
involvement “turn out to be academic involvement, involvement with faculty,
and involvement with student peer groups” (Astin, 1996, p. 126).
Astin’s (1977, 1993, 1999) research has served as the catalyst for
decades of research in student development (Chickering & Reisser, 1993;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Perry, 1981; Tinto, 1993); thus, it is important
to review his primary findings. In his books. Four Critical Years and Four
Critical Years Revisited, Astin (1977, 1993) reports on his extensive research
into the benefits of student involvement. The multidimensional effects of
involvement not only improve student abilities to persist toward educational
goals, but also intensify the developmental impact of the undergraduate
67
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
experience on student personality, behavior, career progress, satisfaction,
and achievement. Astin’s theory supports actively involving students in their
educational experience. Through involvement, student talents are developed
and they become bonded to the institution, presumably persisting through
graduation. Additionally, Astin’s involvement theory supports the notion that
the student plays an integral role in determining his/her own degree of
involvement. The most basic tenet of Astin's involvement theory is that
students learn more the more they are involved in both the academic and
social aspects of the collegiate experience. For students to get the most out
their studies, Astin (1995) suggests they should become meaningfully and
psychologically involved in their university experiences.
Astin (1975) initially proposed the construct of involvement in the mid-
1970s following a study of college dropouts; he defined it as “the time and
effort expended by the student in activities that relate directly to the institution
and its program.” The theory was widely disseminated in the eighties when
he suggested “students learn by becoming involved,” defining involvement as
both the “... quantity and quality of the physical and psychological energy that
students invest in the college experience” (Astin, 1984, p.297). He refined
his theory with the 1993 publication of What Matters Most in College: Four
Critical Years, and suggested that involvement included five categories:
academic involvement, involvement with faculty, involvement in campus
employment, involvement with student peers, and other forms of
6 8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
involvement. Astin further clarifies that involvement refers to behavior, what
the student actually does, rather than the student’s feelings or thoughts. In
other words, students’ physical engagements (participating actively through
observable behaviors) and mental applications (through aspects such as
concentration, commitment, and motivation) together compose involvement.
Astin’s (1984) involvement theory suggests that student involvement
has a positive impact on development and learning; indeed, the quality and
quantity of the student's involvement will influence the amount of student
learning and development (p.297). A direct result of Astin’s (1975) work was
the introduction of the “stop out” student, operationally defined as “students
who interrupt their undergraduate education for a relatively brief period and
return to complete their degree” (p.9). Astin’s work, generally speaking,
supported Tinto’s (1975) findings, particularly with regard to a student’s
commitment to the goal of a college degree. For example, students who
aspired to a doctorate degree, Astin (1975) found, were least likely to drop
out of college. Pascarella’s (1985) student development model also
suggests that development is a function of the quality of effort students invest
in educationally-purposeful activities while attending college. An involved
student is one who devotes considerable energy to academics, spends much
time on relationships and activities related to the campus, participates
actively in student organizations and activities, and interacts often with
faculty (Astin, 1984, p.292).
69
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The impact of involvement on a student’s collegiate experience has
been well documented (e.g., Astin, 1984; Kuh, 1993b, 1995). Numerous
benefits are associated with involvement, including gains in student learning
(Kuh, 1995), enhanced affective development (Pascarella, 1985), and
increased retention rates (Astin, 1977; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Tinto,
1987). Involvement can be measured both quantitatively (e.g., by
determining how many hours a student spends studying, attending meetings,
or thinking about a subject) and qualitatively, by examining a student’s
comprehension of material, role in participation (e.g., being a member of a
group versus being a leader), or depth of reflection. The amount of energy
invested will vary greatly depending on the student's interests and goals, as
well as the student’s other commitments. Of course, the more quality
resources available, the more likely involved students will grow or develop.
Astin suggests that student time is the most important institutional resource,
claiming that the degree of student development in any area is related
directly to the quality and quantity of time and effort (involvement) dedicated
toward achieving their goal. The extent to which students can be involved in
the educational development is tempered by how involved they are with
family, friends, jobs, and other outside activities (Astin, 1984, p.301).
Astin’s involvement theory deals with the how of student development.
That is to say, it provides the linkage necessary to translate traditional
pedagogical theories (subject-matter theory, resource theory, and
70
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
individualized (eclectic) theory) to the learning outcomes desired by students
and faculty (Astin, 1984, p.300). The subject-matter theory of pedagogy is
based on the idea that student learning and development depend on
exposure to the right subject matter while, in contrast, the resource theory of
pedagogy is based on the idea that the acquisition of resources is of utmost
importance to student learning and development. A third theory,
individualized (eclectic) theory, attempts to identify the curricular content and
instructional methods that best meet the needs of the individual student.
However, it goes far beyond the curriculum by stressing the importance of
advising, counseling, independent study, and self-paced instruction. Astin
(1984) argues that all three pedagogical theories lack the element of student
involvement.
According to Astin, his theory of involvement has an advantage over
traditional pedagogical approaches because it focuses on the motivation and
behavior of the student. For example, the quality of the college experience is
strongly affected by student-faculty interactions. The frequency with which
students talk with professors outside class, work with them on research
projects, assist them in teaching, and visit their homes, correlates with
student grade-point average, degree attainment, enrollment in graduate or
professional school, every self-reported area of intellectual and personal
growth, satisfaction with quality of instruction, and likelihood of choosing a
career in college teaching (Astin, 1993, pp.383-384). However important the
71
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
student-faculty relationship may be, Astin (1993) concludes, "...the student’s
peer group is the single most potent source of influence on growth and
development during the undergraduate years" (p.398). Frequency of
student-student interactions (e.g., discussing course content with other
students, working on group projects, tutoring other students, and participating
in intramural sports) correlates with improvement in GPA, graduating with
honors, analytical and problem-solving skills, leadership ability, public
speaking skills, interpersonal skills, preparation for graduate and professional
school, and general knowledge, and correlates negatively with feeling
depressed (Astin, 1993, p.385).
Over time, Astin (1996) found a number of other negative outcomes
associated with forms of involvement that “either isolate the student from
peers or remove the student physically from the campus” (p. 126). He
referred to these outcomes as types of noninvolvement. Specifically, Astin
(1996) listed “living at home, commuting, attending part-time, being
employed off campus, being employed full-time, and watching television”
(p. 126) as components of “noninvolvement.” Not surprisingly, Astin’s (1999)
types of noninvolvement are congruent with the lives of nontraditional
students who tend to live off-campus, commute to school, attend part-time,
and are employed off campus, often full-time. These activities remove
nontraditional students from the university campus and decrease the
72
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
likelihood of positive involvements and interactions with peers who share
similar struggles and experiences.
In bringing this synthesis of Astin’s contribution to the study of student
development to a close, it is appropriate to restate three of his principal
findings. First (emphasis in the original),
Viewed as a whole, the many empirical findings from this study seem
to warrant the following general conclusion: the student’s peer group
is the single most potent source of Influence on growth and
development during the undergraduate years (Astin, 1993, p.398).
Second, next to the peer group, “the faculty represents the most significant
aspect of the student's undergraduate development” (Astin, 1993, p.410).
Third, “most effects of institutional type are indirect; that is, that they are
mediated by faculty, peer group, and involvement variables” (Astin, 1993,
p.413). More to the point, a number of results illustrate how emphasis on
research at an institution affects the quality of that institution's instructional
program. Astin's (1993) conclusion is that "Attending a college whose faculty
is heavily research-oriented increases student dissatisfaction and impacts
negatively on most measures of cognitive and affective development.
Attending a college that is strongly oriented toward student development
shows the opposite pattern of effects" (p.363). As a consequence,
“Retention in college,” Astin (1993) observed,
is enhanced by a number of factors reported in earlier studies: the
residential experience, and student involvement with peers and with
faculty. A number of environmental variables not available in earlier
studies also have positive effects on retention: the Science
73
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Preparation and SES [socio-economic status] of the peer group, and
the Student Orientation and Humanities Orientation of the faculty.
Retention is negatively affected by institutional size and by working
full-time, working part-time off campus, and commuting (p.242).
Astin (1996) suggested that levels of involvement occur along a
continuum, varying in intensity for each student, and differing between
students. Astin (1993, 1999) stipulates that the more time and energy
students devote to their educational process (i.e., interacting with peers and
faculty, getting involved in extracurricular activities, and devoting more time
to study), the more they are apt to learn and develop. Specifically, he
hypothesized, “the greater the student’s involvement in college, the greater
will be the amount of student learning and personal growth” (Astin, 1993,
p.307). Consistent with Astin’s findings, Pascarella & Terenzini (1991) note.
The body of research on the impacts of the college academic
experience is extensive .... The strongest general conclusion [is that]
the greater the student’s involvement or engagement in academic
work or in the academic experience of college, the greater his or her
level of knowledge acquisition and general cognitive development.
Somewhat different from the role of the student in Astin's earlier "input-
process-output" model, where the student is passively developed by the
faculty and by university programs, Astin’s (1995) involvement theory posits
that the student plays an integral role in determining his or her own degree of
involvement in college classes, extracurricular activities, and social activities.
Interaction between student and institution frames other research on
persistence. For example, much of the literature and research in higher
74
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
education attempts to explore, investigate, or predict the influence of college
on students. Landmark studies and reviews conducted by Astin (1977,
1993), Feldman and Newcomb (1969), Fleming (1984), and Pascarella and
Terenzini (1991) provide a plethora of information and insight about the
impact of college on students. Over the last three decades, considerable
research exploring the relationship between students’ active involvement in
college—with academic work, intellectual issues, the faculty, and other
students—and the development of various outcomes (Astin, 1977, 1984,
1985, 1987, 1993; Feldman & Newcomb, 1969; Pace, 1984,1990;
Pascarella, 1985b; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991) illustrates the point.
Pascarella and Terenzini. One of the most significant findings
emerging and also guiding current research is the emphasis on relationships
between the individual and the institution (Astin, 1993; Fleming, 1984;
Nettles, 1991; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Terenzini & Wright, 1987); in
particular, the relationship between the student and the faculty (Astin, 1993;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Seminal works by Feldman and Newcomb
(1969) and Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) confirm that an individual's
college years are a time of significant change. Involved students acquire
factual knowledge and make gains in a range of intellectual competencies,
such as verbal and quantitative skills, abstract reasoning, and critical
thinking. They also make progress in a broad array of "attitudinal" and
"psychosocial" dimensions, such as tolerance, empathy, and the ability to
75
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
relate to others. Speaking specifically to student involvement, Pascarella
and Terenzini (1991), basing conclusions on their review of 2,600 empirical
studies of college’s effects on students, reasoned that "one of the most
inescapable and unequivocal conclusions ... is that the impact of college is
largely determined by the individual’s quality of effort and level of
involvement in both academic and nonacademic activities" (p.610). "Given
the considerable investment of time and energy that most students make in
attending college,” Astin (1993) notes, “their perceptions of the value of that
experience should be given substantial weight" (p.273).
Pascarella’s (1980) student-faculty informal contact model
emphasized the importance for students to have informal contact with faculty
members as it examined the process of how a student’s characteristics fit or
interplay with institutional characteristics to effect persistence. These
characteristics arguably have the power to influence the amount of informal
contact that students experience with faculty. Based on Katz and Kahn’s
(1978) theory of social psychology involving organizational behavior, the
model purports that additional exposure in college, both socially (involvement
with peers) and academically, also impacts informal contact with faculty.
Specifically, Pascarella’s (1980) model suggests that background
characteristics interact with institutional factors (informal contact with faculty
and other university experiences) to impact on satisfaction with university.
76
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
educational aspirations, intellectual and personal development, academic
achievement, and first- to second-year persistence in university.
Over the coming years, Pascarella and Terenzini (1983), Pascarella
and Chapman (1983), and Stage (1989) used Tinto’s (1975) model as a
starting point to predict first-year student persistence. They found three
variables (academic integration, social integration, and gender) significantly
related to persistence. By the end of the 1980s, Bean (1990) also confirmed
the centrality of these three variables to persistence when he proposed a
conceptual model and used path analysis to study student attrition. In the
interim, Pascarella, Smart, and Ethington (1986) also found that persistence
was affected by person/environment fit (which had the most salient
influence), measures of academic and social integration (which had the most
direct effect), and student pre-college characteristics (which had the most
indirect effect).
In the early 1990s, Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) reviewed and
synthesized evidence on the impact of college on student development
accumulated from 1967 to 1990. The fruit of their labor. How College Affects
Students, a nearly 900-page volume summarizing the findings and insights of
studies advanced during twenty years of research in higher education, was
published soon thereafter. The book, known in educational circles as "Moby
book" because of its immensity and its white jacket, has been very influential
in shaping and informing much of the change in higher education. Not since
77
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Feldman and Newcomb’s 1969 landmark survey, The Impact of College on
Students, has there been such a comprehensive resource available on what
is known about the effect of college on students. In their book, Pascarella
and Terenzini take up where Feldman and Newcomb left off, distilling what is
known about how students change and benefit as a consequence of
attending college.
Specifically, Pascarella and Terenzini’s (1991) work addresses a
number of prevalent issues that fall into broad categories of college
outcomes within four dimensions: cognitive-psychological (subject matter
knowledge, critical thinking), cognitive-behavioral (level of educational
attainment, occupational attainment, income and the like), affective-
psychological (values, attitudes, personality orientations), and affective-
behavioral (leadership, choice of major, choice of career, use of leisure of
time). The issues that guided their work included evidence that individuals
change during the time in which they attended college, evidence of different
kinds of effects postsecondary institutions have on student change, effects of
different experiences within the same institution, and documenting the long
term effects of college.
In their review of the literature on student outcomes, Pascarella and
Terenzini (1991) found that there are at least 10 dimensions of college
outcomes: verbal skills, quantitative skills & knowledge of specific subject
matter; general cognitive competence and cognitive skills; self-conceptions
78
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and self-evaluations: psychosocial characteristics and personality traits;
attitudes and values; moral reasoning, moral judgment & moral behavior;
educational attainment; career choice and career attainment; economic
returns and benefits; and non-monetary benefits, life satisfaction, and quality
of life. They discovered that from freshman to senior year, students “not only
make statistically significant gains in factual knowledge and in a wide range
of general cognitive and intellectual skills; they also change on a broad array
of value, attitudinal, psychosocial and moral dimensions,” changes that
clearly have a long-term impact on students’ post-college lives (Pascarella &
Terenzini, 1991, p.xii).
Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) also found that faculty-student
interaction in informal, nonclassroom settings is linked with a wide variety of
positive outcomes, including “perceptions of intellectual growth during
college, increases in intellectual orientation, liberalization of social and
political values, growth in autonomy and independence, increases in
interpersonal skills, gains in general maturity and personal development,
educational aspirations and attainment, orientation towards scholarly
careers, and women’s interest in and choice of sex-atypical careers” (p.620).
In terms of student development, frequent interaction with faculty is of critical
importance to students (Astin, 1977; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Astin
(1993) later stressed "the characteristics and behaviors of the faculty also
have important implications for student development" (p.363). The creation
79
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
of environments that engage students in both intellectual and interpersonal
development, suggests Pascarella and Terenzini (1991), is crucial for
meaningful faculty-student interaction.
Time and again, prominent researchers such as Tinto (1987),
Pascarella and Terenzini (1991), and Astin (1993), among others, point out
that degree of involvement and integration into the institution leads to greater
persistence and satisfaction with their college experience. Most of this line of
research identifies student interaction with peers and faculty as of primary
importance in relation to their overall satisfaction with the college
environment (Astin, 1993). “The environmental factors that maximize
persistence and educational attainment,” suggest Pascarella and Terenzini
(1991), “include a peer culture in which students develop close on-campus
friendships, participate freely in college-sponsored activities, and perceive
their college to be highly concerned about the individual student, as well as a
college emphasis on supportive services (including advising, orientation, and
individualized general education courses that develop academic sun/ival
skills)” (p.604).
Attributing their findings to the characteristics of the institution where
their study was conducted and citing previous research that found otherwise,
Terenzini and Pascarella (1980) surmised that persistence was not merely a
reflection of the kinds of students enrolled, but that it was influenced by
policies, programs, and institutional conditions that affect students after they
8 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
arrive at an institution. Specifically, Pascarella and Terenzini (1983) found
that academic integration was related to commitment to remain at the current
institution and commitment to finish college. Earlier, Terenzini and
Pascarella (1980) described the attrition process as a "weblike network of
relations" (p.281) between a range of variables. What students brought with
them to college, Terenzini and Pascarella found, were not significant factors
in explaining students’ enrollment behaviors. Consistent with these findings,
in a study of first-year students at a residential university, Zea, Reisen, Beil,
and Caplan (1997) found that early academic integration and identification
with the university were associated with greater commitment to remain at the
institution. Among the differing kinds of students affected by today’s
institutional policy, program, and conditional influences are a growing number
of nontraditional students at both the undergraduate and graduate level.
Nontraditional students. Historically, young adults went to school,
matriculated, entered the work force, married, and had children—usually in
that order. Such is the stereotypical interpretation of a traditional college
student; that is, an on-campus resident who pursues a college degree while
participating in "typical" extracurricular and social activities on the campus
(Mooney, 1994) long before they get a job, marry, and have children. Today,
however, 45-year-old women start to college as freshmen, and grandparents
between the ages of 45 and 80 graduate from colleges and universities
across the country (Schlossberg, Lynch, & Chickering, 1989). Adults over 40
81
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
are the fastest growing segment of the higher education population, making
up 5.5 percent of enrollment in 1970 and 11.2 percent in 1993 (O’Brien &
Merisotis, 1996). The phrase "gray revolution" (Lintner, 1997) conveniently
captures one of the quintessential—the most representative—characteristics
of today’s student body.
In addition to ever-changing age characteristics, higher education has
witnessed the growth of a new student population more diverse in ethnicity,
academic preparation, economic ability, motivations, needs, and goals than
their traditional-aged counterpart (Ostrowski, 1992). These new “adult
learners” comprise a host of nontraditional students, such as the 50-
something grandmother, a single mother of an infant working to get ahead,
the 30-something man who is changing careers due to complications of
diabetes, a displaced employee gaining new job skills, or the 22-year-old
Marine veteran attending night classes to pursue a first degree.
“Nontraditional” students are heavily represented in 2-year colleges and their
numbers are increasing in 4-year institutions, where they made up 39
percent of the enrollment in 1992 (Horn & Carroll, 1996). By contrast, 73
percent of all undergraduates were in some way “nontraditional” by the turn
of the century (NOES, 2002c). Of all the demographic changes on college
campuses, perhaps the most evident is the consistently rising nontraditional
student population (Bishop-Clark & Lynch, 1992).
8 2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In higher education research, the concept of a nontraditional student Is
a recent phenomenon. Nontraditional student, a term rarely heard on college
campuses a quarter of a century earlier, is now commonplace throughout
Academe, representing the “new majority” (Ely, 1997) on many college and
university campuses. Edgerton (1999) points out that at this point fewer than
one in six of all current undergraduate students fit the traditional stereotype
of the American college student. Unquestionably, the nontraditional student
has become a common sight on the college campus.
Research on nontraditional students is limited. Bean and Metzner
(1985) and Metzner and Bean (1987) broadened Tinto’s model to include
nontraditional students. In contrast with Tinto’s expectations, the social
integration variable did not have a significant effect on nontraditional student
attrition. Metzner and Bean (1987) found the most significant variables
influencing dropout decisions for nontraditional students were academic
performance, intent to leave, background and defining variables—mainly
high school performance and educational goals, and environmental
variables. Cabrera, Nora, and Castaneda (1992) brought the issue of
finances to the attrition literature. They found that while finances do not have
a direct effect on a student’s persistence, they do have indirect effects on
persistence through intervening variables, more specifically, through a
“student’s academic integration, socialization processes, as well as his or her
resolve to persist in college” (p.589). One year later, Cabrera, Nora, and
83
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Castaneda (1993) added the role of significant others to the persistence
process for nontraditional students.
Who is the nontraditional student? Defining the nontraditional student
proves especially challenging. Different states, institutions, and researchers
use the label of nontraditional student to categorize groups of students in
various manners, thus defining a nontraditional student differently. Evidence
of the ambiguity in defining nontraditional students can be found within the
literature. Two decades ago, Cross (1980) specifically defined the
nontraditional student as an adult who returns to school full- or part-time
while maintaining responsibilities such as employment, family, and other
responsibilities of adult life. A decade later, Moses (1990) defined
nontraditional students as “older students (over twenty-eight), students of
color, part-time students, poor students, differently abled students, gay and
lesbian students, and first-generation college goers” (p.1). At about that
same time, Schlossberg, Lynch, and Chickering (1989) recognized
nontraditional students as those students for whom school is not a primary
focus; rather it is one of the many demands competing for their limited time
and energy. Bean and Metzner (1985) provide a clearer definition:
older than 24, does not live in a campus residence (e.g., is a
commuter), or is a part-time student, or some combination of these
three factors; is not greatly influenced by the social environment of the
institution; and is chiefly concerned with the institution’s academic
offerings (especially courses, certification and degrees) (p.489).
84
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Later, Valdez (1993) defined nontraditional students as “students over age
twenty-five, minority students, immigrant students, and working class
students” (p.1). In the mid-nineties, Sedlacek and Kim (1996) insisted
nontraditional students are in their mid-twenties or older, internationals,
single parents with young dependents, or those with different sexual
orientations, while Mooney (1994) saw them as high school dropouts,
commuters, or married persons with families.
Today, many nontraditional student organizations (NTSOs), primarily
for statistical purposes, designate any student age 25 and above who is
married or divorced, has children, has a disability, or commutes more than 30
miles as a nontraditional student. The National Center for Education
Statistics (2002a) suggests the nontraditional student is one who has any of
the following characteristics:
delays enrollment (does not enter postsecondary education in the
same calendar year that he or she finished high school); attends part
time for at least part of the academic year; works full time (35 hours or
more per week) while enrolled; is considered financially independent
for purposes of determining eligibility for financial aid; has dependents
other than a spouse (usually children, but sometimes others); is a
single parent (either not married or married but separated and has
dependents); or does not have a high school diploma (completed high
school with a GED or other high school completion certificate or did
not finish high school).
Complicating matters, the term nontraditional student, itself, remains rather
nebulous and somewhat convoluted in its attempt to grapple with an eclectic
range of individual attributes that are used to distinguish these students from
85
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
thG moro “traditional” students one would expect to see entering college.
Often, the research interchanges the term nontraditional with “re-entry
students, returning students, adult students, adult learners” (Benshoff &
Lewis, 1992, p.1), returners (Kurland, 1978), veterans, single parents, empty
nesters, displaced homemakers (Champagne & Petitpas, 1989), older,
mature, adult, and a variety of other labels.
Schlossberg, Lynch, and Chickering (1989) claim that educational
institutions are "out of sync" with adult—nontraditional—students (p.8). The
traditional pattern of entering college immediately after high school and
earning a bachelor’s degree four years later is no longer the experience of
most graduates (Table 1). Oftentimes nontraditional students work full-time
jobs, are raising kids, have regular family responsibilities, and are involved in
Table 1: Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to their student status,
by type of institution: 1999-2000 (NPSAS, 2000)
Type of Institution Traditional
Minimally
Nontraditional
Moderately
Nontraditional
Highly
Nontraditional
Total 27.4 16.6 28.3 27.7
Public 2-year 10.5 14.3 35.0 40.2
Public 4-year 42.5 20.0 23.1 14.4
Private not-for-profit 4-year 50.0 14.7 16.4 19.0
Private for-profit 11.3 14.7 38.5 35.4
life away from the campus; they tend to get better grades, are less likely to
receive financial aid, take longer to complete programs, and are less likely to
earn degrees within 5 years (Horn & Carroll, 1996; C’Brien & Merisotis,
86
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1996). Nontraditional students typically finance college with personal income
and savings, employer reimbursement plans, grants, and loans. Although
they are interested in contact with faculty and students and participation in
college activities (Hagedorn, 1993), their life circumstances may be a
significant obstacle.
In contrast to the steady decrease in the number of traditional
students—young, recent high-school graduates, typically between the ages
of 18 and 24, who face transition from adolescence into adulthood as they
separate themselves from friends and family while adjusting to new social
and academic environments on residential campuses—the nontraditional
student population is on the upswing, presumably the fastest growing
segment of the student population. Many of today’s entering college
students come to campus already bearing adult burdens. According to U.S.
Census Bureau Reports (1999), 5.8 million college students in the United
States—38 percent of all college students—were 25 years of age or older.
Indeed, a growing number of students are married with children, single with
children, working full-time, actively involved in their respective community,
and very busy outside of college.
Typically the nontraditional student, or adult learner, possesses one or
more of the following traits (Cross, 1980; NCES, 1997c, 2002a): financial
independence, delayed enrollment into postsecondary education, enrolled
part-time, self-supported, not having obtained a standard high school
87
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
diploma (Horn & Carroll, 1996), not participating in extracurricular or social
activities of typical campus life, pursuing clock hour rather than credit hour
instruction, one who returns to study on a full-time basis after a period of time
spent in other pursuits (Mooney, 1994), or commuter (Figure 3). As this
somewhat heterogeneous sample might suggest, nontraditional students
have diverse characteristics and life circumstances that affect their
participation in education. As they handle multiple roles and responsibilities,
the student role is often secondary. They have more and varied past
experiences, are more concerned with practical application, and have greater
self-determination and acceptance of responsibility (Schlossberg, Lynch, &
Chickering, 1989).
Figure 3. Percentage of undergraduates with nontraditionai characteristics:
1992-93 and 1999-2000 (NPSAS, 2000)
No high school diploma
Single parent
Had dependents
Worked full time
Delayed enrollment
Attended part time
Financially independent
Any nontraditional characteristic
■ 1999-2000
■ 1992-93
20 40 60 80
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Adult—nontraditional—learners tend to be achievement oriented,
highly motivated, and relatively independent with special needs for flexible
schedules and instruction appropriate for their developmental level (Cross,
1980). Adults generally prefer more active approaches to learning and value
opportunities to integrate academic learning with their life and work
experiences (Benshoff, 1991). Research has shown that nontraditional
students have needs that differ from those of traditional-aged students
(Richter-Antion, 1986). Financial and family concerns are two of the more
prominent considerations that impact on the adult student experience (Ely,
1997). Because of their many personal responsibilities and rigid schedule,
they have little time for extracurricular campus activities. Nontraditional
students typically commute; they are essentially on campus to attend
classes, utilize the library, and conduct research.
The nontraditional students of today are steadfastly becoming the
traditional or majority students of tomorrow (Moss, 1995). Over the last
quarter century, the percentage of older students on campuses has
increased dramatically. As many as one-third to one-half of the 1970’s
college students were typically classified as nontraditional and more than
50% of all graduate students were over 30 years of age (Aslanian & Brickell,
1980). Of all the population groups in higher education, adults have been the
fastest-growing segment (Brazziel, 1989, p. 116; Culross, 1996; NOES,
1997b) for some time, and this trend is expected to continue. Indeed,
89
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
O’Brien and Merisotis (1996) note that increased emphasis on lifGlong
learning, the need for retraining, and continued high enrollments of older
students will transform delivery methods and financial aid practices in higher
education.
Projections for college enrollment well into the twenty-first century
substantiate this changing pattern. While the number of 18- to 22-year-old
students is on the decline, the number of nontraditional students continues to
increase. In 1995, nontraditional students made up 43.8 percent of the
student body in public four-year institutions with nontraditional students
comprising 67 percent of the part-time undergraduate student body (NCES,
1997b). The National Center for Education Statistics projects nontraditional
students will comprise 40% of all enrollments in the year 2007 (NCES, 1996).
By 2012, the enrollment of students who are 25 years and over is projected
to be 6.7 million; graduate enrollment is expected to increase to 2.1 million by
2012 (NCES, 2002a). As the baby boomer generation ages, the number of
students over 35 who are returning to college has increased, and is, in fact,
one of the fastest growing student populations in higher education (Millsap,
1996) with part-time nontraditional students being the fastest growing college
population group (Lifelong, 1994). Although traditional college-age students
accounted for 57 percent of all 1999-2000 undergraduates, 43 percent were
age 24 or older (NCES, 2002a). More than a quarter (27 percent) of the
1999-2000 undergraduates had dependents, 13 percent were single parents,
90
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
80 percent were employed (including 39 percent who were employed full
time), and 9 percent reported having some type of disability (NCES, 2002).
Research suggests that approximately half of today’s adults returning
to school have previously attended a college or university (Marlow, 1989;
Moore, 1990; Richter-Antion, 1986). Kerka (1988) notes, “literature on
retention of adult learners strongly suggests that previous educational
attainment is closely tied to participation and persistence” (p.1). Studies also
suggest that returning students have higher grade point averages, are more
active on campus and in the community, and have fewer absences (Donohue
&Wong, 1997, p.1; Kuh, 1993b; Ostrowski, 1992). Additionally, researchers
have documented a number of common characteristics among nontraditional
students: “a stronger consumer orientation viewing education as an
investment, multiple non-school-related commitments and responsibilities,
lack of an age cohort, and limited social acceptability and support for their
student status as they are operating outside of traditional adult roles”
(Benshoff & Lewis, 1992, p.2).
Ely (1997) notes that the key to persistence of nontraditional students
is social integration, fostered by faculty members and creating a sense of
kinship. For nontraditional students, social integration may be better defined
as how one integrates pursuit of education into one's overall life.
Nontraditional students are distinguished from their traditional counterparts
by their intense academic and vocational orientation to college. For them.
91
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the traditional social environment of the campus is not nearly as important as
the academic offerings. Interaction with faculty and peers are not of the
same duration and intensity and thus differ in their influence on attrition.
Outside encouragement, from family and community, appears to replace on-
campus support as a key to retention. Said another way, although
nontraditional students report difficulty integrating into student life and other
campus activities (Graham & Donaldson, 1999), they generally report a
strong sense of commitment to the goal of obtaining a university degree.
Despite the demographic shifts currently underway, for the most part,
we continue to employ models that were designed to explain retention,
admission, transfer, and attrition patterns of a very traditional student body
(e.g., Astin, 1975; Bean, 1980; Cabrera, Castaneda, Nora, & Hengstler,
1992; Tinto, 1975). The reliable and robust constructs in these models have
contributed greatly to our understanding of students’ experiences (esp.
student persistence, student attrition, and student retention) within institutions
of higher education. However, we know very little about these constructs—
including social and academic integration, expectations for success,
institutional commitment, goal commitment, peer-group and faculty
interactions, or the expectations and experiences of student populations—in
relation to students who no longer conform to the “traditional” norm (young,
full-time undergraduate students attending university).
92
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Tinto’s model, in particular, is being examined and refined to
determine whether it applies to nontraditional students, whose participation is
complicated by competing external factors—^jobs, family responsibilities,
financial problems. Although these factors emphasize academic, social, and
personal outcomes of institutional selection and socialization of students,
Bean (1982) found that a student’s peers are more important agents of
socialization than informal faculty contacts. In the model, academic, social-
psychological, and environmental factors influence socialization and
selection factors such as college grades, institutional fit, and institutional
commitment. Environmental factors, such as finances, opportunity to
transfer, and outside friends can lead to either dropout or institutional
commitment. Bean (1982) also argues that students play a more active role
in their socialization than previously thought, and that college grades appear
to be more the product of selection than socialization.
Parenthetically, in the preface of Pascarella and Terenzini's (1991)
How College Affects Students, the authors reveal the guiding question
behind it: "Does college make a difference?" (p.xvi). Pascarella and
Terenzini respond to their own question, ironically noting, after their
extensive culling of more than 2,600 studies, that "the appeal of its
straightforwardness notwithstanding, the question is really a naive one"
(1991, p.xvi). "Naive" because the simplicity of the question as posed
disguised the complexity of the underlying questions that could only be
93
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
answered by an analysis of research when unpacked, teased cut, and
answered separately—in nearly 900 pages.
Bean’s (1980, 1982, 1985) and Bean and Metzner’s (1985) theories
and models of student departure, which emphasize the influence of the
external environment more than social integration factors, are particularly
applicable to nontraditional students. Why? Models that have focused on a
student's pre-matriculation characteristics, such as SAT scores or high
school performance, are often used to predict student completion rate (Bean,
1982). Bean suggested, however, that these models are limited because
their outcomes focus on strategies for admission, not retention. Bean’s
(1980) model emphasizes the importance of behavioral intentions as
predictors of persistence behavior. It presumes that a process shapes these
intentions whereby beliefs shape attitudes, in turn, influencing behavioral
intents. Bean’s model also suggests that beliefs are affected by a student’s
experiences with overall campus quality, courses, and friends. External
factors and the role they play in affecting student attitudes and decisions
during college are significant. Bean’s model is particularly noted for the
modifications made to it to better explain the persistence process among
nontraditional students.
Bean and Metzner (1985) examined Tinto’s theory in light of empirical
studies on nontraditional students and proposed a new model of attrition for
adult students. The Bean and Metzner (1985) model of nontraditional
94
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
undergraduate student attrition proposes that there are four sets of variables
affecting dropout: (1) academic performance measured in terms of past and
present GPA; (2) intent which is influenced by psychological outcomes and
academic variables; (3) defining variables such as age, enrollment status,
and resident status, as well as background variables such as educational
goals, high school performance, ethnicity, and gender; and (4) environmental
variables—those factors not controlled by the institution.
An extensive review of the literature on nontraditional students
completed by Bean and Metzner (1985) indicated that there was evidence
that satisfaction has a positive correlation with persistence and is one of the
most important variables to consider in relation to dropping out among
nontraditional students. Their research found that nontraditional student
attrition is affected more by the external environment than social interaction
variables that tend to more strongly influence traditional student attrition. In
later research, Metzner and Bean (1987) found that while social integration
variables were not significant for the nontraditional student group, grade point
average and institutional commitment directly affected dropout through their
impact on perceptions of a post-secondary education’s usefulness in gaining
employment, satisfaction, and opportunity to transfer. Other studies have
found that social and academic integration, particularly in the form of faculty
contact, may explain the retention of nontraditional students. After examining
several studies, Pascarella (1985b) concludes that academic integration.
95
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
measured by grades, intellectual development, and faculty interaction, is
most influential for persistence and degree attainment for students with low
social integration such as nontraditional students who do not spend much
time on campus. Tangential to Tinto’s research, it is worth noting, Bean and
Metzner’s model suggests retention decisions may often be beyond the
scope of the institution.
Not surprisingly, numerous studies have cast doubt on whether Tinto’s
model is relevant to all students at every institution of higher education.
Many studies indicate that although social and academic integration are
important factors in predicting persistence, they are not equally important to
every student, particularly students of the nontraditional variety. Among
others, Braxton and Brier (1989), Pascarella and Chapman (1983), and
Pascarella, Smart, and Ethington (1986) report that academic integration had
stronger affects on institutional commitment and, therefore, a stronger
indirect effect on persistence than did social integration. Moreover, similar
research suggests that the majority of students, who now live off campus and
are older than traditional students, do not value social integration as an
important factor affecting their departure decision (Andres, Hawkey, &
Andruske, 1996; Bean & Metzner, 1985; Benjamin & Hollings, 1995;
Ethington, 1990; Johnson, 1991; Stahl & Pavel, 1992; Voorhees, 1987). The
challenge, of course, for researchers, administrators, and policy makers
within the field of higher education is to continue to develop and refine these
96
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
models in rGlation to current and changing student demographics (cognizant
that most students no longer fit the traditional mold), to operationalize them in
meaningful ways, and to use the results of theory and research to enhance
the post-secondary experiences for all of today’s students, particularly
graduate students.
Graduate students. How do nontraditional students compare with
graduate students? Quite simply, the preponderance of graduate students
is, by definition, of the nontraditional student variety. Graduate students do
not typically live on campus, they participate more in community than
campus life, and they have stronger ties to career culture than to academic
culture. Unlike their undergraduate counterparts, however, graduate
students remain primarily the responsibility of only their departments,
perhaps their program, or maybe only their advisor.
As earlier portrayed, Tinto’s (1987, 1993) well-respected work on
collegiate student attrition. Leaving College, provides some of the most
insightful comments on student attrition as he outlines the development of his
theory of student persistence. While most of Tinto’s research focuses on
undergraduate students, the second edition of his book includes an
appendix, entitled “Toward a Theory of Doctoral Persistence,” in which he
explores the possible extension of his undergraduate attrition model to the
graduate student experience. James (1903), writing in the Harvard Monthly,
97
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
best captures the essence of attrition in his philosophical rendering of “The
Ph.D. Octopus:”
There are plenty of individuals so well endowed by nature that they
pass with ease all the ordeals with which life confronts them. Such
persons are born for professional success. Examinations have no
terrors for them, and interfere in no way with their spiritual or worldly
interests. There are others, not so gifted, who nevertheless rise to the
challenge, get a stimulus from the difficulty, and become doctors, not
without some baleful nervous wear and tear and retardation of their
purely inner life, but on the whole successfully, and with advantage.
These two classes form the natural Ph.D.'s for whom the degree is
legitimately instituted. ... But there is a third class of persons who are
genuinely, and in the most pathetic sense, the institution's victims.
For this type of character the academic life may become, after a
certain point, a virulent poison. Men without marked originality or
native force, but fond of truth and especially of books and study,
ambitious of reward and recognition, poor often, and needing a degree
to get a teaching position, weak in the eyes of their examiners—
among these we find the veritable chair a canon of the wars of
learning, the unfit in the academic struggle for existence. There are
individuals of this sort for whom to pass one degree after another
seems the limit of earthly aspiration. Your private advice does not
discourage them. They will fail, and go away to recuperate, and then
present themselves for another ordeal, and sometimes prolong the
process into middle life. Or else, if they are less heroic morally, they
will accept the failure as a sentence of doom that they are not fit, and
are broken-spirited men thereafter. We of the university faculties are
responsible for deliberately creating this new class of American social
failures, and heavy is the responsibility [emphasis mine].
Graduate programs in the United States, respected and emulated
worldwide, are an international magnet for talented students, yet little has
changed in the last century regarding the three classes of hopefuls that
comprise much of today’s graduate student body. A current list of recurring
and new issues includes: (1) under- or over-production of Ph.D.s; (2) long
time to doctoral degree and low completion rates, particularly in the
98
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
humanities and social sciences; (3) reduction in federal and state support for
research and student financial aid; (4) quality of doctoral programs; (5)
concerns about ethics in research; (6) faculty-student relationship; (7) the
lack of pedagogical training for graduate student teaching assistants; and (8)
the increasing number and duration of postdoctoral appointments. "Although
graduate education in the United States is widely recognized as the best in
the world," according to a report published by the AAU (1998), "it is criticized
for overproduction of Ph.D.s, narrow training, an emphasis on research over
teaching, and insufficient mentoring of students.”
Bowen and Rudenstine (1992) identify three discrete stages of
doctoral study: (a) before the second year of study (“pre-2nd Year”); (b) from
the start of the second year until the completion of all requirements other
than the dissertation (“pre-ABD”); and (c) after completion of all requirements
but the dissertation (“ABD”). Bowen and Rudenstine (1992) note that most
research done to date on doctoral student attrition has focused exclusively
on the ABD group; yet in their analysis of doctoral students entering Ph.D.
programs at six universities (Berkeley, Chicago, Cornell, Princeton, Stanford,
and the University of North Carolina), they found that “more than twice as
many students left these Ph.D. programs prior to achieving ABD status as
left after achieving ABD status” (p.111). Notably, Bowen and Rudenstine
(1992) found that completion rates for Ph.D. students varied more based on
field of study than on any other variables they studied. An important aspect
99
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
of their findings is that differences among completion rates in fields of study
existed even when the outcomes were controlled for factors commonly seen
as important factors in attrition, such as the availability of financial aid and
the gender of the student.
Tinto (1993) also discusses the relationship of attrition rates to fields
of study, noting that in doctoral study the primary reference environment is
the program or department rather than the institution. Like Bowen and
Rudenstine (1992), Tinto (1993) identifies three stages of doctoral
persistence: (a) the first year of study, which he calls the transitional stage;
(b) the period leading to candidacy; and (c) the completion of the
dissertation. As earlier mentioned, Tinto (1993) suggests the student’s
experience in both the first and second stages appears to be dependent on
interactions with a wide range of faoulty members; in the third stage,
however, the focus shifts to the relationship with the advisor and a selected
number of faculty making up the committee (Tinto, 1993, p.237).
Clearly, the behaviors that underlie student persistence are complex.
Although Bowen and Rudenstine (1992) provide some valuable statistics
regarding doctoral student time-to-completion and attrition, they acknowledge
the difficulty in translating these statistics into an understanding of student
motivations, noting “it is impossible to invoke this simple dichotomy [between
‘voluntary’ and ‘involuntary’ attrition].” Perhaps the persistence phenomenon
was best characterized by Tinto (1993) who called it highly idiosyncratic and
1 0 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
one that we need to study by referring to the understandings and
experiences of each person involved. The complexities of persistence are
most evident in the wide range of results that different researchers have
reported.
With some help from Braxton, Sullivan, and Johnson (1997),
persistence, or better stated as the tendency not to persist, is compared to a
puzzle—the departure puzzle. In citing Tinto (1993), they write:
Institutional rates of student departure constitute a puzzle, one which
might be labeled the departure puzzle. Given the availability of
numerous guides on the selection of colleges and universities and the
enormous amount of attention that parents, students and college
officials focus upon the college selection process, it is puzzling that
almost one-half of students entering two-year colleges and more than
one-fourth of students entering four-year collegiate institutions depart
these institutions at the end of their first year.
This trend, however, is not reserved solely to undergraduates; the problem of
doctoral attrition in graduate study as a whole has not gone unexamined in
current educational research—a number of highly regarded books (Bowen &
Rudenstine, 1992; Tinto, 1993) and dissertations (Golde, 1996; Kerlin, 1997;
Lovitts, 1997) have taken up this topic in recent years. Indeed, research on
graduate attrition, one of the fundamental weaknesses of doctoral education,
is not uncommon (Benkin, 1984; Girves & Wemmerus, 1988; Zwick, 1991).
Greenwood and Jaworski’s (1996) The Path to the Ph.D., published
by the National Academy Press, provides a roadmap of the studies being
done to assess attrition rates in graduate programs by broad fields of
1 0 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
discipline. The executive summary notes that deans and faculty in the 1960s
estimated attrition rates of 20-40 percent for selected fields in science and
the humanities; however, the percentage for humanities and social sciences
tended to be higher. The attrition rate for graduate students enrolled in
English, history, and political science programs together grew from 41.9
percent between 1967-1971 to 49.6 percent from 1972-1976 (the rates
during this period for mathematics and physics together were only 33.1
percent and 35.4 percent, respectively) (Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992, p.25).
Today, institutions report rates in the vicinity of 50 percent for selected fields
in the sciences and humanities, and more than 65 percent for some
programs. What remains unclear is whether research into the motives and
actions of students in one discipline can be generalized to all other
disciplines, particularly the broad field of Education.
Persistence has been shown to be strongly affected by the student’s
goals, attributes, and abilities as well as the interaction between the student
and the social and academic communities on campus (e.g., Astin 1975,
1977, 1982, 1984, 1993; Tinto 1975, 1987, 1993). The key to understanding
persistence or withdrawal is arguably found in the degree to which the
student is integrated into the various communities that make up a campus.
The reasoning for such a broad interpretation is sound: each community on
each campus is different. It is these—and many other—differences that
locally frame student motives. Indeed, individual motivation is considered an
1 0 2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
important factor contributing to persistenco for undergraduates. Students
who are highly motivated to finish college seem to do so in spite of personal
limitations or adverse circumstances. Ramist (1981) notes that:
Student motivational factors may be considered the sine qua non of
persistence, and therefore the most important target for persistence
research. However, they may be considered so obviously related to
persistence as to make research on the relationship trivial. With the
exception of those who do not have the requisite ability, students
continue in college because they choose to do so and drop out
because they choose to do so, for reasons that may or may not be
accurately assessed. For a student with the requisite ability, even
involuntary withdrawal due to low grades is really voluntary: a result of
the student’s choice not to do the work that is necessary to obtain
sufficiently high grades.
Graduate student motivations are not unlike those characterized by
determined undergraduates. Making—and honoring—choices is a way of life
for them. They are clearly focused on the academic parameters of graduate
school; they are motivated by knowing rather than by being—their mission is
to obtain, retain, and utilize knowledge (Barna, 2003).
Graduate students are characterized in light of their passions:
performance, preparation, and people (Barna, 2003). The graduate student’s
“level of conduct and achievement (performance),’’ Barna (2003) notes,
is integral to their personal identity and their sense of growth. Their
purpose for living through the challenges and risks of grad school is to
be ready (prepared) to assume positions of responsibility, leadership,
and influence. And through it all, they recognize the importance of
establishing relationships with people; short-term ties which will further
their ability to climb the academic ladder, and long-term relationships
which will boost them past the hallowed halls of academia into the real
world, pursuing the security of emotional acceptance and support.
103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Graduate students are what they know. Accordingly, anyone desiring to
influence today’s graduate student must do so on their level—recognize the
sacrifices they make, gain their respect, and show respect for them. Their
unwavering goal of academic success is not without substantial costs: time,
money, and personal relationships are frequently “surrendered on the alter of
scholastic progress” (Barna, 2003). Perhaps as many as one-fifth of the 1.8
million adults enrolled in graduate schools across America (NCES, 2002) are
pursuing a doctorate at any point in time. Of those earnestly pursuing the
doctorate, the nation’s research universities educate about 75 percent of the
nation’s Ph.D.s (AAU, 2000). Given that doctoral students are equally
compelled to satisfy similar ambitions as their counterparts in masters-level
programs, the problem of doctoral student attrition is increasingly a matter of
concern in graduate schools across the United States.
Bowen and Rudenstine’s In Pursuit of the Ph.D. (1992) is one of the
most important studies of doctoral student characteristics, and includes
discussion of both time-to-completion and student attrition. Institutions vary
widely on the number of years permitted to complete the doctorate, typically
ranging from 5 to 10 years. However, the median time-to-degree completion,
measuring the number of years between receipt of the baccalaureate degree
and receipt of the Ph.D., ranges from 7.8 years in the physical sciences to
19.0 years in education (NORC, 2002). Actual time-to-degree is likely
affected by individual preferences and economic constraints, as well as labor
104
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
markets, cultures of thie academic disciplinGs, and institutlon-spGcjfIc
program characteristics. Bowen and Rudenstine’s (1992) in-depth analysis
of graduate education led them to assert that only about half of all entering
students in many Ph.D. programs
eventually obtain doctorates (frequently after pursuing degrees for
anywhere from six to twelve years). In sharp contrast it is common for
completion rates in leading professional schools of business, law, and
medicine to exceed 90 percent. And it is not just the plight of the
ABDs.. . that has caused completion rates in Ph.D. programs to be
low; attrition has been high at all stages of graduate study. MoreovGr,
attrition appears to have increased over the last three decades
(p. 105).
The high attrition rates as well as the increasing time-to-degree of U.S.
graduate students have received much attention in recent years.
Despite the research and the recommendations for improving
graduate student attrition, the persistence rate of doctoral students (on
average between 45-65% nationwide) has actually declined slightly (Bowen
& Rudenstine, 1992; Tucker, Gottlieb, & Pease, 1964) during the past 30
years. The persistence rate by discipline (highest for the physical sciences,
lowest for the humanities) has not changed appreciably during the same time
period. Indeed, there has been growing concern among educators that the
rate of attrition in doctoral programs has reached an unacceptably high level,
estimated by many experts to be as high as 50% (Bowen & Rudenstine,
1992; Hawley, 1993; Sternberg, 1981; Tinto, 1993). Restated more simply,
Bowen and Rudenstine (1992) point out 40-50% of highly qualified, carefully
105
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
selected doctoral students withdraw before completing the doctorate.
Despite an increased attention to doctoral student attrition, graduate schools
have faced persistently high attrition rates for the better part of four decades
(i.e., Benkin, 1984; Berelson, 1960; Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Katz &
Hartnett, 1976; NRC, 1998; Nerad & Cerny, 1991; Office of Technology
Assessment 1988; Tucker, Gottlieb, & Pease, 1964). The implication for a
steady-state attrition rate is that the current structure and process of
graduate education is somehow flawed.
One of the most detailed and in-depth studies of doctoral attrition was
done by Nerad and Cerny, whose research into doctoral time-to-degree and
attrition at Berkeley led to the publication of their results, first in the Council of
Graduate Schools’ newsletter. Communicator (1991), and later in a volume
of New Directions for Institutional Research (1993). Their research involved
a series of steps, beginning with statistical analyses and continuing into
qualitative interviews of students. While their research was focused primarily
on Berkeley students, they also performed comparative analysis indicating
that the Berkeley data was similar to that of other institutions. Based on their
results, Nerad and Cerny (1993) developed a model for understanding the
conditions related to lower attrition rates and shorter time-to-degree
completion rates. As Duderstadt (2000) has remarked,
...today’s research problems are becoming increasingly complex, and
their solution requires interdisciplinary teamwork. The training of new
Ph.Ds. is often too narrow intellectually, too campus-centered, and
106
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
certainly too long...new Ph.Ds. often believe themselves ill prepared
to venture outside their specialty (p.93).
On a cautionary note, comparing time-to-degree between programs and
across colleges is ill-advised. Overall, time-to-degree is discipline-specific
and reflects a number of factors including the relative fraction of full-time
versus part-time enrollees in a given program, the number of course credits
required for a particular degree, and varying traditions regarding the award of
a graduate degree.
Criticism of time-to-degree rates is particularly intriguing. Many would
not question Duderstadt’s (2000) assertion that the process is far too long;
indeed, it is clear that earning the doctorate continues to be a protracted
process. Whether measured by median age when the degree is awarded, by
time between the award of the baccalaureate and completing the doctorate,
or in the time a student was actually enrolled in a doctoral program, the
consensus is that time-to-degree has increased—and continues to be
extended—in all fields of study over the last few decades, although the exact
rate of increase is under question because of varying methodologies. As
Haworth (1996) mentions, “This is a troubling trend, particularly since
extended time-to-degree raises the total costs of doctoral education for
students and their sponsoring institutions and often contributes to heightened
doctoral attrition rates.”
107
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The amount of time needed to complete a doctorate is a key concern
not only for those pursuing the degree but also for the faculty and
administrations of the degree-granting Institutions. Moreover, national public
agencies and private organizations that support doctoral study are equally
concerned. In his 1990 article, "The Ph.D. Squid," ZlolkowskI reports that the
median tIme-to-degree has been rising for twenty years, most notably In the
social sciences and the humanities, fields that typically expect longer
dissertations and provide less structure and supervision for dissertation
writers. When Nerad analyzed the factors affecting tIme-to-degree at the
University of California In her 1991 report, "Doctoral Education at the
University of California and Factors That Affect Time to Degree," she
concluded that clear departmental guidelines and sound supervisory
practices were keys to ensuring satisfactory degree progress. Benkin
(1984), In her study of doctoral students across all academic and
professional fields at UCLA, found that the two factors that seemed to
differentiate ABDs from doctoral recipients were their reports of financial
assistance and their reported relationships with their faculty members.
Among the most valuable recommendations of the Council of
Graduate School’s The Role and Nature of the Doctoral Dissertation (1997)
are those that focus on how procedures, departments, and advisors can
adopt to ensure that students complete their dissertations In a reasonable
amount of time. In general, these recommendations stress the need for
108
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
departments and advisors to provide more structure as graduate students
proceed through the dissertation writing process. Like Bowen and
Rudenstine (1992), Jacks, Chubin, Porter, and Connolly (1983), found that
the greatest similarities among their respondents corresponded to fields of
study, rather than to age, gender, or other factors. More importantly, they
also identified financial pressure, a poor working relationship with the advisor
and/or committee, substantive problems with the dissertation research, and
personal or emotional problems as reasons cited by respondents for their
departure from the programs.
Clearly, a number of problems remain to be sorted if the Academy
expects to acquire a clear understanding of the factors affecting graduate
student departure decisions. Of particular note is the conspicuous absence
of input from departers. As the research demonstrates, studies of graduate
education typically focus on students currently enrolled or recently
graduated. These students make up the nearly 50 percent who persist to
graduation and earn a Ph.D. But their experiences do little to help us
understand why the other half does not finish. Undoubtedly, the others
leave; arguably, too many graduate students leave college before finishing.
The question that demands our attention is obvious: What can be done to
squelch this predictable dissatisfaction at such a prominent crossroads?
“While it has always been at the intersection of the academy’s past and
future,” notes Brown,
109
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
graduate education today is in many ways a testing ground fo r...
forces reshiaping hiighier education. At stake are assumptions about
mentoring, traditional approacties to training, and ttie role of graduate
students in thie university and larger culture (2000).
Indeed, Lovitts (1997) suggests, “Students wtio are integrated into the
academic and social systems of their departments develop bonds with the
departmental community which both support them and prevent them from
leaving.”
Who better to weave the tapestry of academic and social support than
the advisors graduate students come to trust as they traverse the path to
Ph.D. completion? Much is at stake: if the students cannot successfully
integrate into the academic and social spheres of the institution, they move
on to something else. To be successful, each student needs to be involved
(Astin, 1993), feel they matter (Astin, 1993; Kuh, 1997; Schlossberg 1989),
and feel comfortable with their environment (Tinto, 1993). When these
necessary conditions are not satisfied, nothing else seems to matter—
students leave. Schlossberg, Lynch, and Chickering (1989), suggesting that
students who feel marginal tend to worry about whether they matter to
anyone, defined mattering as “our belief, whether right or wrong, that we
matter to someone else” (p.9). To answer the “what matters” question,
educators often turn to retention literature for information on factors that
predict student retention. Mattering, according to Schlossberg, Lynch, and
1 1 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chickering (1989), is a precursor to student involvement that facilitates
development and learning.
If we are to understand what matters, we must realize the factors that
help explain why students leave are not the same as those that explain an
institution’s ability to help students stay and graduate. The literature on
student retention tells us certain conditions within universities must be met if
we are to promote student retention. Unquestionably, institutions committed
to the goal of increasing student persistence, especially among excluded
groups, seem to find a way to achieve that end. Beyond institutional
commitment, students are more likely to persist when they find themselves in
settings that hold high expectations for their learning, provide needed
academic and social support, and actively involve them with other students
and faculty in learning. Students value support that connects and integrates
their experiences into a meaningful whole. This integration includes the
melding of purposeful and frequent interactions—inside and outside the
classroom in formal and informal settings—with faculty and academic
professionals (Astin, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Terenzini,
Pascarella, & Blimling, 1996) and integrates academic, career, and life goals.
Prominent researchers have consistently noted the single most
important factor linking student retention and success is the quality of
faculty/staff contacts. Astin (1977) reported that students who interact more
frequently with faculty report significantly greater satisfaction with the college
1 1 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
environment. Nearly a decade later, Astin (1985) strengthens his position,
commenting, "Frequent Interaction with faculty members Is more strongly
related to satisfaction with college than any other type of Involvement or
Indeed any other student or Institutional characteristic" (p. 147). Pascarella,
Terenzini, and Wolfe (1986) emphasize the Influence of faculty Involvement
on student retention and satisfaction with education. Kramer and Spencer
(1989) state:
Overall, faculty-student contact Is an Important factor In student
achievement, persistence, academlc-sklll development, personal
development, and general satisfaction with the college experience
(p.105).
Involvement, Astin (1984) relates, Influences learning and defines effective
Institutions as those having the capacity to Involve students. Echoing a
similar sentiment, Tinto (1987) wrote, "The more frequent and rewarding
Interactions are between students and other members of the Institution, the
more likely are Individuals to stay. This Is especially true for those contacts
which take place between students and faculty" (p.150).
Frequent and meaningful contact In and out of the classroom with
faculty members, especially contact focusing on Intellectual or career-related
Issues, seems to Increase students’ motivation and Involvement (Astin 1984;
Chickering & Gamson, 1995; Pascarella 1980, 1985; Terenzini, Pascarella, &
Lorang, 1982; Tinto 1987). With respect to student-faculty Interaction, the
data suggest the single most Important factor In student decisions to continue
1 1 2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
or withdraw is their relationship with a faculty adviser. Indeed, "Good
advising—as the mechanism to best help students integrate their whole
university experience (Astin, 1993; Kuh, Douglas, Lund, & Ramin-Gyurnek,
1994)—may be the single most underestimated characteristic of a successful
college experience" (Light, 2001).
The Role of the Advisor
"[A]dvising, effectively delivered,” suggests Crockett (1985), “can be a
powerful influence on student development and learning and as such can be
a potent retention force on campus" (p.244). To be effective, advising must
be more than dispensing information and aiding in course selection. It must
include the traditional functions of questioning, guiding, and planning with
students. In addition, effective advising must include an open-door
environment whereby students are made to feel comfortable in seeking out
their adviser for consultation about both academic and personal problems.
Purposeful intervention, or intentionally seeking out a student, is another
element of quality advising which enhances retention.
Students want an advisor who while providing the necessary help and
expertise, will also give them the opportunity to try their own ideas. Students
want advisors who are approachable, and who can relate to students outside
the realm of the discipline. They also want advisors who are empathetic of
their needs and difficulties. The ideal advisor trusts and respects his/her
113
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
students while treating each one as an individual. O’Banion’s (1994) model
is a study in simplicity: “The process of advising includes the following
dimensions: (1) exploration of life goals, (2) exploration of vocational goals,
(3) program choice, (4) course choice, and (5) scheduling courses” (p. 10).
The first four dimensions are highly complex operations and require a great
deal of skill and knowledge on the part of the adviser. But O'Banion (1994)
asserts, “Contrary to those systems in which advisers make decisions for
students, this writer believes that students are responsible for making
decisions throughout the process. It is the responsibility of the adviser to
provide information and a climate of freedom in which students can best
make such decisions” (p.11). Undeniably, advising is a comprehensive
process. It is a multi-faceted, continuous process of clarification, evaluation,
and decision-making that has the establishment of meaningful contact
between a student and his/her advisor as its first agenda. Establishing a
meaningful relationship between students and advisors is one important way
to help students achieve the academic and social integration critical to
improved retention (Frost, 1991).
Formal definitions of advising do exist. Crockett (1978), a nationally
recognized authority on academic advising in higher education, defined
advising as “assisting students to realize the maximum educational benefits
available to them by helping them to better understand themselves and to
learn to use the resources of the institution to meet their special educational
114
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
needs and aspirations.” In short, advisors mediate the dissonance between
what students expect from the educational environment and what they
experience in that environment (Habley, 1981). Winston, Miller, Ender,
Grites, and Associates (1984) offer the following definition of advising:
a systematic process based on a close student-advisor relationship
intended to aid students in achieving educational, career, and
personal goals through the utilization of the full range of institutional
and community resources (p. 19).
More simply, advising is the only structured service on the campus in which
all students have the opportunity for on-going, one-to-one contact with a
concerned representative of the institution (Habley, 2002). Habley and
Crockett (1988, p.9) offer a more operational definition:
[A]dvising is a developmental process which assists students in the
clarification of their life and career goals and in the development of
educational plans for the realization of these goals. It is a decision
making process by which students realize their maximum educational
potential through communication and information exchanges with an
advisor; it is ongoing, multifaceted, and the responsibility of both
students and advisors.
And in 1994, Gordon, an educator and author of books on the undecided
student, adds that advisors should be, “helping individuals discover who they
are in the context of making educational and occupational decisions and
setting life and career goals.” If students are to succeed in college and in life,
the principles of advising must be considered essential to all phases of the
institution. "Advising cannot be done in isolation. This process must be
115
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
integrated among all constituents of the institution" (Grites, 1979, p.6).
Advisors are in a unique position to champion and monitor this integration.
Two approaches to advising appear to be prominent in the literature.
Inherent in each is an assumption about the nature of students. The first is a
prescriptive approach that assumes that students are immature and
irresponsible. Prescriptive advising makes students peripheral, not integral,
to the educational planning process. The role of the advisor is not to
facilitate and guide decision-making but, rather, to make decisions for
students. Broadbridge, a well-known British author on issues in higher
education, describes traditional advising this way:
The traditional/prescriptive advising scheme is a single-directional
didactic activity: advisers limit their activities to providing information
about courses, explaining registration procedures and ensuring
students enroll in appropriate courses. The advising relationship is
based on authority and provides little opportunity for the student to
exercise control. This results in a relationship which is highly
convenient and desirable to some advisers, allowing them to control
yet remain relatively uninvolved in the relationship (1996).
The emphasis is clearly placed on providing professional services for
students rather than engaging in any kind of personally transforming
relationship. Rather than a prescriptive approach, educators have suggested
advising be viewed from a student development theory perspective and seen
as a form of teaching; encouraging students to develop their thinking skills
and addressing long-term as well as short-term goals (Broadbridge, 1996).
116
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Developmental advising, on the other hand, assumes that students
are striving, responsible, and capable of self-direction and should be integral,
not peripheral, to educational planning (Gordon, 1994). Through such
advising, advisors help students to become integrated into the academic and
social fabric of the institution; this integration has proven to contribute to
student persistence and success (Tinto, 1993). The influence that advising
can have on student retention can be most positive when those involved
(both faculty and staff) view it as a developmental process, rather than a
technical one synonymous with course registration. Advising, in this sense,
is viewed as a partnership between the student and his or her advisor, with
the advisor’s role being defined as facilitator, educator, and integrator, rather
than prescriber.
Undergraduate advising. Findings consistently link advising directly
and indirectly to contact between faculty and students and persistence in
college. Indeed, advising as a means of promoting student persistence is
mentioned in the literature more often than any other student service, and
empirical studies confirm the importance of advising to student retention
(Thomas, 1990, p.193). Habley (1981), an internationally recognized author
of books and articles on academic advising and a founding member of the
National Academic Advising Association (NACADA), touts academic advising
as the “cornerstone” of student retention. Implicit in the advisement-retention
connection is the assertion that quality advising provides the most significant
117
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
mechanism through which students are able to clarify their educational goals
and relate those goals to the post-secondary educational experience
(Habley, 1981). An advisor is not solely responsible for the development of
a student; however, when you stop to consider why advisement can have
such a profound impact, the answer is clear. Advisement centralizes the
student’s goals and objectives and ties them to the educational experience.
Classroom interactions can not, on average, bring the student’s wants,
needs, and desires to the forefront. The one-to-one nature of advising opens
the door for a connection to be built that fosters honesty and trust and allows
for the use of best teaching practices that promote critical thinking and self-
efficacy (Broadbridge, 1996).
Advising's place in undergraduate retention was first established with
Beal’s and Noel's publication. What Works in Student Retention (1980),
wherein inadequate academic advising was the greatest impediment to
student retention. From a positive perspective, a "caring attitude of faculty
and staff" was the strongest positive correlate with persistence (Beal & Noel,
1980). Forrest (1982) points to the efficacy of advising for achieving general
education objectives and increasing student persistence: "the single most
important move an institution can make to increase student persistence to
graduation is to ensure that students receive the guidance they need at the
beginning of the journey through college." While institutional integration has
since been more broadly defined to address both social and academic
118
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
connections with the college (Tinto, 1987), the presumptive link between
advising and retention remains. Effective retention programs have come to
understand that greater faculty-student contact and sound advising are the
very core of successful campus efforts to educate and retain students (e.g.,
Clark, 1989; Tinto, 1987b).
"A major factor in increasing student retention rates,” suggests Clark
(1989), “is the establishment of advising systems which take into account the
developmental and academic needs of the students." As Noel (1978) posits,
An effective advising program is one prime factor in increasing student
retention. Advising assists students in many ways, and each campus
must make a concerted effort to develop a strategy to retain students.
Students who receive effective advising tend to feel positive about the
institution as a whole.
Services that help students develop skills in maneuvering and managing the
complex higher education environment are critical (Attinasi, 1989). Effective
advising assists the student in making sense of and negotiating the "physical,
social, and academic/cognitive geography" (Attinasi, 1989, p.262) of the
University. In this way students can make sound choices among alternative
pathways they could travel in attaining academic and career goals.
Anderson and McGuire (1997), writing in Academic Advising for
Student Success and Retention, assert, "Advising is a key to student
retention. The best way to keep students enrolled is to keep them
stimulated, challenged and progressing toward a meaningful goal. The best
way to do that—especially among new students—is through informed
119
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
academic advising." Moreover, Pascarella and Terenzini (1991, p.405),
summarizing twenty years of research findings, concluded that a high quality
advising program influences grades, student satisfaction, and student
intentions, all of which have been shown to affect student persistence. Tinto
(1999), posing the question, ‘What distinguishing characteristics would best
promote student persistence?,’ suggests,
advising should be an integral part of the [college] experience, not an
adjunct to it. Advising should be woven into the fabric of the
[Academy] in ways that promote student development and that
provide clear, consistent, and accurate information that is easily
accessible to students. It should reflect the best professional
knowledge of the day. Quite simply, good advising should not be left
to chance.
The most important factor determining faculty access seems to be competing
demands for faculty time, including the number of graduate student advisees
per faculty member and the size and relative instructional importance of an
undergraduate program or second graduate track. This applies to all
graduate divisions, whether laboratory sciences or Humanities, because of
student expectations of genuine mentorship and technical apprenticeship.
Before delving into the specific realm of mentorship, a general discussion of
graduate advising is in order.
Graduate advising. In their research on graduate student retention
and the eventual completion of their degree, Girves and Wemmerus (1988)
conclude that the graduate student's relationship with the faculty, particularly
with his or her advisor, can determine success in an academic program as
1 2 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
well as in a professional career. When contact Is missing or faculty
supervision becomes a painful experience, the student Is less likely to finish
his or her coursework. Girves and Wemmerus (1988) continue:
It Is certain that a student’s commitment to earning a degree In a
particular discipline Is continually modified by his or her experiences In
that department. What the faculty do to stimulate the student’s
Interest and to strengthen the student’s commitment may ultimately
determine the level of degree progress achieved by students In that
department (p. 186).
Although the faculty Is unquestionably the first line of defense, advisors. In
particular, play an equally significant, and growing, role. Ideally, an advisor
serves as a role model and becomes the primary socializing agent In the
department. He/She establishes the standards of performance and the
behavioral norms for his or her advisee. These standards are then
reinforced by the advisor, by other faculty, and by more experienced
graduate students.
The relationship between the graduate student and the graduate
advisor Is said to be an Important component In the educating of graduate
students (Brown-Wrlght, Dubick, & Newman, 1997). Since graduate
education Is meant to develop professional skills In the student and to
socialize the student Into the academic culture. It Is logical that the student’s
advisor would be an Important factor In this process. Research Into doctoral
education, for example, consistently emphasizes the Importance of student-
faculty relationships. WIdnall (1988) points out that because the Ph.D. thesis
1 2 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
is primarily an apprenticeship in research, a graduate student’s success
greatly depends on the nature of the relationship with her/his advisor.
According to her, “the advisor is the primary gatekeeper for the professional
self-esteem of the student” (Widnall, 1988, p. 1743). Numerous reports in the
literature spanning three decades have pointed to the importance of faculty-
student interactions and early academic integration into the department as
key factors in retaining doctoral students (Bargar & Mayo-Chamberlain,
1983; Golde, 1996; Green, 1991; Harnett & Katz, 1977; Lovitts, 1997; Tinto,
1993). Specifically, faculty-student interaction directly affects whether
students complete degrees, the time to degree, and student satisfaction with
the experience of obtaining a doctoral degree.
Previous studies, among them Baird (1993), Bowen and Rudenstine
(1992), Hodgson and Simoni (1995), Nerad and Cerny (1993), and Tinto
(1993), have cited the advisor-advisee relationship as crucial to successful
undergraduate degree completion. Moreover, these same studies indicated
that students’ satisfaction with doctoral programs was directly related to
satisfaction (i.e., the quality of the student-facuity relationship) with their
graduate advisors. A number of other research efforts, including Golde and
□ore’s (2001) study. At Cross Purposes, the National Doctoral Program
Survey conducted by the NAGPS (2001), and Nyquist’s Revisioning the
Ph.D. project (2000), also suggest most students are satisfied with their
1 2 2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
advisor and report positive mentoring relationships, including the quality and
quantity of time they spend together.
Specifically, Golde and Dore (2001) surveyed doctoral students in
eleven arts and sciences disciplines at twenty-seven leading research
universities. Their Survey on Doctoral Education and Career Preparation, a
national study funded by Pew Charitable Trusts, feeds into a growing debate
about doctoral education in the higher education community by adding the
voice of students. The survey’s title, At Cross Purposes: What the
Experiences of Today’s Doctoral Students Reveal about Doctoral Education,
is illuminating. Citing a number of studies (e.g., AAU, 1998; NCES, 1999;
NORC, 1999), it drives home the point that almost half of U.S. faculty
members are part-timers, nearly one-third work at 2-year colleges, and only
one-quarter of full-time faculty members work at research universities (Golde
& Dore, 2001, p.20). Moreover and, perhaps, quite consequently, “the
training doctoral students receive is not what they want, nor does it prepare
them for the jobs they take," and "many students do not clearly understand
what doctoral study entails, how the process works and how to navigate it
effectively" (Golde & Dore, 2001, p.3).
At the graduate level, advising has also been identified as impacting a
student’s success; however, the relationship is qualitatively different. The
National Association of Graduate and Professional Students conducts annual
web-based surveys of graduate students based on the Graduate School
123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
St/n/ey conducted by Davis and Fiske at www.PhDs.org during the spring of
1999. The 2000 NAGPS survey (2001) involved over 32,000 graduate
students and recent PhDs from 1,300 different programs at 399 universities
in the US; many of the findings confirmed the earlier research of Golde and
Dore (2001). The survey’s executive summary draws our attention to the
obvious. Simply put, “The common thread is that satisfaction is strongly
linked to choice: Students want curricula broad enough to give them a choice
of careers, they want information to ensure that their choices are informed,
and they want the choices they make to he respected” (NAGPS, 2001).
Golde and Dore (2001) “encourage faculty to take their advising
responsibilities seriously and to undertake them deliberately” (p.45).
Specifically, Golde and Dore (2001) define quality advising as consisting of
providing relevant information for students about their training and what
happens to graduates, placing more emphasis on teaching, encouraging
more courses outside one's field, actively working with students, and being
good mentors (pp.43-48).
To many students and some faculty, the terms advisor and mentor are
interchangeable. “In academics,” according to the National Academy of
Sciences (1997), “mentor is often used synonymously with faculty advisor”
(p.1). To others, mentoring suggests a level of personal interaction, nurture,
and guidance that exceeds the requirements of advising. Although many
students talk kindly about their advisors, rarely do students use the term
124
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
mentor \n referring to them. Why? In short, mentoring differs from advising
in that a personal relationship is established between the student and the
professor, a relationship that may last for many years after the student’s
graduation. According to Anderson and Shannon (1988), mentoring is an
intentional, insightful, supportive process “in which a more skilled or more
experienced person, serving as a role model, nurtures, befriends, teaches,
sponsors, encourages, and counsels a less skilled or less experienced
person for the purpose of promoting the letter’s professional and/or personal
development” (p.39). Mentoring “... is a guiding process that fosters the
growth and development of the protege” (Shandley, 1989, p.60). Ideally,
graduate advisors become true mentors to a student, stimulating his/her
protege to a higher standard of creativity and professionalism in their field.
Mentor. Most researchers refer to Homer’s The Odyssey, a poem
written around 1000 B.C., when discussing the historical origins of the term
“mentor” (Roberts, 1999). Homer’s Mentor is portrayed by many of these
authors as a protective, guiding, and supportive figure that acted as a wise
and trusted counselor to Telemachus, the son of Ulysses. Yet, little in the
text would suggest Mentor possessed such desirable qualities. Roberts
(1999), for example, believes that Homer’s Mentor was, at best, a marginal
(i.e., secondary) figure in the poem that did not portray the characteristics we
attach to a mentor. In contemporary terms, Homer’s Mentor was not a
mentor at all; if we were to translate mentorfrom classical Greek, it would
125
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
most likely resemble (i.e., be closest In meaning to) advisor \n modern
parlance. Specifically, mentor is the
appellative use of the proper name MENTOR. The name admits of
the etymological rendering ‘adviser' having the form of an agent-n
from the root men (man) to remember, think, counsel, etc. (c.f. Latin
monitor). Possibly it may have been invented or chosen by the poet as
appropriately significant]. 1 .a. With initial capital. The name of an
Ithacan noble whose disguise the goddess Athene assumed in order
to act as the guide and adviser of the young Telemachus; allusively,
one who fulfils the office which the supposed Mentor fulfilled towards
Telemachus. b. Hence, a common noun: an experienced and trusted
counselor. The currency of the word in F. and Eng. is derived less
from the Odyssey than from Fenelon's romance, Telemaque, in which
the part played by Mentor as a counselor is made more prominent
(MET, 1997).
Notwithstanding the supposed role Homer’s Mentor fulfilled towards
Telemachus, the literature on mentoring has repeatedly called attention to
the fact that there is no single definition of mentor widely accepted by those
who practice mentoring, or by those who study it. To examine this
phenomenon, Jacobi (1991) conducted a comprehensive review of
mentoring literature in three categories: higher education, management and
organizations, and developmental psychology. Her study concluded that
although there are some areas of overlap, there is little consistency in the
way mentoring is defined both within these categories and across them.
Consider higher education. Today, the modern term mentor \s
complex, often used to describe a person who leads through guidance. A
mentor is an adviser, a supporter, a tutor, a supervisor, a sponsor, and a role
model. For a graduate student, the person who most often takes on this role
126
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
is the major professor. Recognizing a fundamental difference between
mentoring and advising, the Council of Graduate Schools (1995) cites
Zelditch’s summary of a mentor’s multiple roles in a 1990 address to the
Western Association of Graduate Schools:
Mentors are advisors, people with career experience willing to share
their knowledge; supporters, people who give emotional and moral
encouragement; tutors, people who give specific feedback on one’s
performance; masters, in the sense of employers to whom one is
apprenticed; sponsors, sources of information about and aid in
obtaining opportunities; models, of identity, of the kind of person one
should be to be an academic.
Scholars who are familiar with Homer’s original work believe the modern use
of the term mentor \n its current form and definition more likely comes from
the work of 18th-century French writer and educator, Francois de Salignac
de La Mothe-Fenelon (1651-1715) (e.g., Roberts, 1999). Fenelon was tutor
to the Duke of Burgundy, eldest grandson of King Louis XIV and heir to the
French throne, from age six to fourteen years old (1689-1697). Fenelon’s
Les Adventures de Tdlemaque (The Adventures of Telemachus) of 1699, a
series of pedagogical essays, was written as an imitation and continuation of
Homer’s epic poem.
Building upon Zelditch’s (1990) definition of mentors as advisors,
tutors, and models, successful mentoring relationships involve support in
achieving long-term goals, are mutually beneficial, are personal, and are
based on the mentor’s greater status in the field (Jacobi, 1991). The
Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary {2003) describes a mentor as "a
127
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
trusted counselor or guide." Mentoring is a living, breathing process that
focuses on people and changes lives. Mentoring is a cultivating endeavor
that helps individuals mature and encourages action. A mentor’s influence
and the lessons they teach are bound to intuition rather than to observation;
in mentoring, guidance usually provides proteges with perspectives that differ
from the ones they hold. A mentor’s insightful guidance, tempered by
relevant instruction, facilitates growth as it emphasizes the artistic aspects of
leadership that addresses broader implications and consequences than
those typically associated with the advisor’s focus on attaining certain
performance objectives. Indeed, helping others discover the essence of life
and to explore, examine, and exploit their distinctive gifts and talents is what
mentors do.
The importance of the mentoring relationship sharpens the differences
between mentoring and advising as they pertain to the time and energy
invested and the nature and expected use of guidance given. Mentors
provide clarity and perspective; they help see through the fog of life. Mentors
strive to support, comfort, and protect. Mentors are flexible and tolerant, yet
principled and steadfast. They are solid, durable, weathered, and reliable.
As the mentor-protege bond ages, the relationship becomes a crucible of
professional debate whereby innovation is checked against the backdrop of
experience, and opinion is bridled by historic and experiential analysis; trust,
respect, and accountability are enhanced and bring exponential returns. The
128
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
time involved in establishing a quality mentoring relationship is linked to
developing trust. Trust manifests itself over time through various trials,
conquests, and day-to-day life experiences. Trust seasons the mentor-
protege relationship. As trust evolves and respect matures, what may have
initially begun as a one-on-one training experience progresses into a deep,
significant personal relationship. Mentoring combines the efforts of one life in
another. Mentoring is not a spectator sport; it entails risks and challenges. A
mentor is eager to serve, dedicated to staying the course while standing
alongside their protege, secure in who they are, where they have been, and
what they have accomplished; a mentor possesses a positive, expectant
attitude and outlook, and is a contagiously pragmatic dreamer.
Homer himself was ascribed mentor of all tragic poets. In turn, he was
mentored by Phoenix, his father’s trusty servant. But while Achilles is
heedless of his mentor’s teachings, Telemachus, son of Odysseus (or in the
Latin, Ulysses) is idealized as the docile pupil of his father’s friend, Mentes,
the archetype of all mentors. It is important to note this Greek tradition of the
mentored life is thus elitist. It is designed to shape the whole character of the
favored few—morally, intellectually, and socially; it cultivates a sense of duty
(aidos), it exercises retributive justice (nemesis), and it gives courage for
single-handed combat in multiple adventures (aristeia). This Greek tradition
of the mentored life represents god-likeness in ennobled self-interest as it
129
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
reminds lesser mortals of their divine origin. It Invites humankind to Imitate
the mentored as paradeigma (the origin of paradigm).
Unlike Homer’s The Odyssey, Fenelon’s novel Is a fable of high moral
seriousness. Fenelon’s Mentor was a primary figure In Telemaque with
numerous examples of behaviors that contribute to today’s perception of
mentorship. Undeniably, successful mentors have similar characteristics:
they are people-orientated, they tolerate ambiguity, they are conceptual
thinkers, they value their organization, they like their work, and they respect
their subordinates; they are secure, they have power and expertise, they
trust their proteges, they have a personal Interest In proteges’ careers, they
encourage proteges’ Ideas, and they help proteges gain confidence as
professionals (Grey & Grey, as cited In MacArthur, 1993).
Mentors have been around perhaps as long as the human race.
Shamans and witch doctors, prophets and philosophers, leaders and
teachers go back deep Into our history. Moses and Joshua, Confucius and
Mencius, Socrates and Plato, and Hlllel and the Pharisees have all
transmitted their ways of life from teacher to pupil, mentor to mentee. Thus
the minds of great thinkers have been passed from generation to generation.
Their efficacy as teachers also has been In being exemplars, providing a way
of life that could be Imitated In deed as well as thought. Yet Roberts (1999)
makes the point that the term mentor did not enter the English language until
1750, which Roberts attributes to the Immense popularity of Fenelon’s novel.
130
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Bringing the discussion of mentor closer to the twenty-first century,
Johnson (1989) says that mentoring involves dealing with the total
personality of an individual in order to advise, counsel, and provide them with
guidance. Mentors fill many roles such as friend, advisor, activities
coordinator, and personal counselor. Although their roles differ from student
to student, mentors teach in “the classroom of life,” delivering lectures one-
on-one. The one-on-one nature of a true mentoring relationship provides a
great environment for developing interpersonal and conceptual skills.
Mentors help their proteges shape their views of the past, examine
contemporary circumstances, and develop visions for the future. Mentors
give reasons and background information and share perspectives on
decisions that need to be made and choices that lie ahead. Mentoring
relationships help ensure that people will be historically grounded yet future
oriented. Mentors facilitate passing the baton from one generation to
another. More specifically, the mentoring relationship itself can take on
various faces; mentors meet others' needs by functioning in various
capacities (e.g., counselor, coach, facilitator, advisor, advocate, visionary).
Whether they intuitively discern a need or derive its necessity through mutual
consensus, mentors attempt to meet their proteges' needs and goals.
The one-on-one mentoring relationship is seen as a way of increasing
student retention, particularly for those students who find traditional
educational environments alienating or hostile (Johnson, 1996; Moses, 1989;
131
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Sedlacek, 1983; Ugbah & Williams, 1989). Much of the literature reflects the
fact that nontraditional students often bring their own perspective and
experience to the learning environment (e.g., Merriam, 1987); as such,
mentoring, as a form of faculty interaction, particularly in graduate education,
is worthwhile and critical to student persistence (e.g.. Queen, 1994; Wilde &
Schau, 1991). Recently published commentary about graduate education,
for example, agrees that the role of the mentor is particularly instrumental in
successful and timely degree completion. Indeed, the importance of one’s
choice of advisor to program satisfaction was affirmed in a national survey of
doctoral students (Golde & Dore, 2001). Equally illustrative, problems with
advisors and the absence of someone "to encourage and give good ideas"
were cited as obstacles in a study of graduate students who completed all
graduate degree requirements except the dissertation (Greenwood &
Jaworski, 1996).
Graduate mentor. Mentoring is important to graduate students. Boyle
and Boice (1998) insist "Mentoring may be the most important variable
related to academic and career success for graduate students.” Continuing,
they note exemplary departments “provide a structured protocol for students
to obtain research advisors.... Regardless of whether from the humanities,
social sciences, or physical/life sciences, faculty [in exemplary departments]
thoughtfully planned how to arrange research and scholarship projects to
132
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
incorporate their graduate students" (Boyle & Boice, 1998). Why might such
an approach be important?
Empirical studies conducted over the past 20 years continue to
illustrate that graduate student mentoring is positively related to student
productivity in terms of number of pre-doctoral publications, number of first
authored publications, number of conference papers, number of research
projects undertaken by the student, research activity, teaching courses and
grantsmanship (Crane, 1965; Cronan-Hillix, Gensheimer, Cronan-Hillix, &
Davidson, 1986; Reskin, 1979; Smith & Davidson, 1992); academic success
as measured by retention rates, timely graduation rates, student satisfaction
with the program, academic performance and professional involvement
(Duester, 1994; Jacobi, 1991; LeCluyse, Tollefson, & Borgers, 1985;
Redmond, 1990); and career success in terms of getting a tenure track job at
a university, level of self-actualization, career advancement (in higher
education administrators), and academics (publication rate, grants,
collaboration and professional network) (Adam, 1986; Cameron & Blackburn,
1981; Eubank, 1988; Pando, 1993; Rawles, 1980; Reskin, 1979).
In a report by the Commission on the Doctorate in Planning to the
Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning (1992), “Mentoring was the
most important factor determining a graduate’s satisfaction or dissatisfaction
with a program. The most satisfied often credited mentors with postdoctoral
successes, while the least satisfied were typically bitter about the lack of
133
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
mentoring” (Innes, Burns, Hack, Handy, Hibbard, Levine, Mandelbaum, &
Sanyal, p.7); indeed, the second most frequent major complaint among
students was “insufficient and unreliable mentoring” (Innes, et al, 1992, p. 17).
The Commission recognized “Mentoring is not just about intellectual
development. It also means helping students ... get started in their
professional lives. It includes providing role models and insights into the
practice of research and teaching” (Innes, et al, 1992, p.36). “Having a
mentor is what makes a graduate student a graduate student,” says one
female student responding to a survey conducted as part of the 1992 Report
of the Commission on the Doctorate in Planning to the Association of
Collegiate Schools of Planning (Innes, et al, p.30). The faculty did not raise
the same concern suggesting communication within the discipline is less
than optimal.
Apparently little has changed since the 1992 report. In 1998, the
Association of American Universities (AAU) released a report prepared by a
Committee on Graduate Education intended to stimulate the reexamination
of various aspects of the graduate programs in the country’s most prestigious
institutions. “Although graduate education in the United States is widely
recognized as the best in the world," Danforth, Chair of the committee,
explained, "it is criticized fo r... insufficient mentoring of students" (AAU,
1998).
134
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Mentoring Is an essential component for success during graduate
students’ acculturation and retention (Boyle & Boice, 1998; Brown-Wright,
Dubick, & Newman, 1997; Dorn & Papalewis, 1997). Ideally, according to
the AAU (2000), graduate education at the doctoral level is a combination of
study and apprenticeship. Along with taking courses and seminars, a
student works with a faculty mentor in teaching and research. Mentoring
transforms the student into a colleague by recognizing that graduate
education includes socialization to the values, norms, and practices of the
discipline.
Research supports the contention that the quality of graduate
students' academic experience is determined by their relationships with
faculty members. Commensurate with their review of national studies on
doctoral education, Nyquist and Wulff (2002) suggest eight
recommendations; “Provide adequate mentoring” is preceded only by their
recommendation to “Provide explicit expectations for doctoral students.”
The university’s most important product,” contends Nyquist (2002), “is not
expertise, research, knowledge, information, or service. It is the student.”
Similarly, Tam and Rousseau (1998), sourcing the work of a number of
prominent researchers, make specific recommendations for faculty mentoring
graduate students: the roles of mentor and protege must be explicit (Adams,
1992; Brown-Wright, Dubick, & Newman, 1997); adopt a proactive approach
to mentoring (Cronan-Hillix, Gensheimer, Cronan-Hillix, & Davidson, 1986;
135
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Rousseau &Tam, 1995); encourage/build a collegial relationship with the
protege (Knox & McGovern, 1988); create opportunities for the student to
receive reinforcement for professional performance (Brown-Wright, Dubick, &
Newman, 1997; Rousseau & Tam, 1995); help the protege develop
professional writing and speaking skills (Rousseau & Tam, 1995); and be
respectful and sensitive towards students’ cultural backgrounds (Charles &
Stewart, 1991). In short, as Cusanovich and Gilliland (1991, p.1) attest, “a
mentoring relationship involves professors acting as close, trusted, and
experienced colleagues and guides. ... It is recognized that part of what is
learned in graduate school is not cognitive, it is socialization to the values,
practices, and attitudes of a discipline and university, it transforms the
student into a colleague.”
Challenges and Concludino Remarks
... all effective retention programs have effective advising at their very core.
-Tinto, 1987
From the graduate student’s perspective, is the hands-off approach to
graduate studies prevalent in higher education a force-majeure—a result of
imbedded uncertainty—or is there something we can do? The tone of the
research indicates much remains for us to do; focusing on the needs of our
students is a step in the right direction. Colleges are systematic enterprises
136
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
comprised of linking and interactive parts, and people and programs working
together are important in achieving positive outcomes (Tinto 1987). “If
academe is to go to the root causes of our problems,” contends Tierney
(1998), “we need to rethink and, of consequence, restructure what we do.
Change ought not come from around the edges, but rather go to some of our
core activities” (p.3). Using Taine’s analogy, it is incumbent upon us to get
out of our room.
Mentors represent continuity. Each of us—mentors more so now than
ever before—resides in the graduate students’ world. Many students at the
margin, however defined, give up when they sense they do not matter to the
people around them (Astin, 1993; Kuh, 1997). Only after the students and
their learning are considered our primary cause can faculty—more
importantly, mentors—go beyond student involvement (Astin, 1984; Tinto,
1993) and do more to honor and respect student experiences (Baxter-
Magolda, 1999). The challenges faced by mentors are formidable, but they
are not insurmountable.
Research consistently finds that advisors/mentors are an important
key in understanding why graduate students succeed to degree completion.
The same research indicates that a graduate student’s relationship with
faculty advisors/mentors is the single most important element when
assessing the quality of their graduate experience. Unfortunately, students
also report that the single most disappointing aspect of their graduate
137
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
experience is the quality of their relationship with their advisor. These
findings clearly articulate the difference an advisor/mentor can make—not
only in a student’s persistence but, equally important, in their satisfaction with
the overall doctoral experience. With that said, the challenges undoubtedly
will be met, and will be met well, if advisors/mentors focus both on gaining a
greater understanding of the students they serve and on expanding their
roles as mediators, interveners, and advocates for constructive change. The
implication for those with the responsibility to mentor is far-reaching; the
implication for their students—especially those at the margin—is beyond
description.
Tierney (1998b, p.B; 2000, pp.213, 218-219), writing from a “cultural
perspective informed by critical theory,” is to the point in his recognition of the
institution’s evolving, if not long overdue, responsibility:
In the past, researchers have suggested that students need to be
integrated into the fabric of the institution, that both academic and
social integration needs to take place, and that we ought to view
college as a ritualistic transition point from one stage to another. In
large part, the onus in such a model is on the individual. The
individual integrates; the individual undergoes the ritual; the individual
finds ways to fit into the academic and social milieu of the institution.
What I am suggesting is that we turn the model on its head—that we
develop a framework which has the negotiation of identity in academe
as central to educational success.
Indeed, the burden of adaptation must shift from the students to the
institutions. “The challenge,” Tierney (2000) asserts, “is to develop ways in
which an individual’s identity is affirmed, honored, and incorporated into the
138
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
organization’s culture” (p.219). Continuing, Tierney posits the obvious: “We
begin by working from where the students are” (2000, p.221).
What does it all mean? In other words, why do some doctoral
students leave college while others persist to graduation? “Broadly
speaking,” suggest Lovitts and Nelson (2000), “it is a lack of integration into
the departmental community that contributes most heavily to the departure of
graduate students.” The data are clear. The single most important factor in
the student’s departure decision is their relationship with an advisor/mentor.
“Students who complete their degrees,” report Lovitts and Nelson (2000),
“are fully twice as likely to express satisfaction with their faculty advisers as
are students who leave.” “Many students who depart,” note Lovitts and
Nelson (2000), “are conducting a referendum on the departmental culture;
they are voting with their feet.”
The literature is equally clear. “The impact of any given collegiate
experience,” Terenzini, Pascarella, and Blimling (1999) convey, “is smaller
than the cumulative effect of multiple experiences, particularly when they are
mutually supportive and reinforcing” (p.617). Braxton (1997) is more to the
point:
Students enter college with various characteristics that affect their
initial levels of commitment to the institutions in which they are
enrolled. Their initial levels of commitment also affect their levels of
commitment (subsequent commitment) to their institutions that form as
a consequence of attendance. Their levels of subsequent institutional
commitment are also positively influenced by their degree of
integration into the social communities of the college or university.
139
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Moreover, the greater their degree of subsequent institutional
commitment, the greater the likelihood of student persistence in
college. ... these four vigorously empirically backed relationships
constitute reliable knowledge that partially explains the college student
departure process. Our knowledge and understanding remains
incomplete because social integration remains unexplained (pp.257-
258).
Braxton’s summary reinforces Tinto’s (1989) conclusions that the most
consistent finding with regard to student retention “has been that positive
interaction with faculty members has a direct bearing on whether students
persist to earn a degree. ... The more faculty members interact with and
become engaged with students, the more likely the students are to stay in
college.” “Notably,” Lovitts and Nelson (2000) point out, “the lowest attrition
rates [for doctoral students] among the three major domains of knowledge
are in the sciences, where students often work in laboratory groups focused
on collaborative research and where intellectual and social interaction is
most intense.” “The highest attrition rates,” they caution, “are in the
humanities, where study and research are most fully individualized and
isolated.”
Attrition is often attributed “to students’ personal characteristics: lack
of interest in the field, lack of academic ability, lack of drive, and so forth”
(Lovitts & Nelson, 2000). Few departers voice their discontent; they “simply
disappear without communicating any reservations about the doctoral
program to faculty or administrators” (Lovitts & Nelson, 2000).
Consequently, their silence “makes it especially easy for faculty to sustain
140
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the illusion that they have no role in attrition” and, parenthetically, faculty
behavior is “reinforced for holding the institutional culture blameless” (Lovitts
& Nelson, 2000). Doctoral persistence is not a trivial pursuit to be relegated
to some meager notion of survival of the fittest. Faculty play genuine roles in
persistence and departure. Light (2001) recently reconfirmed the need for
academic and social integration through interviews with students on 90
college campuses which found, in part, that 1) some of students’ most
meaningful experiences involve teachers and administrators who offer
advice, opportunities, and challenges, and 2) good advising is critical to
student retention.
The literature on persistence is voluminous and cannot be
comprehensively surveyed in one bibliographic essay. However, turning to
the more general literature and the work of noted authorities, two major
findings are prevalent: first, the majority of student departures are not
because of academic failure. Academic failure—failure that “often flows from
poor understanding of program requirements, lack of adequate advising, and
a deep conviction that the department is indifferent to one’s fate” (Lovitts &
Nelson, 2000)—accounts for but a small percentage of departures. To the
contrary, Tinto (1993) reports that 75-90% of institutional departures are
voluntary. Of consequence, Tinto’s (1975) model admittedly does not take
into account other theoretical perspectives; nevertheless, it is still the bar by
which other models are measured. A second finding is that students’
141
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
departures are much more likely to be related to their experiences after they
enter the institution than to any prior experience. In sum,
the evidence suggests that attrition is deeply embedded in the
organizational culture of graduate school and the structure and
process of graduate education. Students leave less because of what
they bring with them to the university than because of what happens
to them after they arrive. A student who enters a department whose
culture and structure facilitate academic and personal integration is
more likely to complete the Ph.D. than a student whose departmental
culture is hostile or laissez-faire. A student invited into the
department’s academic and social community is more likely to
succeed than a student left entirely to his or her own resources
(Lovitts & Nelson, 2000).
Perhaps the best way to increase our understanding is to hear what the
students have to say to.
142
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter Three
METHODOLOGY AND THE RESEARCH DESIGN
“Words and numbers are o f equal value, fo r, in the cloak o f knowledge,
one is w arp and the other w oof I t is no more im portant to count the
sands than it is to name the stars. Therefore, let both kingdoms live in
peace.”
— Juster (1961, p.77)
The purpose of this study is to explore the advising relationship—the
student’s relationship with the dissertation chair—and the impact that
relationship may have on completion of the doctoral degree. Indeed, the
complexity of the interactions that occurred in this data set led to an
emphasis on exploratory, rather than confirmatory, analyses. When used
appropriately, exploratory analysis can be helpful in assessing the nature of
relationships among variables. Because exploratory analysis is concerned
with developing insights about processes through examining the outputs or
data that they generate, it is generally thought of as more of a theory-
generating procedure as opposed to a theory-testing procedure (Stevens,
1996).
143
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Why might the method of such a study be important? In a very real
sense, the methodology opens the shutters on the window of the writer’s
mind where layers of interpretative space allow the images conjured between
these pages ample room to play. The value of this fleeting visual grandeur is
realized in the recognition that such a view is not an attempt to present the
defining interpretation framing the formal cause in the writer’s mind; it is
merely meant to be a good interpretation. As Geertz (1973) reminds us, “A
good interpretation of anything—a poem, a person, a history, a ritual, an
institution, a society—takes us to the heart of that of which is the
interpretation” (p. 18).
Interpretation, or hermeneutics, is the metaphorical wind beneath the
wings of contemporary research. A branch of continental European
philosophy concerned with human understanding, hermeneutics regards
interpretation as means for transmitting experience, beliefs, and judgments
from one subject or community to another. Hence, the determination of
specific meanings is a matter for practical judgment and common sense
reasoning—not for a prtort theory and scientific proof. Methodological
hermeneutics, Hirsch (1967) points out, holds that an interpretation can be
“objective” and “valid,” if not verifiable, providing that the investigator resists
temptations to make the text relevant for his/her own practical affairs. This
strategy regards interpretation as an embodiment of the values of its time
and suspends credibility regarding its truth and acceptability according to
144
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
present standards. Diametrically opposing methodologies, under the
ubiquitous headings of quantitative versus qualitative research, embody the
continuum (Patton, 1990) of those standards. As such, it is incumbent upon
the researcher to properly choose among an array of quantitative and
qualitative paradigms and methods based on the philosophy, underlying
values, and assumptions that may best answer the research question(s).
On a cautionary note, exploratory assumptions may not always honor
the relationships among the variables in a given data set; consequently, the
results may be misleading. Moreover, exploratory techniques do not provide
any way of indicating when something is wrong with one’s assumptions,
because the technique was designed to fit the data regardless (Mulaik,
1987). Another problem with exploratory methods lies in the interpretation of
the results. Mulaik (1972) suggested that the difficulty in interpretation often
comes about because the researcher lacks prior knowledge and therefore
has no basis on which to make an interpretation.
Disagreement is not new among researchers. Higher education
research continues to endure an ongoing debate about the pros and cons of
qualitative versus quantitative research methodologies. At times, competing
and often polemical arguments for either approach seem to take more
energy than that required conducting the actual research. Parallel to this
debate, the number studies within different fields (e.g., anthropology,
sociology) using qualitative methods of analyses has increased substantially
145
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
within the past two decades (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Qualitative research
method books (e.g., Bogdan & Biklen, 1982; Denzin & Lincoln, 1994, 1998;
Guba & Lincoln, 1994; LeCompte, Millroy, & Preissle, 1992), journals (e.g.,
American Journal of Sociology, American Psychologist), newsletters (e.g..
Cultural Anthropology Methods), and other forums for methodological debate
(e.g.. Ethnography in Education Research Forum, The Qualitative Research
Forum, and the Qualitative Social Research Forum) have flourished.
Consistent with this trend, higher education research has realized a
flush of qualitative research (e.g., American Educational Research Journal,
Anthropology and Education Quarterly, Qualitative Studies in Education,
Educational Researcher, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, and Journal of Contemporary Ethnography). Advocates of
qualitative methods highlight the richness and color of insight that qualitative
research provides (e.g.. Miles & Huberman, 1994). Indeed, afield “once
dominated by measurement, operationalized definitions, variables, and
empirical fact” (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982, p.xiii) has made room for a more
naturalistic, ethnographic approaches that raise new questions and explore
new possibilities by looking at old venues in real life context. What emanates
is a view through contemporary lenses permitting multiple constructed
realities to take shape in “the eyes of more than one beholder” (Isaac &
Michael, 1997, p.219). Consequently, meanings and interpretations are in
sync with local conditions, patterns, and values as they lend themselves to
146
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
thick descriptions (Geertz, 1973, p.6) of emergent settings and their
participants. Thick description refers to “statements that re-create a situation
and as much of its context as possible, accompanied by the meanings and
intentions inherent in that situation” (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996, p.549).
Ethnography “delineates the shared beliefs, practices, artifacts, folk
knowledge, and behaviors of a group of people. Its objective is the holistic
reconstruction of the culture or phenomena investigated” (LeCompte &
Goetz, 1982, p.54). For example, culture “... is not a power, something to
which social events, behaviors, institutions, or processes can be causally
attributed; it is a context, something within which they can be intelligibly—that
is, thickly—described” (Geertz, 1973, p. 14). Yet, despite this growing
enthusiasm for qualitative analysis, overconfidence in its usefulness and
reliability ignores that the methodology perse is not without problems. Even
certain qualitative method advocates hesitate when it comes to using the
method because an unequivocal determination of the validity of findings is
impossible (e.g., Becker, 1986; Woolcott, 1990). Generally speaking, an
integrated approach is advisable. Merging the divergent constructs, the post
positivist paradigm values and encourages different approaches, interpreting
insights that extend beyond the realm of measurable, discoverable facts to
help us mark further advances. A study that contains only qualitative data or
solely quantitative data misses the rich texture of interpretation that an
integrated approach makes possible.
147
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
An integrated methodology
Most of educational inquiry “has been based upon the use of scientific
method which has as one of its major goals the collection of information
based upon the objective and systematic observation of natural phenomena
with a frequent effort to achieve cause and effect relationships” (Isaac &
Michael, 1995, p.1). Such reports are purposefully designed to convince
reviewers of the validity of the findings; as such, these reports typically use a
conventional format “with its pattern of literature review, method selection,
results of analysis, and discussion” (Polkinghorne, 1997, p.5). The type of
educational research employed depends upon the overarching,
epistemological assumptions made by the researcher. An integrated
quantitative and qualitative research methodology was used to conduct this
study on the impact the advisor has on the graduate student’s departure
decision.
An integrated design
This study is a secondary analysis of data collected by a large, private
research university in the fall of 2002. The original study used a qualitative
and quantitative research design that examined the relationships that existed
among a set of variables within a population of doctoral students. The
participants in this study, all volunteers, were secured from a population of
148
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
graduate students enrolled in two doctoral programs of study within one
discipline (education) at a particular private research university. The
methodology followed the postpositivist paradigm of Lincoln and Guba (1985)
that emphasizes the importance of the phenomenological, inductive, and
contextual approach to inquiry for research into human experience. As with
any inquiry into the human experience, concern with bias has been a long
standing criticism, particularly research of a qualitative nature (Denzin, 1992,
pp.45-52).
Bias. Bias often occurs “because of the inertia of researchers to
assure representativeness in their selection procedures which, in turn,
assures generalizability of the findings to the largest number of [settings]”
(Isaac & Michael, 1995, p.68). Random sampling from a variety of settings
within the representative population, as opposed to relying on the willing
participation of subjects in a single setting in its entirety, may alleviate much
of the concern. On a cautionary note, attaining “absolute validity and
reliability is an impossible goal for any research model” (LeCompte & Goetz,
1982, p.55), particularly any model even remotely related to higher
education. Interpretive and qualitative theories, when operationalized in
research projects, are often criticized for failure to account for reliability and
validity. “In the final analysis,” according to Wilkins (1989), “a college or
university is what its faculty, administrators, students, graduates, trustees,
and others believe it to be” (quoted in Kuh, 1993, p.44). That is precisely
149
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
why “the study itself,” suggest Bogdan and Biklen (1982), “structures the
research, not preconceived ideas or any precise research design” (p.55).
Irrespective of the conclusion one draws regarding paradigm research as
part and parcel to opposing methodologies, the concern with validity—
generally the trustworthiness of inferences drawn from data—and reliability—
the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the data—are arguably central.
Validitv
Validity, according to one’s frame of reference, comes in all shapes
and colors: accepted synonyms include adequacy, authenticity, credibility,
goodness, plausibility, trustworthiness, understanding, validation, validity,
and verisimilitude, among others (Altheide & Johnson, 1994; Creswell &
Miller, 2000; Lather, 1986; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Schwandt, 1997; Woolcott,
1990). “Establishing validity,” according to Goetz and LeCompte (1984),
“requires (1) determining the extent to which conclusions effectively
represent empirical reality and (2) assessing whether constructs devised by
researchers represent or measure categories of human experience that
occur” (p.210). At its heart, “validity questions the congruence between
some representation of an object, context, situation, event, or person and the
object that is ‘signified’ by the verbal representation" (Lincoln, 1997, p.161).
The job of validation, according to Lather (1986), “is not to support an
150
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
interpretation, but to find out what might be wrong with it” (p.269); in part, it
refers to how we are able to improve the lives of those we study.
To adequately address the topic of validity in research, the concept
must be broken down into two separate constructs: internal validity (often
called “criterion validity”), which relates to the ability of the research to
accurately identify and measure a given variable, and to show causal
relationships between independent and dependent variable; and external
validity (also called “predictive validity”), which addresses the extent to which
the results in the study can be generalized to other settings. When
evaluating internal validity, the question must go beyond the traditional “are
the criteria clearly identified and causal relationships found.” In addressing
the topic of external validity, the epistemological presuppositions of research
must be revisited: specifically, the idea that the researcher can generalize
from results not to a complete population, but rather to a theoretical structure,
one that can then be retested in other settings.
Discrepant evidence. Within the differences in the data, it was also
important to look for evidence that challenges the conclusions of the study.
This effort involved my consideration and study of rival explanations that
could better explain the obtained data. According to Miles and Huberman
(1994), "there is a strong and often unconscious tendency for researchers to
notice supporting instances and ignore ones that don’t fit their pre-
established conclusions"(p.263). A thesis, after all, is a magnet in the mind
151
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
attracting confirmatory, and passing over discrepant, evidence. These
ignored instances are often referred to as discrepant, or negative, cases
because they fail to fit within the established patterns or categories. Creswell
and Miller (2000) prefer the term disconfirming evidence. When initial data
tends to confirm a predetermined or inherently comfortable position, there
may be a tendency to overlook disconfirming evidence. During this study, I
made every effort to consider and evaluate disconfirming evidence, or the
null hypothesis, as a necessary method of lending the study greater rigor and
theoretical clarity. Since cases of discrepant evidence can change and cast
doubt on the original assertions, it is important to reflect on their plausibility
and likelihood. Doing so bolsters one’s understanding of multiple forms of
interpretation and how to move among them in fieldwork-based inquiries
through documentation of concrete details of practice. The point to be noted
here is that discrepant case analysis enables the researcher to refine and
adjust major assertions and their theoretical presuppositions.
Reliabilitv
Internal reliability refers to the fit between recorded data and actual
occurrences within the setting rather than the literal consistency across
different observations (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982; LeCompte & Goetz, 1982,
p.32). Ethnographers commonly use any of five strategies to reduce threats
to internal reliability: low-inference descriptors, multiple researchers,
152
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
participant researchers, peer examination, and mechanically recorded data
(LeCompte & Goetz, 1982, pp.41-43). External reliability addresses the
issue of whether independent researchers would discover the same
phenomena or generate the same constructs in the same or similar settings
(LeCompte & Goetz, 1982, p.32). Five persistent problems plague external
reliability: researcher status position, informant choices, social situations and
conditions, analytic constructs and premises, and methods of data collection
and analysis (LeCompte & Goetz, 1982, pp.37-40).
Transferabilitv. Transferability, or generalizability, typically refers to
“whether the findings of a study hold up beyond the specific research
subjects and the setting involved” (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982, p.41); it is the
problem of external validity (Isaac & Michael, 1995, p.88). In many ways,
generalizability amounts to nothing more than making predictions based on
recurring experience. If something occurs frequently, presumably it will
continue to do so in the future. In qualitative research, it is primarily the
readers who determine whether the study or evaluation generalizes to their
situations (Pitman & Maxwell, 1992). Eisner (1991) suggests
“generalizations are tools with which we work and are to be shaped in
context” (p.205). Recognizing the significance of context, Isaac and Michael
(1995) assert that “in educational research, generalizability of the results is
often the crucial practical question—what is learned in a single research
setting ought to apply generally to many actual ... settings” (p.88). Not
153
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
everyone would agree. Bogdan and Biklen (1982), for example, suggest that
some researchers
are more interested in deriving universal statements of general social
processes rather than statements of commonality between similar
settings. ... they therefore concern themselves not with the question of
whether their findings are generalizable, but rather with the question of
to which other settings and subjects they are generalizable (p.41).
Janesick (1994) suggests the “traditional view of generalizability limits the
ability of the researcher to reconceptualize the role of social science in
education” (p.217). Continuing, Janesick (1994) contends, “Somehow we
have lost the human and passionate element of research. Becoming
immersed in a study requires passion: passion for people, passion for
communication, and passion for understanding people. ... we have lost our
way” (p.217).
Data
In 1999, the Pew Charitable Trusts, through the University of
Wisconsin-Madison, initiated a survey of doctoral education. The purpose of
the survey was to pinpoint the aspects of doctoral education that are working
well and those needing attention. The survey was administered in the
summer and fall of 1999 to a sample of 9,725 currently enrolled liberal arts
(Art History, Philosophy, English, History, Sociology, and Psychology) and
science/math (Ecology, Molecular Biology, Geology, Mathematics, and
Chemistry) third-year doctoral students at 27 universities. A total of 4,114
154
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
students responded to the survey, which represents an overall response rate
of 42.3 percent.
Although the findings from the survey of doctoral education, which
were reported in 2001, can be very informative, they did little to help a
particular school of Education at a private research university better
understand their own students or doctoral students of education in other
universities. Key administrators at this particular school of Education
believed that a survey similar to the survey of doctoral education would
provide a great deal of information about satisfaction with doctoral education.
As such, Chris Golde, one of the authors of the survey was approached with
a request for permission to administer the survey to our students.
Permission was granted on January 9, 2002. The survey was then modified
(see below) to fit the needs of the specific school of Education.
Survev instrument. A survey is usually a cross-sectional study
(studying events at one point in time) that normally stems from a random
sample based on the whole population. Survey researchers are interested in
an accurate assessment of characteristics of a whole population. From the
samples they infer the characteristics of the defined population.
A modified version of Golde and Core’s survey of doctoral education
was selected as the instrument for the study at this private research
university. The original survey of doctoral education was 21 pages and
contained more information than was needed for the purposes of this
155
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
particular school of Education. The revised survey was eight pages and
covered students’ perceptions of program quality and areas related to
understanding market potential. The revised survey consisted of fifteen
scales relevant to the programs’ perceived quality and career options.
Specifically, the revised survey focused on the following areas relevant to the
programs’ perceived quality: background information, general description of
the doctoral programs, relations of students to their advisor, behaviors of the
advisor, description of students in the program, support and loyalty to this
particular school of Education and its host university, description of faculty in
the programs, issues and concerns facing doctoral students, resources and
programs for doctoral students, and opportunities available to doctoral
students. Regarding career options, the revised survey considered the
following areas: decisions students would change after attending this
particular school of Education, market potential, reasons for selecting this
particular school of Education (open-ended), top university for their specialty
and why (open-ended), and the characteristics of this particular school of
Education that make it unique (open-ended). For purposes of this study, two
scales (relations of students to their advisor, and behaviors of the advisor)
were selected to address the impact of the graduate student-advisor
relationship.
In an attempt to control the threat measurement error potentially could
pose to the internal validity of this study, a committee of faculty and advisors
156
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
at this particular school of Education assessed content validity. A 33-item
questionnaire emerged from the instrument development process.
Population. Data were gathered at a private research university. The
participants for this study were homogenous and consisted of 560 doctoral
students attending four campuses affiliated with this particular school of
Education in 2002. Descriptive data (e.g., gender, age, and major area of
study) of the participants willing to participate were collected.
Data collection
The data used for this study were collected during the Spring 2002
semester in a particular school of Education at a private research university.
The survey and a cover letter (asking students to complete and return the
survey within two weeks to a third party research firm. Vital Research, using
a postage-paid envelope) were mailed to each doctoral student (N=560) at
all four campuses. 220 surveys were returned for a 39 percent response
rate. All returned surveys were collected for preparation of the data for
statistical analyses; Vital Research tabulated the responses. Further
analyses of the raw data were completed for this study using SPSS 7.0 for
Windows (SPSS, 1997) statistical software.
An integrated quantitative and qualitative research design was used to
conduct this study on the impact the advisor has on the graduate student’s
departure decision. The quantifiable (Likert-scale) response data were
157
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
analyzed using independent sample t-tests and the Kruskal-Wallis test, a
nonparametric equivalent of a one-way analysis. Standard deviations and
sample sizes (n) were tabulated. Open-ended responses were described
and analyzed using averages and ranges. Specific responses of selected
graduate students were used to illustrate the overall response questionnaire
results. Descriptive statistics were also used. The remainder of this chapter
is devoted to making sense of the data.
Perhaps the most difficult part of carrying out a study is obtaining
useful data. Often good questions abound, but finding the correct data to
answer the questions is not always easy. While allowing the data to shape
the development of the questions and the subsequent analysis is a valuable
approach, the conceptual models used to frame the research questions,
develop the methodology for the research, and collect the data cannot help
but have an impact on the analysis. For example, a researcher who begins
with a theoretical framework focused on the testing of discrete variables
based on an analysis of numerically-scaled responses to questions on a
survey instrument cannot easily shift gears after the research has been
completed and instead choose to use a qualitative approach to analyze the
data.
Weiss (1972), in her book. Evaluation Research, states that the only
limits on sources and techniques for data collection are the ingenuity and
imagination of the researcher. In the real world—as in this study—there may
158
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
be limitations other than one’s imagination. A number of intervening factors
(e.g., the resources available for collecting data, time constraints, or the
availability of the data) may determine the source of data for analysis.
Research using secondary analvses of existing data sets
This is a secondary analysis of cross-sectional data collected by Vital
Research, a private research firm hired by a private research university to
assist with the preliminary description of degree programs offered by the
school. Secondary analysis is an unobtrusive measure that involves the
utilization of existing sources of data in a research context, collected for the
purposes of a prior study, in order to pursue a research interest which is
distinct from that of the original work. This may be a new research question
or an alternative perspective on the original question (Hinds, Vogel, & Clarke-
Steffen, 1997; Szabo & Strang, 1997). Unobtrusive measurement
presumably reduces the biases that result from the intrusion of the
researcher or measurement instrument. However, unobtrusive measures
also reduce the degree of influence the researcher has over the type of data
collected.
Secondary analysis has two prominent advantages. First, it is
efficient, making use of data already collected by someone else. Second, it
often allows the researcher to extend the scope of the study considerably by
taking advantage of large, archived databases already national in scope
159
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
without incurring the cost of conducting the survey and data collection.
Secondary analysis also has its difficulties. Generally, it is no trivial matter to
access and link data from large complex databases. Often the researcher
has to make assumptions about what data to combine and which variables to
appropriately aggregate into indexes. Perhaps more importantly, the
researcher seldom has insight into the problems encountered by others in
the original data collection. Large, well-financed, national studies are usually
documented quite thoroughly, but even detailed documentation of
procedures is often no substitute for direct experience collecting data.
One of the most important purposes of secondary analysis is to
replicate prior research findings. In most social science research, data that
might have taken months or years to collect is analyzed only once by the
original research team in a relatively brief way from one analyst’s
perspective. The tradition of replicability of results is a critical component of
scientific research. Less attention is devoted to documenting and archiving
data from individual studies so they are available in electronic form for others
to re-analyze later. Moreover, prestige is seldom associated with secondary
analysis of existing data in the applied social sciences.
Secondary analysis using this data set examined doctoral student
satisfaction with their advisor relationship as distinguished by gender and
ethnic grouping. The sorts of questions to consider when evaluating
secondary data sources for use include the appropriateness of the study’s
160
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
unit of analysis and sampling, the variables and their values, and levels of
measurement. The data consisted of a number of measured attributes—
called variables—each describing a set of observations. The observations
were individual respondents and the variables were responses solicited from
questions about attitudes, behaviors, and traits. The key to any successful
data analysis—particularly secondary analysis—is to work with quality
information. Asking the right questions, sampling from the correct
population, working with a reliable sample, and clean data entry are critical to
the quality and reliability of the end product.
Survevs and survev research
An important distinction separates surveys and survey research. A
survey is a means of "gathering information about the characteristics,
actions, or opinions of a large group of people, referred to as a population"
(Tanur, 1982). Pinsonneault and Kraemer (1993) contend survey
methodology is often misapplied. Five important weaknesses plague the
survey research methodology (Pinsonneault & Kraemer, 1993):
(1) single method designs where multiple methods are needed;
(2) unsystematic and often inadequate sampling procedures;
(3) low response rates;
(4) weak linkages between units of analysis and respondents; and,
(5) over-reliance on cross-sectional surveys where longitudinal
surveys are really needed (p.1).
161
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In simpler terms, surveys suffer from problems In research design, sampling
procedures, and data collection. Surveys conducted to advance scientific
knowledge are referred to as survey research.
Survey research has three distinct characteristics. To begin, survey
research is a quantitative method; it requires standardized information from
and/or about the subjects being studied that describes some aspects of the
study population where analysis may be primarily concerned either with
relationships between variables or with projecting findings descriptively to a
predefined population (Glock, 1967). Next, survey research collects
information primarily by asking respondents structured and predefined
questions. Responses constitute the data to be analyzed. Finally,
information is generally collected about only a fraction of the study
population—a sample—usually large enough to allow extensive statistical
analyses, but it is collected in such a way as to generalize the findings to the
population.
Survey research methodology, according to Pinsonneault and
Kraemer (1993, pp.3-4), is most appropriate when:
(a) the central questions of interest about the phenomena are "what is
happening?", and "how and why is it happening?" Survey research is
especially well-suited for answering questions about what, how much
and how many, and to a greater extent than is commonly understood,
questions about how and why.
(b) control of the independent and dependent variables is not possible
or not desirable.
(c) the phenomena of interest must be studied in its natural setting.
(d) the phenomena of interest occur in current time or the recent past.
162
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The core value of statistical analyses within the survey research
methodology is its ability to assist the researcher in making inferences about
a large group (the population) based on observations of a smaller subset of
that group (the sample). To make such a judgment with any assurance, the
sample must be similar to the target population in all relevant aspects, and
certain aspects of the measured variables must conform to assumptions that
underlie the statistical procedures to be applied.
Representative sampling. One of the most fundamental tenets of
inferential statistics is that the observed sample must be representative of the
target population in order to derive valid inferences. Applying theory to
reality is, at times, problematic. Choosing the sample by selecting members
of the population at random, with each member having an equal probability of
being selected for the sample, constitutes the ideal scenario. Typically, the
researcher simply tries to ensure the sample "parallels" the population with
respect to certain key characteristics that are thought to be important to the
investigation at hand.
Sampling “things” is not the same as sampling people. While studying
people, the researcher does not always have access to the entire population.
As with this study, research is limited to a certain number of doctoral
students within a certain period of time. The expectation is that the group
under study (i.e., sample) isn't somehow different from the target population.
163
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A school of Education at a private research university
This study relied on data collected by a school of Education at a
private research university during the Spring Semester 2002 from a modified
version of Golde and Dore’s (2001) survey of doctoral education. Key
administrators at this particular school of Education believed that a survey
similar to the Golde-Dore survey of doctoral education would provide a great
deal of Information about satisfaction with doctoral experience. As such,
Chris Golde, one of the authors of the survey, granted permission to
administer the survey. The resultant 8-page questionnaire combined both
open-ended and structured questions on selected doctoral-related Issues
and concerns. Open-ended questions were used to find out which aspects of
an Issue were uppermost In the respondent's mind. Where the range of
answers was limited and well-established, structured questions were used.
A very common limitation of questionnaires Is the willingness and ability of
Individuals to respond. This potential disadvantage was minimized In this
study through safeguards built Into the original research design. For
Instance, the questions themselves were simple and the overall design of the
questionnaire was such as to minimize the need for assistance. The
Introductory cover letter was clear and concise, and communicated to the
respondents that their assistance was needed In addressing doctoral
students’ needs.
164
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Sample. Results of this study, based on survey responses from 220
doctoral students (139 females, 68 males, and 13 unreported), were found to
be proportionately representative of the four campuses; the final sample
consisted of 67% female and 33% male. Of the respondents who
volunteered their birth year, doctoral students in this particular study were
between 25 and 64 years old (mean = 39.65, median = 38, mode = 32). The
ethnic composition of the respondents was 8% African American (n=16),
13% Asian American-Pacific Islander (n=25), 13% Chicano/a~Hispanic~
Latino (n=25), 1% Native American-Alaska Native (n=2), 58% Caucasian
(n=113), 7% other (n=15), and twenty-four who declined to report ethnicity.
All survey data were segregated by campus, school of Education
division (Counseling Psychology, Learning and Instruction, Policy and
Administration), and degree objective (EdD, Ph.D.). Survey items covering
behaviors of the advisor (20 items), students in the program (12 items), and
faculty in the program (10 items) were separately factor analyzed.
Instrumentation. Data were collected through a 4-point Likert-type
scale survey questionnaire. Students’ perspectives on program support as
well as the transmission of knowledge and skill, as shaped by their research
advisor, were based on 20 items on the survey. Eleven of the items on the
survey were used to assess students’ perceptions of the support they
received from their relationship with their dissertation chair. Sample items
included, “My advisor gives me regular and constructive feedback on my
165
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
research” and “My advisor is available when I need help with my program.”
Seven additional items were used to examine students’ perception of their
advisors’ willingness (and ability) to transfer knowledge and skill. Items
included, “My advisor teaches me to write grant and contract proposals” and
“My advisor teaches me survival skills for this field." Another item “I currently
have the advisor I want,” was used to assess students’ perception of their
relationship with their advisor. One additional item, examining students’
desires to choose another advisor, was also part of the survey.
Responses to the items on the survey were rated on a 1 (Strongly
Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree) scale with no midpoint. Each survey
included space for student comments. The alpha reliability coefficient for the
support offered by advisors was .96 and the alpha reliability coefficient for the
advisors’ transmission of knowledge and skill was .90.
Demographic items in the survey included students’ specialization,
campus, ethnicity, age, gender, and marital status. Students were also
asked to report their enrollment status (full-time or part-time), degree
objective (Ph.D. or EdD), the stage of program completion, and an
assessment of their doctoral program with regard to the coursework, program
requirements, exams, program flexibility, and annual progress reviews at the
time of the study. The scale ranged from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly
Agree) with no midpoint. All additional quantitative survey items were
analyzed using descriptive statistics such as means, standard deviations, or
166
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
percentages. All qualitative data were entered into an ACCESS relational
database and content analyzed.
Scales. The revised survey used in this study consisted of fifteen
scales relevant to the programs’ perceived quality and career options. For
purposes of this study, two of the fifteen scales (relations of students to their
advisor, and behaviors of the advisor) were selected to provide a measure of
the impact the graduate student-advisor relationship has on doctoral student
persistence. With the exception of demographics and open-ended
questions, graduate student respondents rated items on a 4-point Likert
scale with respect to their expectation and satisfaction with their relationship
with the dissertation chair—their advisor. Specifically, question 1 through
question 7 response categories and question 26 through question 33
response categories were demographic in nature. Question 9 response
categories for whether the student currently had an advisor were “yes" and
“no.” A four-point Likert scale was used for the remaining advisor-specific
questions. Question 10 and question 11 response categories were 1 =
strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, and 4 = strongly agree. Question
17 response categories were “definitely yes,” “probably yes,” “probably no,”
and “definitely no.” Question 18 and question 20 through question 25
response categories were open ended.
The data were analyzed to determine levels of satisfaction as well as
the differences among scores for student respondents. Specifically, the data
167
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
were analyzed to determine 1) if significant differences exist among the
ethnic groupings of doctoral students, and 2) if the differences among
doctoral students’ gender was significant. Care was also taken to consider if
there were differences by degree objective and by program. Student
responses were compared to the national norms. Of particular import were
responses to the following survey statements:
q10_1: “I currently have the advisor I want.”
q17_3: If I did it over, I would “select a different advisor.”
These variables were specifically selected to provide a good interpretation
(Geertz, 1973) of the impact the graduate student-advisor relationship has on
doctoral student persistence. If it was deemed appropriate to do so, open-
ended comments were linked back to the quantitative analysis (person by
person).
The selection of an integrated quantitative-qualitative design for this
study presents the bias that the data requires the researcher to interpret
through inductive and/or intuitive processes (Bogdan & Taylor, 1975).
Evaluating my research questions, I found that the questions were both
exploratory and explanatory, as I wanted to focus on explaining and
exploring pertinent doctoral student experiences over a specified amount of
time, not just viewing one or two isolated events. Additionally, the situation
was contemporary, and I had no control over the events or participants.
168
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
While basic demographic information and educational information
cannot hope to depict the richness and complexity of the individual doctoral
students and their advisor, these descriptions served to provide a context for
their comments. Van Manen (1990) states, "Research and life are drawn
more closely together in our understanding of research as a form of
thoughtful learning" (p. 155). This written discourse then was an attempt to
move the reader and myself into a mode of "thoughtful learning" about these
participants.
Statistical assumptions. The validity of a statistical procedure depends
on certain assumptions it makes about various aspects of the problem. For
instance, well-known linear methods such as analysis of variance (ANOVA)
depend on the assumption of normality and independence. Unfortunately,
the robustness of statistical techniques only goes so far—"robustness" is not
a license to ignore the assumption. To test the assumption that the
distributions were normally distributed, stem-and-leaf plots, skewness and
kurtosis statistics, and normality tests were used. Additionally, the Kruskal-
Wallis test, a nonparametric equivalent of a one-way analysis, determined
significant ethnic differences in doctoral student satisfaction. While analysis
of variance tests depend on the assumption that all populations under
comparison are normally distributed, the Kruskal-Wallis test places no such
restriction on the comparison. The assumption regarding independence of
observations is more troublesome, both because it underlies nearly all of the
169
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
most commonly used statistical procedures and because it is so frequently
violated in practice. If the observations are linked in some way—i.e.,
graduate students in the same cohort or school—the researcher must be
concerned with dependencies. The next chapter, Results of the Study, offers
a closer look at the investigation.
170
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter Four
RESULTS OF THE STUDY
“Carry this with you on your journey,” he said softly, “ fo r there is
much worth noticing that often escapes the eye. Through it you can see
everything fro m the tender moss in a sidewalk crack to the glow o f the
farthest star—and, most im portant o f all, you can see things as they
really are, not ju st as they seem to be.”
— Juster (1961, p.132)
Tierney (2000b) is succinct in his admonition that “although a
researcher might carefully craft a research design, acquire important
findings, and develop notable conclusions, unless the researcher is able to
translate these findings for public use, one might assume that all is for
naught” (p.185). Although we never achieve objectivity perfectly (Eisner,
1991; Lincoln & Guba, 1985), constructive scrutiny helps us approach it.
Over time, our knowledge expands (or evolves) as our understanding of
reality is enhanced. With this understanding comes a closer approximation
of the objectivity or, as Lincoln and Guba (1985) prefer to call it, the
confirmability of the research. The quality of the results produced by an
inquiry in terms of how well they are supported by those involved in the study
171
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and by events that are independent of the researcher is an essential element
of this approximation. The more objective the study, the more believable the
results.
Though the results of this study may surprise some readers, they do
so in a way that lends credence to their believability. Indeed, this particular
study, based on secondary analyses of existing data, yielded interesting
results. In some aspects, the results supported the findings of other
researchers in doctoral persistence while, in other aspects, it reasserted
factors that appear to be important primarily in the broad field of education.
Given the diversity of the doctoral students in this research, it was at times
surprising how clearly certain themes emerged as consistent threads in their
experiences: those themes are discussed in this chapter and form the basis
for the conclusions presented in Chapter Five.
Data Analvsis
The data for this study are responses to a survey of doctoral students
from a school of Education at a private research university. The student data
file contains information about 220 doctoral students attending four
campuses affiliated with this university. The gender and ethnicity of the
doctoral students were of particular interest to this study. Independent
sample t tests were used to identify the existence of significant gender
differences in student responses to the survey items at the time of the study.
172
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Kruskal-Wallis test, a nonparametric equivalent of a one-way analysis,
was used to determine whether significant ethnic differences in doctoral
student satisfaction existed. Statistical significance was set at an alpha level
of .01. In addition to a vast array of statistical analyses, this chapter includes
relevant quoted material from the doctoral students’ responses that may help
explain differences in gender and ethnic groupings. For the most part, these
responses are provided with no changes from their original form; however,
for the sake of clarity, a few modifications have been made.
Time to degree. There was considerable variation in the number of
years between the doctoral students’ enrollment in their programs of study
and their anticipated graduation date. In all cases, the doctoral students in
this study were currently enrolled at the time of the survey. Doctoral students
gave approximate dates for their graduation based on when they felt they
would complete program requirements. Seven doctoral students did not
report their start date although they provided an estimated completion date.
Ten doctoral students chose not to report a completion date. Four students
reported neither a start date nor a completion date for their program of
studies. The range for time-to-degree (start of the program to the anticipated
graduation date) for this study was from three years to twenty-five years, with
the median being 6.5 years and the mean just over five years. The largest
group, forty students (21%), anticipated the completion of program
requirements within three years of the start date.
173
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Summary of findings related to the research questions
Beyond general descriptive statistics, what do the results of inferential
statistics suggest about this particular population? Specifically, what
noticeable correlation might we derive from the student-advisor relationship
and its impact on the departure decisions for students seeking a doctoral
degree at this private research university? To help answer this question, a
series of subsidiary questions demand our attention:
• To what extent are doctoral students satisfied with their relationship to
their advisor?
• To what extent do men and women experience differences among
their relationships with advisors?
• To what extent do ethnic groupings experience differences among
their relationships with advisors?
What, precisely, do the data tell us about the doctoral students’ relationships
with their advisors and their willingness, given an opportunity to begin their
program again knowing what they now know, to select a different advisor?
For ease of presentation, the analyses will be segregated by two variables,
gender and ethnicity. The extent doctoral students, overall, are satisfied with
their relationship to their advisor will be addressed in Chapter Five,
Conclusions.
The extent men and women experience differences amona their
relationships with advisors. To test the hypothesis that satisfaction with the
advisor relationship is equal for males and females, the variables, gender
174
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and q10_1, were subjected to independent samples testing. The variable
q10_1 referred to responses for the survey statement, “I currently have the
advisor I want.” This process was repeated with the variables gender and
q17_3 (“If I did it over, I would select a different advisor”). Descriptive
statistics are shown in Table 2. Both distributions are negatively skewed with
regard to their satisfaction with their current advisor and positively skewed in
light of their desire to select a different advisor if they could go back in time
and start their program again. Skewness measures the coefficient of
asymmetry of a distribution while kurtosis measures the degree of fat tails of
a distribution. Skewness and kurtosis are chiefly used to diagnose how
normally distributed data are, since the standard normal distribution has
skewness zero and kurtosis 3.
T a b le 2: Descriptive statistics, G en d e r
M ALE(N=51) Mean Median Mode
I currently have the advisor I want 3.33 4.00 4.00
Did over; Select a different advisor 1.78 1.00 1.00
FEMALE
(N=115)
I currently have the advisor I want 3.56 4.00 4.00
Did over: Select a different advisor 1.85 2.00 1.00
The males’ satisfaction with their current advisors ranged from 1
(strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The skewness statistic for the
males, negative 1.347, is about 4.0 standard error units less than zero. The
females’ satisfaction with their current advisors also ranged from 1 to 4. The
175
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
skewness statistic for the females, negative 1.737, is about 7.7 standard
error units less than zero. The females’ satisfaction with their current
advisors is more strongly skewed than the males’ satisfaction. Regarding the
students’ desire to select a different advisor if they could go back in time and
start their doctoral program again, the males’ responses ranged from 1
(definitely no) to 4 (definitely yes). The skewness statistic for the males,
1.177, is about 3.5 standard error units greater than zero. The females’
desire to select a different advisor if they could go back in time and start their
doctoral program again also ranged from 1 to 4. The skewness statistic for
the females, 1.029, is about 4.6 standard error units greater than zero. As
anticipated, the females’ desire to select a different advisor is more strongly
skewed than the males’ desires to do likewise. A Caucasian female summed
up her frustration this way: “The older male professors strongly ignore female
students.”
Kurtosis is a parameter that describes the shape of a random
variable’s probability distribution. Said differently, it is the degree of flatness
or ’peakedness’ in the region of mode of a frequency curve. It is measured
relative to the ’peakedness’ of the normal curve. It tells us the extent to
which a distribution is more peaked or flat-topped than the normal curve.
Normal distributions have a kurtosis of 3 (irrespective of their mean or
standard deviation). If a distribution’s kurtosis is greater than 3, it is said to
be leptokurtic. In other words, the curve is more peaked than a normal curve
176
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(i.e., case items are more clustered about the mode). If its kurtosis is less
than 3, it is said to be platykurtic (i.e., the curve is more flat-topped than the
normal curve). Lepto-kurtosis is associated with distributions that are
simultaneously “peaked” and have “fat tails” while platykurtosis is associated
with distributions that are simultaneously less peaked and have thinner tails.
In this study, gender, both male and female, was platykurtic.
Normality statistics indicate that neither of the distributions associated
with the variable q10_1 (I currently have the advisor I want) are normal: KS
for males (51) = .332, p < .0005, /CSfor females (115) = .393, p < .0005. The
same holds true for the distributions associated with the variable q17_3
(select a different advisor): KS ior males (51) = .318, p < .0005, KSfor
females (115) = .270, p < .0005. The Gender boxplots provided a graphic
representation of the homogeneity, lending clarity to the statistical outcomes
that support the same notion. The f test was appropriate for this data.
The extent ethnic oroupinas experience differences among their
relationships with advisors. The entire procedure was replicated using the
variable ethnicity in lieu of the variable gender. To test the hypothesis that
satisfaction with the advisor relationship is equal for all ethnic groups, the
variables ethnicity and q10_1 were also subjected to independent samples
testing. The variable q10_1 referred to the survey statement, “I currently
have the advisor I want.” This process was repeated with the variables
ethnicity and q17_3 (“If I did it over, I would select a different advisor”). To
177
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
test the assumption that the distributions for the five ethnic groupings—
African American, Aslan American-Pacific Islander, Chlcano/a-Hlspanlc-
Latino, Native Amerlcan-Alaska Native, and Caucasian—are normally
distributed, stem-and-leaf plots, skewness and kurtosis statistics, and
normality tests were used.
The stem-and-leaf plots Indicate that all ethnic distributions are
positively skewed. The number of Caucasians In this particular population
exceeds the number of all other ethnic groupings combined. The skewness
and kurtosis statistics provided additional Information about the magnitude of
the skewness In each distribution. Not unlike the gender distributions, all five
ethnic distributions are negatively skewed with regard to their satisfaction
with their current advisor and positively skewed In light of their desire to
select a different advisor If they could go back In time and start their program
again. The kurtosis for ethnic groupings was generally platykurtic; however,
African Americans and Aslan American-Pacific Islanders were leptokurtic
with respect to the statement, “I have the advisor I want.” The skewness In
the latter cases was significantly negative, perhaps Indicating, among other
things, the underestimation of the positive satisfaction these students
otherwise expressed.
Specifically, African Americans’ satisfaction with their current advisors
ranged from 3 (agree) to 4 (strongly agree). The skewness statistic for
African Americans, negative 2.295, Is about 3.8 standard error units less than
178
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
zero. Asian Americans-Pacific Islanders’ satisfaction with their current
advisors ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4. The skewness statistic for
Asian Americans- Pacific Islanders, negative 1.829, is about 3.7 standard
error units less than zero. Chicano/a~Hispanic~Latinos’ satisfaction with
their current advisors also ranged from 1 to 4. The skewness statistic for
Chicano/a-Hispanic-Latinos, negative 1.455, is about 3.0 standard error
units less than zero. Native Americans-Alaska Natives’ satisfaction with
their current advisors ranged from 2 (disagree) to 4. The skewness statistic
for Native Americans-Alaska Natives in this population was not calculated
(N=2). Caucasians’ satisfaction with their current advisors ranged from 1 to
4. The skewness statistic for Caucasians, negative 1.524, is about 6.2
standard error units less than zero. The Caucasians’ satisfaction with their
current advisors is more strongly skewed than all other ethnic groups’
satisfaction. Regarding the students’ desire to select a different advisor if
they could go back in time and start their doctoral program again, all ethnic
groups’ responses ranged from 1 (definitely no) to 4 (definitely yes). The
skewness statistic for African Americans, 1.720, is about 2.9 standard error
units greater than zero. The skewness statistic for Asian Americans-Pacific
Islanders, 1.322, is about 2.7 standard error units greater than zero. The
skewness statistic for Chicano/a-Hispanic-Latinos, 1.000, is about 2.0
standard error units greater than zero. The skewness statistic for Native
Americans-Alaska Natives was not calculated (N=2). The skewness statistic
179
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
for Caucasians, 0.927, is about 3.8 standard error units greater than zero.
The Caucasians’ desire to select a different advisor is more strongly skewed
than the other ethnic groups’ desire to do likewise.
Table 3: Descriptive statistics, Ethnic Background
I currently liave the
advisor I want
Mean Median Mode
African American 3.86 4.00 4.00
Asian American/Pacific Islander 3.50 4.00 4.00
Chicano/Hispanic/Latino 3.41 4.00
Native American/Alaska Native 3.00 3.00 3.00
Caucasian 3.43 4.00 4.00
Other 3.73 4.00 4.00
Did over: Select a
different advisor
African American 1.57 1.00 1.00
Asian American/Pacific Islander 1.82 2.00 1.00
Chicano/Hispanic/Latino 1.00
Native American/Alaska Native 2.50 2.50
Caucasian I.9 I 2.00 1.00
Other 1.36 1.00 1.00
The normality statistics indicate that neither of the distributions
associated with the variable q10_1 (I currently have the advisor I want) are
normal: /CSfor African Americans (14) = .510, p < .0005, KS for Asian
Americans-Pacific Islanders (22) = .370, p < .0005, KSfor Chicano/a~
1 8 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Hispanic-Latinos (22) = .346, p < .0005, KSfor Native Americans-Alaska
Natives (2) = .260, p < .0005, and /CSfor Caucasians (95) = .352, p < .0005.
Table 4: Tests of Normality
Koimogorov-Smlrnov ® Shaplro-Wllk
Ethnic background Statistic df SIg. Statistic df SIg.
1 currently
have the
advisor 1
want
African American
Aslan
American-Pacific
Islander
Chlcano/Hlspanlc/Latl
no
.510
.370
.346
14
22
22
.000
.000
.000
.426
.668
.720
14
22
22
.010”
.010”
.010”
Native American-Alaska
Native
Caucasian
Other
.260
.352
.448
2
95
11
.000
.000 .576 11 .010”
Did
over:
Select a
different
advisor
African American
Aslan
American-Pacific
Islander
Chlcano/Hlspanlc/Latl
no
.372
.292
.354
14
22
22
.000
.000
.000
.680
.726
.704
14
22
22
.010”
.010”
.010”
Native American-Alaska
Native
Caucasian
Other
.260
.254
.401
2
95
11
.000
.000 .630 11 .010”
**■ This is an upper bound of the true significance,
a- Liiiiefors Significance Correction
The same holds true for the distributions associated with the variable q17_3
(select a different advisor): KS for African Americans (14) = .372, p < .0005,
KS for Asian Americans-Pacific Islanders (22) = .292, p < .0005, KSfor
Chicano/a-Hispanic-Latinos (22) = .354, p < .0005, KSfor Native
Americans-Alaska Natives (2) = .260, p < .0005, and KS for Caucasians (95)
= .254, p < .0005.
181
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Ethnic background boxplots provided a graphic representation of
the homogeneity problem. Because there are major problems with normality,
homogeneity, and different degrees of skewness in this data, the Kruskal-
Wallis test, frequently described as an "analysis of variance by ranks," was
used for further analyses. The Kruskal-Wallis test is a nonparametric
equivalent of a one-way analysis of variance by ranks used to compare three
or more samples. It is a straightforward generalization (i.e., logical
extension) of the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test for two independent samples.
It is used to test the hypothesis that two or more groups all come from the
same distribution against the alternative that at least one of the groups
comes from a different distribution.
Nonparametric tests are often used in place of their parametric
counterparts when certain assumptions about the underlying population are
questionable. For example, when comparing two independent samples, a
nonparametric test does not assume that the difference between the samples
is normally distributed whereas its parametric counterpart (e.g., f-test) does.
The Kruskal-Wallis test is the analogue to the F-test used in analysis of
variance. While analysis of variance tests depend on the assumption that all
populations under comparison are normally distributed, the Kruskal-Wallis
test places no such restriction on the comparison.
Although it is not really an analysis of variance at all, the Kruskal-
Wallis test does bear a certain resemblance to ANOVA in that the first part of
182
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the task in both cases is to find a measure of the aggregate degree to which
the group means differ. The Kruskal-Wallis test is calculated as a regular
ANOVA, but instead it uses the ranks of the data rather than the raw
measures associated with ANOVA. Included with the test statistic is a table
displaying the mean rank for each of the groups that can be used to assist in
determining which group tends to have larger values than the other groups.
Using the Kruskal-Wallis Test, a significant difference was found between
ethnic backgrounds for satisfaction with their current advisors. A
Table 5: Ranks, Ethnic Background
Ethnic Baclcground N Mean Rank
I currently have the
advisor I want
African American 14 98.43
Asian American/Pacific Islander 23 81.39
Caucasian 97 77.55
Chicano/Hispanic/Latino 22 75.80
Native American/Alaska Native 2 60.50
Total 158
Did over: Select a
different advisor
Native American/Alaska Native 2 101.00
Caucasian 107 90.26
Chicano/Hispanic/Latino 24 84.71
Asian American/Pacific Islander 23 82.85
African American 16 67.50
Total 172
Chicana/Hispanic/Latina (female) offered a fitting testament to differing
treatments of ethnic groupings, whether real or perceived: “[this private
research university] has the potential to graduate many researchers of color,
183
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
but much, much more support, guidance, and understanding is needed.”
Specific rank information is listed in Table 5.
The mean rank for African Americans is listed as the highest indicating
that African Americans are more satisfied with their current advisors than the
other ethnic groups. Asian Americans-Pacific Islanders,
Chicano/a~Hispanics~ Latinos, and Caucasians, having almost the same
mean rank, are more satisfied with their advisors than Native Americans-
Alaska Natives. As to whether the students would select a different advisor if
they could go back in time and start their doctoral program again. Native
Americans-Alaska Natives would be most likely to do so given the
opportunity (Table 5). Asian Americans-Pacific Islanders, Chicano/a-
Hispanics-Latinos, and Caucasians, having almost the same mean rank, are
less likely to select a different advisor than Native Americans-Alaska
Natives. If they could go back in time and start their doctoral program again,
African Americans are least likely to select a different advisor.
The Kruskal-Wallis sampling distribution is a very close approximation
of the chi-square (X^) distribution. When the data are at the nominal level
and the researcher wants to determine whether groups are different, the
researcher uses the chi-square statistical test. In other words, chi-square
tests for significant differences between observed frequencies in data and
the frequencies that were expected in an effort to determine whether the
groups are independent or related. Chi-square is more likely to find
184
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
significance to the extent that (1) the relationship is strong, (2) the sample
size is large, and/or (3) the number of values of the two associated variables
is large. Said another way, chi-square analysis can be used to calculate the
differences among the subjects in a study to determine if extraneous
variables influenced the outcome. If the calculated chi-square value is high
enough, the researcher can conclude that the frequencies found would not
be expected on the basis of chance alone and the null hypothesis would be
rejected. Indeed, a chi-square probability of .05 or less is commonly
interpreted by social scientists as justification for rejecting the null hypothesis
that the row variable is unrelated (that is, only randomly related) to the
column variable (Levin, 1999; Lieberman, 1971). The greater the
discrepancy between observed and proposed values, the greater will be the
value of chi-square.
The null hypothesis in this particular instance is that the mean ranks of
the five ethnic groups are homogenous (i.e., will not substantially differ). We
generally do not expect an equality of proportions for all the classes of all the
populations. We do, however, quite often need to test whether the
proportions for each class are equal across all populations and whether this
is true for each class. If this proves to be the case, we say the populations
are homogeneous with respect to the variable of classification. In this case,
the chi-square, df=4 (p < .01), is 4.255 (Asymp. Sig = .373) for the variable
q10_1 and 3.778 (Asymp. Sig = .437) for the variable q17_3. This indicates
185
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
that the populations are not homogeneous with respect to the variable of
classification, ethnicity. The null hypothesis, consequently, is rejected.
Additional findings. Satisfaction related to degree objective (EdD
and Ph.D.), as examined by both gender (Table 6) and ethnic group (Table
7), was also considered in this study. The chi-square test was appropriate
for degree objective. Because the chi-square test is non-parametric (i.e.,
distribution-free), there is no assumption of a normal distribution of values in
the population from which the sample was taken.
Table 6: Gender satisfaction by degree objective
W hat is your degree
obiective
Totai EdD PhD
G ender Maie 48 20 68
Femaie 77 62 139
Totai 125 82 207
Pearson’s chi-square is the most common test. Of particular interest is the
fact that the Pearson chi-square value for the variable, gender, under
"Asymp. Sig.," is 0.036 while the same statistic for the variable, ethnic
background, is 0.250. A value less than .05 indicates that the rows and
columns of the contingency are dependent. In general this means that it is
worthwhile to interpret the cells in the contingency table, in this particular
case it means that satisfaction by degree objective is not distributed similarly
across the different genders. In other words, all else equal, the level of
186
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
satisfaction experienced by females in the Ph.D. programs is statistically
different from the level of satisfaction experienced by males in the Ph.D.
programs offered at this particular school of Education; similarly, the level of
satisfaction experienced by females in the EdD programs is statistically
different from the level of satisfaction experienced by males in the EdD
programs.
Table 7: Ethnic Group satisfaction by degree objective
W hat is your degree
obiective
Total EdD PhD
Ethnic African American 12 4 16
background Asian
American-Pacific 13 12 25
Islander
Chicano/Hispanic/Lati
11 14 25
no
Native American-Alaska
Native
2 2
Caucasian 70 43 113
Other 10 5 15
Total 118 78 196
The final chapter, Conclusions, sets the stage for further research that
may help us better meet—and exceed—all doctoral students’ longing to
matter—to be viewed as colleagues—sooner rather than later.
187
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter Five
CONCLUSIONS
“ But fro m now on I ’m going to have a very good reason before I make
up my m ind about anything. You can lose too much time jum ping to
Conclusions.”
— Juster (1961, p.170)
In many cases, the situations described by the respondents in this
study reinforced the findings of other researchers into doctoral persistence.
For example, the results seem to indicate that female doctoral students
overall had a more negative perception of their relationship with their advisor
than did their male counterparts. Specifically, the female students were less
satisfied with their current advisors and they were more likely to want to
select a different advisor given the opportunity. Ethnicity also appears to be
a significant factor in determining successful mentoring and advising
experiences. The results of this study suggest that different ethnic groups
have different experiences, making it ineffective to lump all students into a
single category when discussing graduate school experiences, particularly at
the doctoral level. To illustrate the point, African Americans were more
188
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
satisfied with their current advisors and less likely to want to choose a
different advisor than all other ethnic groupings. Though the results were
somewhat mixed, the indicators suggest Caucasians appeared to be least
satisfied with their advisors and most inclined to select a different advisor
given the opportunity.
Analysis of the open-ended data suggested that the advisor played a
major role in the sort of social climate that existed in this particular school of
Education. Indeed, students frequently cited difficulties related to their
relationship with their advisors as the source of blocks, gaps, or hindrances
to program completion. A Caucasian female student, capturing the essence
of these difficulties quite succinctly, advised: “Basically, you are on your
own.” A Chicano/Hispanic/Latino male, noting similar concerns from a
differing perspective, suggested: “The single most important task is to
assemble a dissertation chair and committee that will be supportive, provide
feedback, be available, and serve as mentors, not antagonists.” Many
popular guidebooks for doctoral students (e.g., Peters, 1997; Sternberg,
1981) emphasize the importance of the choice of advisor for successful
completion of the doctorate degree. This anecdotal advice is supported by
the research of others (e.g., Golde, 1996; Katz, 1997; Kerlin, 1997), all of
whom found that a positive relationship with the advisor was strongly
correlated with doctoral persistence. The results of this study did not refute
their findings.
189
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Findings unique to this study
The primary purpose of this inquiry was to explore the student-advisor
relationship and its impact/influence on the decision of Education doctoral
students to persist or withdraw from their programs before completion of their
degrees. The results of the research presented in Chapter Four are
consistent with the conclusions of other researchers. Given that persistence
researchers studying multiple disciplines have found significant variation
based on disciplinary or departmental affiliation (Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992;
Golde, 1996; Lovitts, 1997; Nerad & Gerny, 1993), the magnitude of advisors’
influence in departure decisions for this particular school of Education—
perhaps surprising to some—was an anticipated outcome of this research.
Moreover, the experiences of the students in this study were reflected in
persistence models already developed by researchers in other fields as well,
in particular those aspects that appear to cross departmental and disciplinary
boundaries. The similarities between these findings and the existing models
served as an indicator that the methodology used was appropriate and well-
suited to the nature of this research since it revealed many of the same
factors that other in-depth studies have shown to be important in the doctoral
student’s decision to persist or withdraw. What researchers should glean
from this study is that the statistical findings—similar to existing models or
not—are matters of fact that represent real people, and the outcomes—what
190
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
we do with this newfound knowledge—matter to our doctoral students. If we
are to seriously stop and take notice, it may be helpful to first understand
some of the contextual factors that have shaped today’s doctoral student
body.
Today’s doctoral students represent a particular generation of
learners—a generation some might say is confronted by a perpetual state of
“comfortable mediocrity” (Hirschman, 1970, p.59). By the end of the eighties,
when today’s doctoral students would have been in high school, 27 million
Americans were illiterate; estimates suggest that number has steadily
increased to more than 45-50 million functional illiterate (i.e., marginally
literate) people in America today (NIL, 2002).^ In January 1990, Secretary of
Education Cavazos released the results of two nationwide tests in reading
and writing—components of the "Nation’s Report Card"—administered by the
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAER), the “only nationally
representative, continuing assessment of what America’s students know and
can do in various subject areas” (NAER, 2003). (Other assessments are
conducted periodically in mathematics, science, U.S. history, civics,
geography, and the arts.) The Secretary remarked that the reading and
writing skills of children in the public school are “dreadfully inadequate,”
despite a decade of “educational reforms” (Innerst, 1990). Specifically, the
' The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 suggests marginal literacy includes those adults who can read
a little but not well enough to fill out an application, read a food label, or read a simple story to a child;
191
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1990 NAEP report, conductGd regularly since 1969, found 95 percent of
seventeen-year-olds could not understand a 1 2 **^ grade text book or
comprehend many articles in the Wall Street Journal, Time, or Newsweek,
while 72 percent of 11*^ graders could not write an adequate persuasive
article.
Writing early in the 1990s, Kramer (1991) documents in her book, Ed
School Follies: The Miseducatlon of America’s Teachers, that most future
teachers trained in the nation’s teacher colleges are indoctrinated primarily in
politics rather than in learning (p.211). After touring fifteen teachers’ colleges
from Columbia to UCLA, she explains, “Almost nowhere did I find teachers of
teachers whose emphasis was on the measurable learning of real
knowledge” (Kramer, 1991, p.209). Among today’s teacher-educators, she
found “the goal of schooling is not considered to be instruction, let alone
intellectual, but political” (Kramer, 1991, p.210). “The aim,” Kramer (1991)
emphasizes,
is not to produce individuals capable of effort and mastery, but to
make sure everyone gets a passing grade. The school is to be
remade into a republic of feelings—as distinct from a republic of
learning—where everyone can get an A. ... What matters is not to
teach any particular subject or skill, not to preserve past
accomplishments or stimulate future achievements, but to give
everyone that stamp of approval that will make them “feel good about
themselves.” Self-esteem has replaced understanding as the goal of
education (p.210).
they lack the foundation they need to find and keep decent jobs, support their children’s education, and
participate actively in civic life (NIL, 2002).
192
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In addition to noting the validity of Kramer’s call to Improve America’s schools
of Education, an editorial review of Kramer’s (1991) work by KIrkus
Associates stands behind her assertion that professors frequently have a
political agenda, usually egalitarian, that places a premium on “self-esteem,”
a characterization of “success” by no objective standard other than by how
much a student has Improved over his/her last effort. Arguably, the odds for
measurable learning are not In the students’ favor.
Presumably, we have the finest system of education In the world, yet
we struggle with a variety of problems facing our pipeline to—and through—
higher education; we know some students limp along through our schools
without profiting fully from the education they are receiving. We know, too,
students drop out of school at each stage of education, from elementary
school through the later stages of doctoral education. With this backdrop. It
Is Important to recognize that the seventeen-year-olds of the 1970s and
1980s have persisted against those very odds that would otherwise have
them fall to make up the majority of today’s doctoral hopefuls. A closer look
at some of the factors that may have a direct bearing on the student’s
decision to persist or withdraw—the student-advlser relationship, tlme-to-
degree, and gender—Is warranted.
Student-advisor relationship. The relationship between doctoral
students and advisors Is described by both writers of handbooks (Hawley,
1993; Peters, 1997; Phillips & Pugh, 1994; Sternberg, 1981) and scholarly
193
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
researchers (Golde, 1996; Katz, 1997; Kerlin, 1997; Lovitts, 1997) as a key
component of the doctoral experience. Since graduate education,
particularly at the doctoral level, is meant to develop professional skills in the
student and to socialize the student into the academic culture, it is logical that
the student’s advisor would be an important factor in this process.
The advising relationship is important to doctoral students, as well as
important in influencing their educational experience. Indeed, previous
studies concerning relationship quality of students and advisors suggest that
students’ satisfaction with doctoral programs was directly related to
satisfaction with their graduate advisors and, that many times, the
relationship is perceived by the students as disappointing (e.g., Heinrich,
1991; Lovitts, 1997). Golde (1996), Kerlin (1997), and Lovitts (1997) all
found that attrition was strongly correlated with poor advisor relationships.
This study supported their findings.
On the one hand, some students were quite pleased with the overall
experience in large part because of their relationship with an advisor. On the
other hand, not everyone was of the same persuasion; many, it appears, are
dissatisfied with their advisor relationship. Student comments illustrated the
point. On a positive note, one Caucasian female student enthusiastically
stated, “I believe that my experience has been really positive because of the
excellent job being done by my advisor.” Another student, an African
American female, asserted, “I would like for you to know that I have a
194
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
wonderful chair. He has been very helpful in guiding me through the
literature in preparing for my dissertation proposal and qualifying exams. I
am very happy.” A significant number of students at this private research
university were not happy. For example, a Caucasian female student talked
about her advising relationship with much less enthusiasm. In her
description, the authoritarian nature of her advisor’s style is evident, as is the
student’s dissatisfaction with the relationship: “My advisor doesn’t know who
I am at all, and doesn’t care. The other [advisors] in my specialization area
... ‘play favorites’ and give a lot of time to the students they like best, while
not paying attention to the other students under their advisement.” One
Asian American/Pacific Islander female student described her advisor as
authoritative by saying, “My outlook will be much more positive ... if I am able
to get a better advisor... because I currently feel stuck in a relationship in
which I have no power.” Having no power is one thing. Feeling stuck in a
relationship with no power proffers a sad commentary on the state of doctoral
education that does nothing to improve doctoral persistence.
When asked, “Knowing everything that you know now, what advice
would you give others entering or in the early years of graduate school?,”
students overwhelmingly responded in a single voice around a central theme.
Their words, expressing the collective wisdom of experience, focused on the
central role of the advisor. In their own words, they encouraged fellow
doctoral hopefuls to carefully consider their choice of advisor. To that end.
195
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
they implored others to “Be sure of your advisor,” “Take care in selecting an
advisor,” “Select a good advisor who will guide and challenge you,” “Seek an
advisor early,” “Select advisor who wants to help you get involved, not just
expect you to do research on your own and be a professor,” “Make sure that
you do everything within your power to find an advisor quickly,” “Choose an
advisor who is supportive and fair and is knowledgeable in your area of
research,” “Get lined up with advisor that takes interest in you,” and “Choose
your dissertation chair carefully.” Perhaps the most telling piece of advice, a
cautionary note that strikes at the chord of doctoral persistence for this
school of Education, hearkens all who will persist against the odds to
“Change advisors as early as possible if you’re dissatisfied.”
These students have expressed opinions, recommendations, and
words of wisdom that support the contention that advising is important to
doctoral students. This study makes it clear that differing levels of authority
and responsiveness on the part of students’ advisors at this private research
university are related to subsequent decisions to persist or withdraw before
the completion of program requirements. From a pragmatic sense, the
students’ comments also support the notion that doctoral students are better
served when their advisors are demanding of their students and responsive
to their needs, without being controlling, particularly in areas such as
assisting in the dissertation process, assisting in the preparation for
qualifying exams, and simply being available to discuss student concerns.
196
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Said another way, if we are to increase the effectiveness of doctoral
education at this private research university and elsewhere, advisors should
maintain reasonably high expectations for their students’ academic progress
while remaining flexible in the timing of those expectations so as to coincide
with/adjust for individual students’ levels of development. Specifically,
advisors should be available and responsive to their students’ needs while
remaining flexible enough to accommodate emerging levels of independence
in individual students at different times.
Time-to-deqree. Time to degree is a serious concern for doctoral
students in Education. The current time-to-degree in this field exceeds 19
years. Although practical reasons for this lengthy process are noted, the
implications remain far-reaching. Repeatedly, persistence researchers have
noted the negative effect of students’ time-to-completion on attrition rates
(Golde, 1996; Jacks, Chubin, Porter, & Connolly, 1983; Kerlin, 1997; Lovitts,
1997; Nerad & Gerny, 1993). Short time-to-completion and low attrition are
consistently correlated with academic disciplines and departments providing
clear information and expectations regarding the student’s and the faculty’s
roles in the degree process—most notably in the “hard” sciences, where
students typically proceed through a structured and highly-supervised team-
based process. In contrast, long time-to-completion and high attrition are
correlated with disciplines and departments in which program requirements
and faculty expectations are poorly documented and communicated—
197
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
typically in the humanities and many of the social sciences (e.g., Education).
Students in the social sciences tend to follow a solitary scholar model where
we might picture an individual lost in contemplation, with no other traces of
human activity, who sits alone quietly and learns without assistance from
others. Inadvertently, these solitary scholar settings promote a traditional
philosophy that requires the student to essentially determine their own path
through the program. Such is often the case at this private research
university. To illustrate the point, a Caucasian female student confirmed the
existence of the solitary scholar role succinctly, stating, “Be prepared to do
everything yourself... Do not expect much support from your department.” A
Caucasian male student related similar contempt in different terms with his
assessment, “Monitor progress to ensure achievement of program
requirements. You’re on your own. You won’t get much assistance from
school or advisor.”
Gender. According to Lovitts (1997), “[doctoral student] attrition has
less to do with what the student brings to the university than with what
happens to the student after s/he has been admitted” (p.3). The results of
this study support Lovitts’ contention and illustrate the importance of the
student-advisor relationship. The female students’ relationship with their
advisor, in particular, tends to directly impact their decision to persist or
withdraw from the doctorate programs at this private research university
more so than males are affected by their relationship with advisors. Why
198
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
students make a particular decision to persist or withdraw remains beyond
the scope of this study; nevertheless, some reasons that affect their decision
are more remarkable than others.
Relying on the work of others, Girves and Wemmerus (1988) suggest,
“being treated as a junior colleague by the advisor accounts for much of the
variability in degree progress” (p. 185). Similarly, Tinto (1993) contends that
doctoral student persistence in the last stage of their work is primarily the
result of the student relationship with the advisor. This assertion is supported
by research on graduate student success (Davis, 1999; Girves &
Wemmerus, 1988; Golde, 1996, 1998; Hollenshead, Younce, & Wenzel,
1994; Jacks, Chubin, Porter, & Connolly, 1983). Students, particularly
female students, who receive high levels of support from their advisors, are
more likely to succeed in doctoral programs and persist to complete their
degrees (Kluever, 1995; Lenz, 1995).
The implication is clear; advisors, Davis (1999) points out, need to
show genuine interest in their students’ work—particularly their female
students’ work—and make an effort to help them feel welcome. At the
doctoral level, faculty need to go beyond the advising role; indeed, research
on advising indicates that students who have a mentoring relationship with
their advisors feel professionally affirmed and are more productive after
graduation (Heinrich, 1991; Subotnik & Arnold, 1995). Successful doctoral
students, especially women, consistently report on the important role that
199
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
their advisors play in their decision to persist or withdraw (Davis, 1999;
Jacks, Chubin, Porter, & Connolly, 1983; Sonnert & Holton, 1996).
Unfortunately, the data suggest that, on the whole, the advisors in this study
fell short in their effort to provide such support to their female students. One
female stated her discontent in the form of advice, encouraging new students
to “Ask a lot of questions as nobody tells you anything. The school [of
Education] has more of a ‘figure it out as you go along’ approach rather than
[a] methodological one.” Indeed, one might reasonably argue that the
advisors at this school of Education had little awareness of the high student
attrition rate (especially female), or of the reasons that led many to leave
before completing their degree.
Future Work
In this study, we have focused exclusively on what noticeable
correlation might exist between the student-advisor relationship and its
impact on the departure decisions for students seeking a terminal degree at
this private research university. The findings highlight that a number of
doctoral students are less than satisfied with their station in Academe.
Generally speaking, future research might seek to expand the scope of this
study to a wider variety of students and settings, and used to support or
revise theoretical hypotheses about doctoral student expectations and
2 0 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
experiences that result from this study of the doctoral student-advisor
relationship.
Further research that may help us better meet—and exceed—doctoral
students’ longing to be viewed as colleagues is an essential first step.
Additional research might explore whether the factors that are most
influential for Education doctoral students are also of importance in the
experiences of doctoral students in other academic fields. Indeed,
opportunities for further study abound for researchers who wish to build upon
this preliminary exploration of doctoral persistence in Education. The
growing relevance/influence of qualitative study, the feasibility of
standardized data collection/reporting, the changing demographics of
students and faculty, time-to-degree, women and underrepresented
minorities, noncompleters, and the defining characteristics of the doctorate
and the doctoral student are a few areas that warrant further deliberation.
The growing relevance/influence of qualitative studv. A great deal of
research on graduate student persistence has been and continues to be
quantitative. By measuring retention rates on large samples, for example,
general trends, however important they may be for longitudinal study, are
merely noted and later collaborated in general terms. The missing link, one
may contend, is that such research cannot be used to explain why a
particular gender or ethnic group leaves graduate school—particularly
doctoral programs—simply because one cannot adequately attribute
2 0 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
causation to a specific variable in statistical studies of this nature. In such
studies, no one is listening to the voices of the students as they talk about
why they have persisted or, more importantly, withdrawn from their doctorate
program. Likert scales, for instance, that assess student satisfaction at a
particular institution may be very useful to better describing perceived
deficiencies in the quality of education at that institution but the degree to
which such approaches can then be compared across different institutions,
however, is problematic. Such studies tend to tell us little, or nothing, about
the faces behind the spaces in an otherwise impressive relational database.
Additional research will be needed to assess the degree to which
statistics and performance measures based on qualitative techniques are
useful for various stakeholder groups. At the local level, it is well known that
anecdotal information and other types of “human interest stories” can be
quite powerful in promoting the school’s willingness to place the students’
collective interests above their own. At the state and national level, however,
such may not be true and the anecdotes may be difficult to aggregate into a
national perspective. To help us better understand why doctoral students
make the decisions they make—and therein give us more depth and detail
about the sample population—it may be necessary to increase the reliance
on collecting, analyzing, and reporting various qualitative data to best capture
individual experiences in specific fields (e.g.. Education), programs, and
departments as a means to promote future policies, practices, and programs
2 0 2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
that encourage persistence and equity in doctoral programs across the
country.
The feasibility of standardized data collection/reDortina. Reasons to
standardize measures and data collection protocols abound. The digital
world is forcing us to adjust to new educational delivery formats and, for
example, new questions about copyright, intellectual property, and conflicts
of interest. Properly exploited, the digital world can also help us better
understand the far-reaching implications of emergent trends as access in
doctoral education is offered to a broader world. Expanding access means
altering the ways in which we instruct, inform, gather, and produce
information. Despite what some may characterize as the weakly perceived
need within the institution, efforts to develop a common framework for
developing, implementing, and maintaining effective data collection,
reporting, and dissemination to foster cross-cutting analyses should be
explored. As a minimum, researchers might consider whether a nationally
recognized list of common data elements needed to thoroughly study
doctoral persistence can/should be established. The overarching objective of
such a framework is to develop a core set of national statistics and
performance measures that educators, researchers, and policy makers can
use to better address the ever-changing needs of doctoral students.
A number of research models and frameworks for developing,
defining, and measuring current attitudes exist. The way in which one
203
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
frames or models approaches to develop a process for collecting and
reporting national statistics and performance measures has a significant
affect on which data to collect, how to organize the collecting process, and
determining appropriate roles of key players. Is it possible to develop a
limited number of core statistics and performance measures (6-8) that most
colleges and universities can agree upon for national data collection? Can
this core set of statistics be part of a larger menu (e.g., 12-15 statistics) from
which colleges and universities may select additional performance measures
for collection and reporting? Part and parcel to this discussion is the need for
researchers and professionals to consider the benefits and/or necessity of
using traditional qualitative and quantitative methodologies (e.g., focus
groups, interviews, surveys), adapting traditional methodologies (e.g., pop-up
Web-based surveys), or creating new methodologies (e.g., Web-based
transaction log analysis) to capture trend data.
To promote timely and responsive statistics and performance
measures, more reliance on carefully developed samples rather than 100%
population responses may be needed, particularly at the national level. To
what extent can these national statistics be compared across institutions?
The answer lies, at least in part, on having carefully developed procedures
and definitions that facilitate colleges and universities collecting data the
same way and under similar conditions. The issue of generalizability of the
data across different institutions is not a new phenomenon. However,
204
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
insuring accuracy of the data so that such comparability can occur may be
the more challenging aspect of the data collection. For example, the trade
off for obtaining 100% response from the population is an extended delay in
reporting data. For many administrators and policymakers, having data
based on samples that produces relatively quick reporting (six months from
data collection to data reporting) may be well worth a small decrease in the
accuracy of the data. Part of the issue here is having data and findings that
are “good enough” for decision making at the local level as opposed to data
that have high academic quality for in-depth assessment at the national level.
The chanoing demographics of students and facultv. According to the
US Census Bureau, the population of the country will grow ten percent over
the next decade. This growth will change the composition of the student
body. Recognizing the changing nature of the demographic make up of
school-aged children, the rising enrollment of female students, and legal
challenges to the use of affirmative action practices, more effort may need to
be expended to develop/ design mechanisms (e.g., decision support
systems, portals, and/or transformative system-wide improvements) to aid
educators as they collectively and imaginatively respond to the challenge of a
gender balanced and ethnically diverse doctoral student population. As a
corollary, research into the changing—if not stagnant—demographic nature
of faculties is also warranted. To what extent does the ethnic and gender
composition of faculties affect advising and mentoring of doctoral students?
205
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The gender of the advisor, specifically, has been found to play an important
role in determining students’ success in graduate school across a variety of
fields (Schroeder & Mynatt, 1993; Tidball, 1973). Must the faculty
composition necessarily mirror emerging societal changes? Said another
way, particular attention to address the possible “gap” between students’
gender, ethnic, and social identities and those of their faculty advisors are
needed.
Time to degree. Earning the doctorate continues to be a protracted
process; measurements of median age, time to degree, and time enrolled in
doctoral program tend to extend each year. Recognizing that extended time-
to-degree may be affected by individual circumstances as well as
departmental policies, efforts to identify ways to suspend, if not reverse, the
trends are needed—especially in the social sciences and particularly in
Education.
Women and underrepresented minorities. Women and
underrepresented minority students are often less satisfied with their
experiences than their counterparts. For example, the NAGPS—an
advocacy organization representing 900,000 graduate and professional
students across 200 US campuses—recently reported that 28% of women
and 40% of minority students said their programs did not provide supportive
environments for members of underrepresented groups. Recognizing the
lingering negative effects of poor interpersonal relationships between
206
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
doctoral students and faculty—particularly advisors—in view of our continued
emphasis on doctoral persistence, a search for effective solutions to improve
doctorate student-advisor relationships among women and underrepresented
minorities is needed. Finding ways to elevate these relationships to the scale
of mentor-protege is also encouraged.
Noncomoleters. Studies of doctoral education typically focus on
currently enrolled students. Roughly 80 percent of students currently
enrolled or recently graduated from doctoral programs frequently report
positive mentoring experiences. At first glance, all appears well; some
attrition is to be expected. While these studies may enhance our
understanding of how students who are making it through the system feel
about their doctoral experience, there remains much to learn by
understanding the factors that cause roughly 50% of doctoral students to
leave without their degree. By the time doctoral students reach the third
stage—ABD—of the process, having completed coursework and qualification
exams, the student’s situation becomes so tenuous that attrition rates among
ABDs continue to consistently rise year after year. As noted throughout the
literature, current attrition rates of 50 percent or higher is common (e.g.,
Baird, 1993; Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Tinto, 1993). To help put this
statistic in perspective, an 80% satisfaction rate among the 50% that persist
equates, at best, to a meager 40 percent of current students (overall) that are
satisfied. Perhaps matters are not as good as they appear.
207
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
As Lovitts (1997) points out in her book, the cost of doctoral student
attrition is felt in many areas. Faculty and departments lose the time and
resources invested in students who leave. Programs with high attrition rates
risk being eliminated. The university also incurs costs in that it is cheaper to
retain students than to recruit and train students who consequently leave.
There are costs to society—namely the loss of the knowledge and talent that
noncompleters could impart. Finally, there are the costs to the individual—
financial, professional, and personal. Tinto (1993), viewing attrition from the
growing costs of graduate education—to the students, the universities, and
society—suggests universities “have a profound obligation to improve
understanding of the causes and consequences of high rates of doctoral
student attrition,” and he strongly recommends universities “pursue policy
changes aimed at increasing student success and reducing doctoral student
dropout.” Tinto is not alone in his admonition. Undeniably, a clearer
understanding of the factor(s) that impact noncompleters’ decisions to
withdraw requires studying the experiences of students who do not complete,
and comparing their experiences with those who do. Incidentally, our
research should not stop there; roughly 20% of doctoral students who persist
are also unsatisfied. Consequently, we would do well to understand why.
The defining characteristics of the doctorate and the doctoral student.
Why worry about attrition or time to degree? How much attrition is
acceptable? How much time is really necessary to complete a doctorate
208
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
program, particularly in Education? Tho answer may lie in the standard
reply, “It depends.” And to some degree, it probably does depend upon a
number of factors. After all, some attrition will naturally occur as students
progress through demanding research degree programs and, in the process,
discover that graduate study is not for them. With some encouragement,
however, some of these students might well have completed their programs.
With that said, a culture that struggles to forbid failure (perhaps secondary
education has something to teach us here) runs the inherent risk of
encouraging mediocrity. The answer may find haven somewhere in between
these extremes, perhaps in the way the institution defines the doctoral
student. To answer that question requires a uniformly accepted response to
a further question—What is the doctorate?
Summarv
Because the purpose of this study was exploratory rather than
confirmatory, the body of knowledge was not sufficient to test beliefs, only to
explore them. Overall, currently enrolled doctoral students participating in
this survey were satisfied with their educational experience in the school of
Education at this private research university. Nevertheless, the faculty would
be well-advised (on the whole) to spend more time interacting with the
students—all students—on their campus. Frequently, faculty are completely
satisfied with their role as educators but seldom fully take into account
209
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
doctoral students’ need to belong—to feel as though they matter—to be
viewed as a colleague.
Given the complexities of ethnicity and gender in American higher
education, the complexity of doctoral study at any institution, and the
sacrifices students make to obtain doctoral degrees, those administering
graduate programs should begin developing effective strategies to improve
the experiences of all doctoral students. Recognizing that student needs are
directly related to student persistence issues, the faculty must come to grips
with doctoral students’ needs—especially their ever-pressing collective need
to feel like colleagues. Arguably, nothing less than a cultural shift of grand
proportion among the faculty is warranted at this private research university.
Affirmation of doctoral students’ colleague status is a valued first step. But a
second step, certainly just as important as the first, is equally required.
Faculty must recognize that not all decisions to withdraw are equal—nor
should they all be construed in negative terms. Both steps are necessary;
doctoral students are paying attention. How, for example, might a doctoral
student feel like a colleague—for that matter, why might they want to be
considered a colleague—when faculty tend to stereotypically relegate other
doctoral students to file folders and often catalogue them in derogatory terms
should they decide to withdraw?
This second step may be the most difficult for faculty to accept
because it implicates them as a major player in the departure puzzle.
2 1 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Indeed, terminology can be very convenient for faculty unwilling to recognize
that they may be a prominent factor—if not, indeed, the source—of a
student’s decision to leave college. For example, those who leave are often
called "dropouts." The term dropout emphasizes both volition and
inevitability—a term that connotes individual failure as it reinforces the notion
among faculty that the student rather than the program is the problem
(Lovitts, 1997). Dropout conjures the image of an individual failing “to
measure up to the demands of graduate life and study regardless of the
character and content of the graduate experience” (Tinto, 1987, as quoted in
Lovitts, 1997). Research (e.g., Lovitts, 1997) draws a different conclusion.
The character of doctorate programs rather than the character of doctoral
students is often the culprit. It is not a simple matter of the best students
finishing their degrees while the less-talented and less-qualified depart. In
truth, academic failure accounts for a small percentage of departures—
departures are more likely to be attributed to a poor understanding of
program requirements, the lack of adequate advising, or a deep conviction
that the department is indifferent to one’s fate (Lovitts, 1997; Tinto, 1993).
Clearly, the institutional culture is not without blame; a student’s
decision to leave is much more likely to be related to their experiences after
they enter the institution than to any prior experience (Lovitts, 1997; Tinto,
1993). Being so informed, faculty would do well to exchange the term
dropout, as Lovitts (1997, p.xiii) has reasoned, for more appropriate
2 1 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
identifiers such as the terms, departer and noncompleter, to describe
students who started but did not finish their doctorate. Departer, Lovitts
(1997) points out, is preferred because of its positive connotations while
noncompleter \s used customarily in contrast with comp/efer (p.xiii).
Much room for improvement remains. Intuitively, I’m led to believe the
phenomenon of dissatisfaction, particularly among female doctoral students,
can be best interpreted as an extension of Astin’s theory of mattering.
Mattering, according to prominent researchers (e.g., Astin, 1993; Kuh, 1997;
Chickering, 1989; Schlossberg 1989), matters tar more to females, on
average, than to males. Mentoring, in the sense of advisement, is the
epitome of mattering. Consequently, one may deduce females are far more
likely to express dissatisfaction if the Academy does little to welcome them
as prospective colleagues. In an environment where women are the
preponderance of doctoral hopefuls (Education), faculty would do well to
realize the factors that help explain why students leave are not the same as
those that explain an institution’s ability to help students stay and graduate.
In the simplest terms, "frequent interaction with faculty members," notes
Astin (1985), "is more strongly related to satisfaction with college than any
other type of involvement or indeed any other student or institutional
characteristic" (p. 147). In short, as Cusanovich and Gilliland (1991, p.1)
attest, “a mentoring relationship involves professors acting as close, trusted,
and experienced colleagues and guides. ... It is recognized that part of what
2 1 2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
is learneci in graduate school is not cognitive, it is socialization to the values,
practices, and attitudes of a discipline and university, it transforms the
student into a colleague.” Seems to me dissatisfaction among all doctoral
students can be suspended, if not dramatically reversed, if the faculty simply
take a personal and vested interest in each "colleague" that knocks on their
door in search of someone they have perceived as caring—someone they
believe they can trust for guidance and advice.
The bottom line is that educators—at this private research university
and across the country—need to begin walking the talk. One Caucasian
male captured the crux of the matter in simple terms:
What appears to be remarkable is that the school of education is not
following basic principles espoused in higher education research. For
example, the students need to be academically and socially integrated
to the university. The school of Ed does not appear to take active
steps to facilitate a feeling that students are a part of this educational
community.
Cooke and her colleagues (1995) suggest that affective commitment, or a
sense of belonging to the university community, is critical in engendering
persistence among graduate students. Nerad and Miller (1996) suggest a
three-pronged approach to increasing doctoral student persistence. The first
part focuses on institutional policies and strategies, such as more closely
monitoring persistence and completion rates to identify areas of concern, as
well as having a first year evaluation of each student’s progress with a team
of faculty. The second prong of their approach involves working with
213
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
departments. Each student should have an adviser to assess his/her
progress through the program and a mentor to help set goals and develop
skills. Mentoring should also take place at the department level through
seminars and workshops, in addition to individual faculty mentors. The third
and final prong focuses on students and ways to help them strategize their
way through the doctoral education experience. Suggested ways to do this
include orientation programs, grant proposal-writing workshops, dissertation
writing workshops, and interdisciplinary research retreats to ameliorate the
sense of isolation from students and faculty in other departments. This
school of Education could not go wrong following the advice of Nerad and
Miller.
214
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adam, M. (1986). The effects of mentoring of the career paths of administrators in
community colleges in the state of Michigan. Dissertation Abstracts
Internationai, 47(5-A): 1537.
Adams, H. G. (1992). Mentoring: An essentiai factor in the process for minority
students. Notre Dame, IN: National Center for Graduate Education for
Minorities.
Agar, M. (1980). The professionai stranger: An informai introduction to
ethnography. New York: Academic Press.
Allen, D. & Nora, A. (1995). An empirical examination of the construct validity of
Goal commitment in the persistence process. Research in Higher
Education, 36(5): 509-533.
Altheide, D. L. & Johnson, J. M. (1994). Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in
qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
quaiitative research. London: Sage Publications.
Anderson, E. & McGuire, W. (1997). Academic advising for student success and
retention: An advising perspective. In M. Hovland, E. Anderson, W.
McGuire, D. Crockett, J. Kaufman, and D. Woodward (Eds.), Academic
advising for student success and retention. Iowa City, I A: USA Group Noel-
Levitz.
Anderson, E. & Shannon, A. (1988). Toward a conceptualization of mentoring.
Journal of Teacher Education, 39(1): 38-42.
Andres, L., Hawkey, C., & Andruske, C. (1996). Activating voices within: individual
and institutional dynamics of the first year student experience. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New York.
Aslanian, C. B. & Brickell, H. M. (1980). Americans in transition: Life changes as
reasons for adult learning. New York: The College Board.
Association of American Universities (AAU). (1998). Study recommends
universities reexamine graduate education programs. Washington, D.C.
Available http://www.aau.edu/education/GradEdNR11.10.98.html
Association of American Universities (AAU). (2000). Graduate education —
responses to criticisms. Available http://www.aau.edu/sheets/sheets.html
215
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Astin, A. (1971). Predicting academic performance in college. New York; Free
Press.
Astin, A. (1975). Preventing students from dropping out. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. (1977). Four criticaiyears: Effects ofcoiiege on beliefs, attitudes, and
knowledge. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. (1982). Minorities in American higher education. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher
education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25: 297-308.
Astin, A. (1985). Achieving educational excellence. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Astin, A. (1987). Competition or cooperation? Teaching teamwork as a basic skill.
Change, 19(5): 12-19.
Astin, A. (1993). What matters most in college? Four critical years revisited. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. (1993b). How good is your institution’ s retention rate? Los Angeles, CA:
Higher Education Research Institute.
Astin, A. (1993c). College retention rates are often misleading. Chronicle of Higher
Education.
Astin, A. (1995). Introduction to the I EG model and the College Student Survey
(CSS). In Analyzing Cl HP data: A hands-on assessment workshop
reference guide. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute and
UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies.
Astin, A. (1996). Involvement in learning revisited: Lessons we have learned.
Journal of College Student Development, 37: 123-134.
Astin, A. (1998). The changing American college student: Thirty-year trends, 1966-
1996. Review of Higher Education, 21: 115-136.
Astin, A. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher
education. Journal of College Student Development, 40: 518-529.
Atkinson, P. (1990). The ethnographic imagination: Textual constructions of
reality. London: Routledge.
216
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Attinasi, L. C. (1986). Getting in: Chicane students’perceptions of their college-
going behavior with implications for their freshman year experiences.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University.
Attinasi, L. C. (1989). Getting in: Mexican Americans’ perceptions of university
attendance and the implication for freshmen year persistence. Journal of
Higher Education, 60(3): 247-255.
Baird, L. L. (1993). Increasing graduate student retention and degree attainment.
(New Directions for Student Services, 80). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Baird, L. L. (1993b). Using research and theoretical models of graduate student
progress. In L. L. Baird (Ed.), Increasing graduate student retention and
degree attainment (pp.3-12). (New Directions for Student Services, 80).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Baker, S. & Pomerantz, N. (2000). Impact of learning communities on retention at
a metropoiitan university. Journal of College Student Retention: Research,
Theory & Practice, 2(2): 115-126.
Bargar, R. R. & Mayo-Chamberlain, J. (1983). Advisor and advisee issues in
doctoral education. Journal of Higher Education, 54(4): 407-432.
Barna, G. (2003). Understanding graduate students: Their values, beliefs, and
motivations. Grad Resources. Piano, TX. Avaiiable
http://www.gradresources.org/articles/student_profile.shtml
Barr, M. J. & Associates. (1993). The handbook of student affairs administration.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1999). The evolution of epistemology: Refining contextual
knowing at twentysomething. Journal of College Student Development, 40:
333-344.
Beal, P. E. & Noel, L. (1980). What works In student retention. Iowa City, lA: The
American College Testing Program.
Bean, J. P. (1980). Dropouts and turnover: The synthesis and test of a causal
model of student attrition. Research in Higher Education, 12(2): 155-187.
Bean, J. P. (1982). Conceptual model of student attrition: How theory can help the
institutional researcher. In E.T. Pascarella (Ed.), Studying student attrition
(pp. 17-33). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
217
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Bean, J. P. (1983). The application of a model of turnover in work organizations to
the student attrition process. Review of Higher Education, 6:129-148.
Bean, J. P. (1985). Interaction effects based on class level in an exploratory model
of college student dropout syndrome. American Educationai Research
Journai, 22(1): 35-64.
Bean, J. P. (1990). Why students leave: Insights from research. In D. Hoissler, J.
Bean, & Associates (Eds.), The strategic management ofcoiiege
enro/Zmenfs (pp. 147-169). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bean, J. P. & Hull, D. (1984). Determinants ofbiack and white student attrition at a
major Southern university. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Education Research Association, New Orleans.
Bean, J. P. & Metzner, B. S. (1965). A conceptual model of nontraditional
undergraduate student attrition. Review of Educational Research, 55(4):
485-505, 520-539.
Becker, H. 8. (1986). Writing for social scientists. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Belt, W. T. (1976). Counseling graduate students. The Graduate Journai, 9\ ^ 93-
202.
Benjamin, M. & Hollings, A. (1995). Towards a theory of student satisfaction: An
exploratory study of the "Quality of Student Life." Journai of College Student
Development, 36(6): 574.
Benkin, E. M. (1984). Where have all the doctoral students gone?: A study of
doctoral student attrition at UCLA. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
University of California, Los Angeles. Dissertation Abstracts internationai,
45A, 2770.
Bennett, W. (April 26, 1988). American education: Making it work. U.S.
Department of Education. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
Benshoff, J. M. (1991). Nontraditional college students: A developmental look at
the needs of women and men returning to school. Journai of Young
Adulthood and Middle Age, 3: 47-61.
Benshoff, J. M. & Lewis, H. A. (1992). Nontraditional college students. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 347483).
Berelson, B. (1960). Graduate education in the United States. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
2 1 8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Bers, T. H. & Smith, K. E. (1991). Persistence of community college students: The
influence of student intent and academic and social integration. Research in
Higher Education, 32(5): 539-556.
Bishop-Clark, C. & Lynch, J. M. (1992). The mixed-age college classroom.
Coiiege Teaching, 40(3): 114-117.
Blimling, G. 8. & Whitt, E. J. (Eds.). (1999). Good practice in student affairs. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Blimling, G. S. & Whitt, E. J. (1999b). Using principles to improve practice. In
Blimling, G. S. & Whitt, E. J. (Eds.), Good practice in student affairs. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bloland, P. (1992). Quaiitative Research in Student Affairs. ERIC Clearinghouse
on Counseling and Personnel Services (No ED347487).
Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (1982). Quaiitative research for education: An
introduction to theory and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bogdan, R. & Taylor, S. (1975). introduction to qualitative research methods: a
phenomenoiogicai approach to the social sciences. New York: Wiley &
Sons.
Bowen, W. G. & Rudenstine, N. L. (1992). In pursuit of the Ph.D. New Jersey:
Princeton University Press.
Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research Universities.
(1995). Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America’ s
research universities. Stony Brook, NY: Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching.
Boyer, E. L. (1987). Coiiege: The undergraduate experience in America. New
York: Harper & Row.
Boyle, P. & Boice, B. (1998). Best practices for encuituration: Coliegiaiity,
mentoring, and structure. The experience of being in graduate school: An
exploration. (New Directions for Higher Education, 101). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Braxton, J. M. (Ed.). (2000). Reworking the student departure puzzle. Nashville,
TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Braxton, J. M. (2000b). Reinvigorating theory and research on the departure
puzzle. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle
(pp.257-274). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
219
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Braxton, J. M. & Brier, E. M. (1989). Melding organizational and interactionalist
theories of student attrition. Research in Higher Education, 13: 47-61.
Braxton, J. M., Sullivan, A. V. S., & Johnson, R. M. (1997). Appraising Tinto’s
theory of college student departure. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education:
Handbook of theory and research, 12. New York: Agathon Press.
Brazziel, W. F. (1989). Older students. In A. Levine & Associates (Eds.), Shaping
higher education’ s future: Demographic realities and opportunities 1990-
2000 (pp. 116-132). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Broadbridge, A. (1996). Academic advising: Traditional or developmental
approaches? British Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 24(1): 97-111.
Brown, A. B. (2000). At a crossroads: The future of graduate education at Emory.
The Academic Exchange. Available http://www.emory.edu/
ACAD_EXCHANGE/ 2000/sept/crossroads.html
Brown-Wright, D. A., Dubick, R. A., & Newman, I. (1997). Graduate assistant
expectation and faculty perception: Implications for mentoring and training.
Journal of Coiiege Student Development, 38: 410-416.
Cabrera, A. F., Castaneda, M., Nora, A., & Hengstler, D. (1992). The convergence
between two theories of college persistence. Journai of Higher Education,
63(2): 143-164.
Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., & Castafieda, M. (1992). The role of finances in the
persistence process: A structural model. Research in Higher Education,
33(5): 571-593.
Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., & Castaneda, M. (1993). College persistence: Structural
equations modeling test of an integrated model of student retention. Journal
of Higher Education, 64(2): 123-139.
Cabrera, A. F., Stampen, J. O., & Hansen, W. L. (1990). Exploring the effects of
ability to pay on persistence in college. Review of Higher Education, 13:
303-336.
Cameron, S. W. & Blackburn, R. T. (1981). Sponsorship and academic career
success. Journai of Higher Education, 52: 369-377.
Campbell, T. & Campbell, D. A. (1997). Faculty/student mentor program: Effects
on academic performance and retention. Research in Higher Education,
38(6): 727-742.
Champagne, D. & Petitpas, A. (1989). Planning developmental interventions for
adult students. NASPA Journai, 2 6 :265-271.
2 2 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Charles, H. & Stewart, M. A. (1991). Academic advising of international
students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 19:173-181.
Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Chickering, A. W. & Associates. (1988). The modern American college. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chickering, A. W. & Gamson, Z. F. (Eds.). (1995). The seven principles in action:
Improving undergraduate education. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Co.
Chickering, A. W. & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity {2nd ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Churchill, W. D. & Iwai, S. I. (1981). College attrition, student use of campus
facilities, and a consideration of self-reported personal problems. Research
in Higher Educationj^ 14: 353-363.
Clark, E. (1989). The importance of a comprehensive advising system in improving
student retention and graduation rates. Australian Universities’ Review, 1:
27.
Clewell, B. C. (1987). Retention of Black and Hispanic doctoral students. GRE
Board Research Report No. 83-4R. ETS Research Report 87-10.
Princeton, NJ: Education Testing Service.
Connes, J. H., Noonan, J. F., & Janha, D. (Eds.). (1983). Teaching minority
students. (New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 16). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cooke, D. K., Sims, R. L., & Peyrefitte, J. (1995). The relationship between
graduate student attitudes and attrition. The Journai of Psychology, 129(6):
677-688.
Cope, R. G. (1978). Why students stay, why they leave. In L. Noel (Ed.), Reduc/ngf
the dropout rate. (New Directions for Student Services). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Cope, R. G. & Hannah, W. (1975). Revolving coiiege doors: The causes and
consequences of dropping out, stopping out, and transferring. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Council of Graduate Schools. (1991). The role and nature of the doctoral
dissertation: A policy statement. Washington, D.C.: Author. Available
http://www.cgsnet.org/PublicationsPolicyRes/role.htm
2 2 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Council of Graduate Schools. (1995). A conversation about mentoring: Trends and
modeis. Washington, D.C.: Author.
Council of Graduate Schools. (1997). The role and nature of the doctoral
dissertation: A policy statement. Washington, D.C.: Author. Available
http://www.cgsnet.org/PublicationsPolicyRes/role.htm
Crane, D. (1965). Scientists at major and minor universities: A study of productivity
and recognition. American Sociological Review, 30: 699-714.
Creamer, D. G. & Atwell, C. A. (1984). The great debate: Academic advising.
Community and Junior Coiiege Journal, 54(8): 18-20.
Creswell, J. & Miller, D. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory
Into Practice, 39(3): 124-130.
Crockett, D. S. (1978). Academic advising: A resource document. Iowa City, lA:
The American College Testing Program.
Crockett, D. S. (1984). Advising skills, techniques, and resources: A compilation of
materials related to the organization and delivery of advising services (pp.5-
7). Iowa City, lA: The ACT National Center for the Advancement of
Educational Practices.
Crockett, D. S. (1985). Academic advising. In L. Noel, R. Levitz, D. Saluri, &
Associates (Eds.), increasing student retention {pp.244-263). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cronan-Hillix, T., Gensheimer, L. K., Cronan-Hillix, W. A., & Davidson, W. S.
(1986). Students’ views of mentors in psychology graduate training.
Teaching of Psychology, 13: 123-127.
Cross, K. P. (1980, May). Our changing students and their impact on colleges:
Prospects for a true learning society. Phi Delta Kappan, 630-632.
Culross, R. (1996). Remediation: Real students, real standards. Change, 28{6):
50-52. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 03084257)
Cusanovich, M. & Gilliland, M. (1991). Mentoring: The faculty-graduate student
relationship. Communicator, 24(5-6): 1-3.
Davis, K. S. (1999). Why science? Women scientists and their pathways along the
road less traveled. Journal of Women and IJIinorities in Science and
Engineering, 5(2): 129-153.
Deming, W. E. (1993). The New Economics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2 2 2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Denzin, N. K. (Ed.). (1978). The research act ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Denzin, N. K. (Ed.). (1969). The research act {3 '^ ^ ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Denzin, N. K. (1992). Symbolic interactionism and cultural studies. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S., (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994b). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative
research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of quaiitative
research (pp.^-^\7). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S., (Eds.). (1998). Strategies of qualitative inquiry.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Donohue, T. L. & Wong, E. H. (1997). Achievement motivation and college
satisfaction in traditional and nontraditional students. Education 118(2): 237-
244.
Dorn, S. & Papalewis, R. (1997). Improving doctoral student retention. Paper
presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago, IL.
Duderstadt, J. (2000). A university for the 2 f * century. Ann Arbor, Ml: The
University of Michigan Press.
Duester, R. (1994). A study of the effects of a mentoring program on minority
students’ perceptions and retention. Dissertation Abstracts International,
Section A: The Humanities & Social Sciences, 54(8-A): 2908.
Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide: A study in sociology. (J.A. Spaulding & G. Simpson,
Trans.). Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. (Original work published in 1897)
Eaton, S. B. & Bean, J. P. (1995). An approach/avoidance behavioral model of
college student attrition. Research in Higher Education, 36: 617-645.
Edgerton, R. (1999). Education white paper. Available on the Pew Charitable
Trust web site, http://www.pewtrusts.com
Einstein, A. & Infeld, L. (1938/1961). The evolution of physics. New York: Simon
and Schuster.
Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the
enhancement of educational practice. New York: Macmillan.
223
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Elam, J. C. (Ed.). (1989). Blacks in higher education: Overcoming the odds.
Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Ely, E. E. (1997). The non-traditional student. Paper presented at the American
Association of Community Coiieges Annual Conference. Anaheim, CA.
April 12-15. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 411906).
Erickson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: W. Norton and
Co.
Erickson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: W. Norton and Co.
Ethington, C. A. (1990). A psychological model of student persistence. Research
in Higher Education, 32(3): 279-293.
Eubank, R. K. (1988). The effects of same gender and cross gender mentoring on
personai development, career advancement, and job satisfaction of female
administrators in higher education. Dissertation Abstracts Internationai,
49(4-A): 670.
Evangelauf, J. (May 9, 1990). Education research seen in ferment; Retention
studies called too narrow. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p.A18.
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in
college: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ewell, P. T. (1984). Conducting student retention studies. Boulder, CO: National
Center for Higher Education Management Systems.
Feldman, K. A. & Newcomb, T. M. (1969). The impact of college on students. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fetterman, D. M. (1989). Ethnography step by step. San Francisco, CA: Sage.
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An
introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fleming, J. (1984). Blacks in college: A comparative study of students’ success In
Black and White institutions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Flick, U. (1992). Triangulation revisited: Strategy of validation or alternative?
Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 22: 175-198.
Fogg, P. (2002). Number of Ph.D.’s awarded in U.S. declines, but American
women gain in share of U.S. total. Chronicle of Higher Education. Available
http://www.aas.duke.edu/development/News_progress_etc/phds_0 1.html
224
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Forrest, A. (1982). Increasing student competence & persistence: The best case
forgenerai education. Iowa City, I A: The ACT National Center for the
Advancement of Educational Practices.
Fox, R. N. (1986). Application of a conceptual model of college withdrawal to
disadvantaged students. American Educational Research Journal, 23{3):
415-423.
Friedlander, J. & MacDougall, P. (1992). Achieving student success through
student involvement. Community College Review, 20(1): 20-28.
Frost, S. H. (1991). Academic advisement for student success: A system of shared
responsibility. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports. Washington D.C.:
ERIC Clearinghougse on Higher Education.
Fuertes, J. N. & Sedacek, W. E. (1994). Using the SAT and noncognitive factors to
predict the grades and retention of Asian American university students.
Measurement & Evaluation in Counseling and Deveiopment, 27(2): 74-85.
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educationai research: An introduction
(6'^ ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman Publishers.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cuitures. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Girves, J. E. & Wemmerus, V. (1988). Developing models of graduate student
degree progress. Journal of Higher Education, 59(2): 163-189.
Glesne, C. & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming quaiitative researchers: An
introduction. New York: Longman.
Glock, C. (Ed.). (1967). Survey research in the social sciences. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Goetz, J. P. & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in
educational research. New York: Academic Press.
Golde, C. M. (1996). How departmental contextual factors shape doctoral student
attrition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
Golde, C. M. (1998). Beginning graduate school: Explaining first-year doctoral
attrition (pp.55-64). (New Directions for Higher Education, 26(1)).
225
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Golde, 0. M. & Dore, T.M. (2001). At cross purposes: What the experiences of
doctoral students reveal about doctoral education. Philadelphia, PA: The
Pew Charitable Trusts. Available www.phd-survey.org
Gordon, V. (1994). Issues in advising the undecided college student. Columbia,
SC: National Resource Center for The Freshman Year Experience.
Graham, S. & Donaldson, J. F. (1999). Adult students’ academic and intellectual
development in college. Adult Education Quarteriy, 49(3): 147-161.
Grandy, J. (1998). Persistence in science of high ability minority students: Results
of a longitudinal study. Journal of Higher Education, 69(6): 589-620.
Green, S. G. (1991). Professional entry and the advisor relationship: Socialization,
commitment and productivity. Group and Organization Studies, 16(4): 387-
407.
Greenwood, M. R. C. & Jaworski, E. (1996). The path to the Ph.D.: Measuring
graduate attrition in the sciences and humanities. National Research
Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Grites, T. (1979). Academic advising: Getting us through the eighties. In D.
Crockett (Ed.), (1984). Advising skills, techniques, and resources: A
compilation of materiais related to the organization and delivery of advising
services (pp.5-7). Iowa City, lA: ACT National Center for the Advancement
of Educational Practices.
Grossberg, L., Nelson, C., & Treichler, P. A. (Eds.). (1992). Culturai studies (pp.1-
16). New York: Routledge.
Grosset, J. M. (1991). Patterns of integration, commitment, and student
characteristics and retention among younger and older students. Research
in Higher Education, 32(2): 159-178.
Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaiuation. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research.
In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research
(pp.105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Habley, W. R. (1981). Academic advisement: The critical link in student retention.
NASPA Journal, 18(4): 45-49.
Habley, W. R. (2002). NACADA Summer Institute, quoting "Academic advising:
Critical link in student retention." NASPA Journal, 28(4): 45-50.
226
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Habley, W. R. & Crockett, D. S. (1988). The third ACT national survey of academic
advising. In W. R. Habley (Ed.), The status and future of academic advising
(pp. 11-76). Iowa City, lA: American College Testing Program.
Hagedorn, L. S. (1993). Graduate retention: An investigation of factors reiating to
oider female graduate students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the Association for the Study of Higher Education (November 4). ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 365 181.
Halpin, R. L. (1990, Spring). An application of the Tinto model to the analysis of
freshman persistence in a community college. Community College Review,
17{4): 22-32.
Harnett, R. T. & Katz, J. (1977). The education of graduate students. Journal of
Higher Education, 48(6): 646-664.
Hawley, P. (1993). Being bright is not enough: The unwritten rules of doctoral
study. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Haworth, J. (1996). Doctoral programs in American higher education. Higher
Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 11. New York: Agathon
Press.
Heinrich, K. T. (1991). Loving partnerships: Dealing with sexual attraction and
power in doctoral advisement relationships. Journai of Higher Education,
62(5): 515-538.
Herzig, A. H. (2002). Where have all the students gone? Participation of doctoral
students in authentic mathematical activity as a necessary condition for
persistence toward the Ph.D. Educationai Studies in Mathematics, 50: 177-
212.
Hinds, P. S., Vogel, R. J., Clarke-Steffen, L. (1997). The possibilities and pitfalls of
doing a secondary analysis of a qualitative data set. Quaiitative Health
Research, 7(3): 408-24.
Hirsch, E. (1967). Validity in interpretation. New Haven: Yale University.
Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms,
organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hodgson, C. S. & Simoni, J. M. (1995). Graduate student academic and
psychologioal functioning. Journal of College Student Development 36(3):
244-253.
Hoissler, D., Bean, J. P., & Associates (Eds.). (1990). The strategic management
ofcoiiege enrollments. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ill
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Hollenshead, C., Younce, P. S., & Wenzel, S. A. (1994). Women graduate
students in mathematics and physios: Reflections on success. Journal of
Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 7(1): 63-88.
Horn, L. J. & Carroil, C. D. (1996). Nontraditional undergraduates: Trends in
enrollment from 1986 to 1992 and persistence and attainment among 1989-
90 beginning postsecondary students. (NCES 97-578). Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Education, NCES. ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 402 857.
Innerst, C. (January 10,1990). U.S. school children’s reading, writing skills
Inadequate. Washington Times, p.A5.
Innes, J., Burns, L., Hack, G., Handy, S., Hibbard, M., Levine, J., Mandelbaum, S.,
& Sanyai, B. (1992). Commission on the doctorate in planning to the
Association of Coiiegiate Schools of Planning (ACSP). Avaiiable
http://www.acsp.org/
Isaac, S. & Michael, W. B. (1995). Handbook in research and evaiuation: For
education and the behavioral sciences (3 '^ '^ ed.). San Diego, CA:
Educational and Industrial Testing Services.
Jacks, P., Chubin, D. E., Porter, A. L., & Connolly, T. (1983). The ABCs of ABDs: A
study of incomplete doctorates, improving Coiiege and University Teaching,
37(2): 74-81.
Jacobi, M. (1991). Mentoring and undergraduate academic success: A literature
review. Review of Educationai Research, 61 (4): 505-532.
James, W. (1903). The Ph.D. octopus. Harvard Monthly. Avaiiable
http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/octopus.html
Janesick, V. J. (1994). The dance of qualitative research design: Metaphor,
methodoiatry, and meaning. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook of quaiitative research (pp.209-219). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Johnes, J. A. (1997). Inter-university variations in undergraduate non-completion
rates: A statistical analysis by subject of study. Journai of Applied Statistics,
24(3): 343-361.
Johnson, C. S. (1989). Mentoring programs. In M. L. Upcraft & J. Gardner (Eds.),
The freshmen year experience: Helping students succeed in coiiege
(pp.118-128). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
228
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Johnson, D. R. (1991). Formulating a conceptual model of nontraditional student
attrition and persistence in post-secondary vocational education programs.
Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education (ed
332012).
Johnson, I. H. (1996). Access and retention: Support programs for graduate and
professional students. In I. H. Johnson & A. J. Ottens (Eds.), Leveling the
playing field: Promoting academic success for students of color {pp.53-67).
(New Directions for Student Services, 74). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Johnson, I. H. & Ottens, A. J. (Eds.). Leveling the playing field: Promoting
academic success for students of color. (New Directions for Student
Services, 74). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Johnson, J. L. (1997). Commuter college students: What factors determine who
will persist or who will drop out? College Student Journal, 31(3): 323-333.
Johnson, J. L. (2000). Learning communities and special efforts in retention of
university students: What works, what doesn’t and is the return worth the
investment? Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory &
Practice, 2(3): 219-238.
Junn, E. N., Fuller, C, B., & Derrell, S. (1996). Students’ perceptions of services on
campus: Sex, ethnicity and class standing differences. College Student
Journal, 30: 146-157.
Juster, N. (1961). The phantom tollbooth. New York: Random House.
Katz, D. M. & Kahn, R. L. (1966, 1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations.
New York: Wiley & Sons.
Katz, E. L. (1997). Key players in the dissertation process. In L. F. Goodchild, K.
E. Green, E. L. Katz, & R. C. Kluever (Eds.). Rethinking the dissertation
process: Tackling personal and institutional obstacles (pp.5-16). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Katz, J. & Hartnett, R. T. (Eds.). (1976). Scholars in the making: The development
of graduate and professional students (pp.107-126). Cambridge, MA:
Ballinger.
Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities. (1997).
Returning to our roots: The student experience [Report 1]. Washington D.C.:
NASULGC.
Kempner, K. & Tierney, W. G. (Eds.). (1996). Comparative perspectives on the
sociai roie of higher education. (Garland Reference Library of Social
Science, 988; Garland Studies in Higher Education, 7). New York: Garland.
229
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Kennedy, G. J., Gordon, R. L., & Gordon, V. N. (1995). Changes in social and
academic Integration In freshmen of high and average ability: Implications for
retention. NACADA Journal, 15(2): 9-19.
Kennedy, M. T. (1998). Make gentle the life of this world: The vision of Robert F.
Kennedy. Orlando, FL: Harcourt, Brace & Company.
Kerka, S. (1988). Strategies for retaining adult students: The educationally
disadvantaged. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 299455).
Kerlln, R. A. (1997). - breaking the silence - : Toward a theory of women’ s
doctoral persistence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Victoria, British
Columbia: University of Victoria.
King, J. E. (2002). The federal role in promoting student persistence: Current
practice, worrisome possibilities, and opportunities for progress. Paper
presented at the Wisconsin Center for the Advancement of Postsecondary
Education, University of WIsconsln-Madlson, on Optimizing the Nation’s
Investment: Persistence and Success In Postsecondary Education.
Available http://www.wlscape.wlsc.edu/publlcations/publicatlons/
419KingPaper.pdf
King, S. E. & Chepyator-Thomson, J. R. (1996). Factors affecting the enrollment
and persistence of African-American doctoral students. Physical Educator,
53(4): 170-181.
KIrkus Associates. (1991). Review of G. L. Kramer’s Eofschoo/fo/Z/es; The
miseducation of America’ s teachers. Available http://www.amazon.com/
exec/obldos/tg/ detall/-/0029176425/qld=1046088000/s r=12-1/103-0893166-
103850?v=glance&s=books
Kluever, R. (1995, April). ABDs and graduates from a college of education:
responsibility, barriers and facilitators. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco,
CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED382143).
Knox, P.L. & McGovern, T.V. (1988). Mentoring women In academia. Teaching of
Psychology, 15(1): 39-41.
Kohlberg, L. (1975). The cognitive development approach to moral education. Phi
Delta Kappa, 10: 670-677.
Kramer, R. (1991). Ed school follies: The miseducation of America’ s teachers.
New York: Free Press.
230
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Kramer, G. L. & Spencer, R. W. (1989). Academic advising. In M. L. Upcraft, J. N.
Gardner, & Associates, The freshmen year experience: Helping students
survive in college (pp.95-107). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for appiied research (2"''
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kuh, 0. V. (1997). Is there a Ph.D. glut? Available
http://www.cgsnet.org/vcr/kuh.htm
Kuh, G. D. (1993). Assessing campus environments. In M. J. Barr & Associates,
The handbook of student affairs administration. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Kuh, G. D. (1993b). In their own words: What students learn outside the
classroom. American Educationai Research Journai, 30(2): 277-304.
Kuh, G. D. (1995). The other curriculum: Out of class experiences associated with
student learning and personal development. Journai of Higher Education,
66(2): 123-155.
Kuh, G. D. (1997, November). How are we doing? Tracking the quaiity of the
undergraduate experience from the 1960s to the present. Paper presented
at the Association for the Study of Higher Education Conference,
Albuquerque, NM. In G. S. Blimling & E. J. Whitt (Eds.), Good practice in
student affairs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kuh, G. D., Douglas, K. B., Lund, J. P., & Ramin-Gyurnek, J. (1994). Student
learning outside the ciassroom: Transcending artificiai boundaries.
Washington, D.C.: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 8.
Kuh, G. D. & Love, P. G. (2000). A cultural perspective on student departure. In
J. M. Braxton (Ed.). (2000). Reworking the student departure puzzie
(pp.196-212). Nashville TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Kuh, G. D. & Whitt, E. J. (1988). The invisibie tapestry: Cuiture in American
coiieges and universities. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, no. 1.
Washington, D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher Education.
Kurland, N. (1978). A rational strategy for lifelong learning. Phi Delta Kappan,
59(6): 385-389.
Kvale, S. (Ed.). (1992). Psychology and postmodernism. London: Sage.
Lancy, D. F. (1993). Qualitative Research in Education: An introduction to the
Major Traditions. White Plains, NY: Longman.
231
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Lather, p. (1986). Research as praxis. Harvard Educational Review, 56{3): 257-
277.
Lather, P. (1993). Fertile obsession: Validity after poststructuralism. Sociological
Quarterly, 34(4):673-693.
LeCiuyse, E. E., Tollefson, N., & Borgers, S. B. (1985). Differences in female
graduate students in relation to mentoring. College Student Journal, 19(4):
411-415.
LeCompte, M. D. (1987). Bias in the biography: Bias and subjectivity in
ethnographic research. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 18(1): 43-52.
LeCompte, M. D. & Goetz, J. P. (1982, Spring). Problems of reliability and validity
in ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 52(1): 31 -60.
LeCompte, M. D., Millroy, W. L., & Preissle, J., (Eds.). (1992). The handbook of
qualitative research in education. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
LeCompte, M. & Preissel, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in
educational research, 2"'^ edition. New York: Academic Press.
Lenning, 0. T., Beal, P. E., & Sauer, K. (1980). Retention and attrition: Evidence
for action and research. Boulder, CO: The National Institute for Higher
Education Management Systems.
Lenz, K. (1995, April). Factors affecting the completion of the doctoral dissertation
for non-traditional aged women. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Levin, I. P. (1999). Relating statistics and experimental design. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage
Levine, A. & Associates (Eds.). (1989). Shaping higher education’ s future:
Demographic realities and opportunities 1990-2000 (pp.116-132). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lieberman, B. (Ed.). (1971). Contemporary problems in statistics. NY: Oxford.
Lifelong learning trends: A profile of continuing higher education (3 ^ '^ ed.). (1994).
Washington, D.C.: National University Continuing Education Association
(now University Continuing Education Association). Available
www.ucea.edu
Light, R. (2001). Making the most of college: Students speak their minds.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
232
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Lincoln, Y. S. (1997). Reading response-abiy: Ethnography and prudent caring.
Qualitative Studies in Education, 10(2): 161-164.
Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. (1985). Naturaiisticinquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lintner, T. (1997). Adults back to school. Adult Learning, January: 23-24.
Lofland, J. & Lofland, L. H. (1984). Analyzing sociai settings: A guide to quaiitative
observation and anaiysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub. Co.
Lovitts, B. E. (1997). Leaving the ivory tower: A sociologicai anaiysis of the causes
of departure from doctorai study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
University of Maryland, College Park. Available http://www.cic.uiuc.edu/
Lovitts, B. E. (2000). Context and attrition. Research news on graduate
education. American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Washington D.C. Avaiiable http://ehrweb.aaas.0rg/mge/Archives/6/
context, htmi
Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of
departures in doctoral study. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Lovitts, B. E & Nelson, C. (2000). The hidden crisis in graduate education: Attrition
from Ph.D. programs. Academe, 86(6): 44-50. American Association of
University Professors (AAUP). Washington, D.C.. Available
http://www.aaup.org/ publications/Academe/OOnd/NDOOLOVI.HTM
Marlow, C. (1989). Identifying the problems and needs of nontraditional students at
your institution. NASPA Journal, 2 6 :272-277.
Master of Education in Teaching (MET) Program. (1997). Mentor. College of
Education. University of Hawaii at Manoa. The M E T Newsletter, 2(1): 5.
Maxwell, J. A. (1998). Designing a Qualitative Study. In L. Bickman and D. J. Rog
(Eds.), Handbook of Applied Sociai Research Methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
McCormick, A. C. & Carroll, C. D. (1997). Transfer behavior among beginning
postsecondary students: 1989-1994. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
McDermott, R. & Varene, H. (1995). Culture as disability. Anthropology &
Education Quarterly, 26: 324-348.
McGrath, M. & Braunstein, A. (1997). The prediction of freshmen attrition: An
examination of the importance of certain demographic, academic, financial,
and social factors. College Student Journal, 31 (3): 396-408.
233
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
McLaren, P. (1997). The ethnographer as postmodern flaneur: Critical reflexivity
and posthybridity as narrative engagement. In W. G. Tierney & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Representation and the text: Re-framing the narrative voice. New
York: SUNY Press.
Merriam, S. B. (1987). Adult education and theory building: A review. Aduit
Education Quarterly, 37(3): 187-189.
Merriam-Webster Coiiegiate Dictionary. (2003). Available http://www.m-w.com/cgi-
bin/dictionary
Metzner, 8 . S. & Bean, J. P. (1987). The estimation of a conceptual model of
nontraditional undergraduate student attrition. Research in Higher
Education, 27(1): 15-37.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Quaiitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook {2’^ ^ ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Millsap, S. P. (1996). Meeting the needs of returning adult students in forensics.
Educational Research Information Clearinghouse
Mooney, L. D. (1994). The nontraditional student at Henderson State University: A
study of the quaiity of programs for adult learners at a state supported higher
education institution.
Moore, L. V. (Ed.). (1990). Evolving theoretical perspectives on students. (New
Directions for Student Services, 51). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Moore, L. V. & Upcraft, M.L. (1990). Theory in student affairs: Evolving
perspectives. In L. V. Moore (Ed.), Evolving theoretical perspectives on
students (pp.3-23). (New Directions for Student Services, 51). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Moses, Y. T. (1989). Black women in academe: Issues and strategies.
Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges. Project on the Status
and Education of Women. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
311 817).
Moses, Y. T. (1990). The challenge of diversity. Education and Urban Society, 22:
402-413.
Moss, R. W. (1995). A generation of variance: Are we prepared? Journal of
College Admission, 149:18-22.
Mulaik, S. A. (1972). The foundations of factor analysis. New York: McGraw Hill.
234
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Mulaik, S. A. (1987). A brief history of the philosophical foundations of exploratory
factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 22: 267-305.
Mutter, P. (1992). Tinto’s theory of departure and community college student
persistence. Journai of Coiiege Student Deveiopment, 33(4): 310-317.
Nagda, B. A., Gregerman, S. R., Jonides, J., von Hippel, W., & Lerner, J. S. (1998).
Undergraduate student-faculty research partnerships affect student
retention. The Review of Higher Education, 22(1): 55-72.
National Academy of Sciences. (1997). Advisor, teacher, roie model, friend: On
being a mentor to students in Science and Engineering. Washington, D.C.:
National Academy Press. Available http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/
books/mentor/1 .html
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (1990). The Nation’ s report
card. State of Mathematics Achievement. National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES). Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Available http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (2003). The Nation’ s report
card. State of Mathematics Achievement. National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES). Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Available http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
National Association of Graduate and Professional Students (NAGPS). (2001). The
2000 national doctorai program survey. Washington, D.C.: Alfred P. Sloan
Foundation. Available http://survey.nagps.org
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (1996). Digest of education
statistics, 1995. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Available
http://nces.ed.g0v//pubsl 996/digestl 995/
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (1997). Findings from the
condition of education 1997: No. 13 postsecondary persistence and
attainment (U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research
and Improvement/NCES 97-984). Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (1997b). Projections of education
statistics to 2007. (NCES 97-382). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education. Available http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/pj/
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (1997c). Digest of education
statistics, 1996. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Available
http://nces.ed.g0v//pubsl 997/digestl 996/
235
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (1999). Digest of education
statistics, 1998. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Available
http://noes.ed.gov/pubs2000/digest99
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2002). Digest of education
statistics, 2001 (NCES 2002-130). Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education. Available http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/digest2001/
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2002a). The condition of
education 2002 {UCES 2002-025). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2002b). Projections of education
statistics to 2012 (NCES 2002-030). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education. Available http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002030.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2002c). Nontraditional
undergraduates {NCES 2002-012). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education. Available http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002012.pdf
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1982). A Nation at risk: The
imperative for education reform. Reprinted in 129 Congressional Record S
6059, S 6060 (daily ed. 5 May 1983). Washington D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
National Institute for Literacy (NIL). (2002). Facts and statistics. Available
http://www.crdl.lib.mi.us/planning/Lit%20Facts%20and%20Stats.htm
National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS). (2000). National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education.
National Research Council. (1989b). Summary report 1987: Doctorate recipients
from United States universities. Washington, D.C.: National Academy
Press.
National Science Foundation (NSF). (1998). Summary of workshop on graduate
student attrition. NSF 99-314. Project Officer, A. I. Rapoport. Arlington, VA:
Author. Available http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf99314/htmstart.htm
Nelson, C., Treichler, P. A., & Grossberg, L. (1992). Cultural studies. In L.
Grossberg, C. Nelson, & P. A. Treichler (Eds.), Cultural studies (pp.1-16).
New York; Routledge.
Nerad, M. & Cerny, J. (1991, May). From facts to action: Expanding the
educational role of the graduate division. Communicator. Council of
Graduate Schools.
236
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Nerad, M. & Cerny, J. (1993). From facts to action: Expanding the educational role
of the graduate division. In L. L. Baird (Ed.), Increasing graduate student
retention and degree attainment (pp.27-39). (New Directions for Institutional
Research, 80). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Nerad, M. & Miller, D. 8 . (1996). Increasing student retention in graduate and
professional programs. Assessing graduate and professionai education
(pp.61-76). (New Directions for Institutional Research, 92).
Nettles, 8 . (1991). Community involvement and disadvantaged students: A review.
Review of Educationai Research, 61 (3): 379-406.
Noel, L. (Ed.). (1978). Reducing the dropout rate. (New Directions for Student
Services). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Noel, L. (Ed.). (1997). Academic advising for student success and retention. Iowa
City, lA.
Noel, L., Levitz, R., Saluri, D. & Associates (Eds.). (1985). increasing student
retention (pp.244-263). (New Directions for Student Services). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Nora, A. (1987). Determinants of retention among Chicano college students: A
structural model. Research in Higher Education, 26(1): 31 -59.
Nora, A. & Cabrera, A. F. (1993). The construct validity of institutional commitment:
A confirmatory factor analysis. Research in Higher Education-, 34(2): 243-
251.
Nora, A. & Horvath, F. (1989). Financial assistance: Minority enrollments and
persistence. Education and Urban Society, 21: 299-309.
Nye, F.l. (1979). Choice, exchange and the family. In W. R. Burr, R. Hill, F. J. Nye,
& J. Reiss (Eds.). Contemporary theories about the family, vol 2. New York:
Free Press.
Nyquist, J. D. (2000). Re-envisioning the Ph.D.: What concerns do we have?
Seattle, WA: Center for Instructional Development and Research and
University of Washington. Available http://www.grad.washington.edu/
envision/ project_resources/concerns.html
Nyquist, J. D. & Wulff, D. H. (2002). The Ph.D.: A tapestry of change for the
21st century. Change, 34(6): 12-20. Available
http://www.grad.washington.edu/ envision/resources/ tapestry_recom.html
237
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
O’Banion, T. (1994). An academic advising model. NACADA Journal, 74(2): IQ-
16.
O’Brien, 0. T. & Merisotis, J. P. (1996). Life after forty: A new portrait of today’ s
and tomorrow’ s postsecondary students. Education Resources Institute.
Washington, D.C.: Institute for Higher Education Policy. ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 401 813.
O’Donnell, J. (1992). Review of Bowen, W. G. & Rudenstine, N. L. in pursuit of the
Ph.D. Available http://ccat.sas.upenn.edU/bmcr/1992/03.03.01 .html
Office of Technology Assessment (1988). Educating scientists and engineers:
Grade school to grad school. Washington D.C.: Author. Available
http://www.wws.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/byteserv.prl/~ota/disk2/1988/8811/
881103.PDF
Ostrowski, T. A. (1992). Student services for the nontraditional student.
Washington State University: Masters Thesis in Education.
Pace, C. R. (1984). Measuring the quaiity of student experiences: An account of
the deveiopment and use of the coiiege student excellences questionnaire.
Los Angeles, CA: University of California Graduate School of Education,
Higher Education Research Institute. ED 255 009.
Pace, C. R. (1990). The undergraduates: A report of their activities and progress in
college in the 1980s. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Center for
the Study of Evaluation. ED 375 701.
Pando, I. (1993). The relationship between mentoring and career advancement of
ethnic minority men and women serving as presidents, vice-presidents and
deans in California's community colleges. Dissertation Abstracts
internationai, 54(3-A): 762.
Pantages, T. J. & Creedon, C. F. (1978, Winter). Studies of college attrition: 1950-
1975. Review of Educationai Research, 48{'\): 49-101.
Parent, E. R. (2002). A systems model for doctorai student deveiopment and
retention. Available http://weber.ucsd.edu/~eparent/part1/Final_description_
model.html
Pascarella, E.T. (1980). Student-faculty informal contact and college outcomes.
Review of Educationai Research, 50: 545-595.
Pascarella, E. T. (Ed.) (1982). Studying student dropout. (New Directions for
Institutional Research, 36). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
238
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Pascarella, E. T. (1982b). A program for research and policy development on
student persistence at the institutional level. In E.T. Pascarella (Ed.),
Studying student attrition. (New Directions for Institutional Research, 36).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E.T. (1985). Student’s affective development within the college
environment. Journal of Higher Education, 56(6): 640-663.
Pascarella, E. T. (1985b). College environmental influences in learning and
cognitive development: A critical review and synthesis. In J. Smart (Ed.),
Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, vol. 1. New York:
Agathon.
Pascarella, E. T. & Chapman, D. W. (1983, Spring). A multi-institutional, path
analytic validation of Tinto’s model of college withdrawal. American
Educational Research Journal, 20{^): 87-102.
Pascarella, E. I., Duby, P. B., & Iverson, B. K. (1983). A test and
reconceptualization of a theoretical model of college withdrawal in commuter
institution setting. Sociology of Education, 56: 88-100.
Pascarella, E. T., Smart, J. C., & Ethington, D. A. (1986). Long-term persistence of
two-year college students. Research in Higher Education, 24(1): 47-71.
Pascarella, E. I. & Terenzini, P. T. (1979). Interaction effects in Spady’s and
Tinto’s conceptual model of college dropout. Sociology of Education, 52:
197-210.
Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (1983). Predicting voluntary freshman year
persistence/withdrawal behavior in a residential university: A path analytic
validation of Tinto’s model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75: 215-226.
Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P.T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings
and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Pascarella, E. T., Terenzini, P., & Wolfe, L. (1986). Orientation to college and
freshmen year persistence/withdrawal decisions. Journal of Higher
Education, 57: 155-175.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd Edition).
London: Sage.
Penn, G. (1999). Enrollment management for the 21st century: Institutional goals,
accountability, and fiscal responsibility. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education
Report, 26(7). Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University,
Graduate School of Education and Human Development.
239
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Perry, W. G. (1968). Forms of intellectual and ethical development In the college
years. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of Intellectual and ethical development In the college
years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Perry, W. G. (1981). Cognitive and Ethical Growth: The Making of Meaning (pp.76-
116). In A. W. Chickering and Associates, The Modern American College.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Peshkin, A. (1993). The goodness of qualitative research. Educational Research,
2(2): 23-29.
Peters, R. L. (1997). Getting what you came for: The smart student’ s guide to
earning a Master’ s o ra Ph.D. New York: Noonday Press.
Phillips, E. M. & Pugh, D. S. (1994). Howto get a PhD: A handbook for students
and their supervisors (2nd ed.). Buckingham, England: Open University
Press.
Pinsonneault, A. & Kraemer, K. L. (1993). The survey research strategy in studies
of information systems: Review and critique. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 10(2): 75-106.
Pitman, M. A. & Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Qualitative approaches to evaluation:
Models and methods. In M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millory, & J. Preissle (Eds.),
The handbook of qualitative research In education (pp.729-770). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press, Inc.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1989). Phenomenological research methods. In R. S. Valle &
8 . Hailing (Eds.), Existential-phenomenological perspectives In psychology
(pp. 41-60). New York: Plenum Press.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1992). A postmodern epistemology of practice. In S. Kvale
(Ed.), Psychology and postmodernism (pp. 146-165). London: Sage.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1997). Reporting qualitative research as practice. In W. G.
Tierney & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Representation and the text: Re-framIng the
narrative voice (pp. 3-21). NY: State University Press.
Price, J. L. (1977). The study of turnover. Ames, lA: Iowa State University Press.
Queen, K.W. (1994). Meeting affective needs of at-risk students. Psychological
Reports, 74: 753-754.
240
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ramist, L. (1981). College student attrition and retention. Findings, Educational
Testing Services, 6(2). Princeton, NJ; ETS.
Rawles, B. A. (1980). The influence of a mentor on the level of self-actualization of
American scientists. Unpubiished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State
University.
Redmond, S. P. (1990). Mentoring and cuitural diversity in academic settings.
American Behavioral Scientist, 34(2): 188-200.
Reisser, L. (1995). Revisting the seven vectors. Journal of College Student
Development, 36: 505-511.
Reskin, B. F. (1979). Academic sponsorship and scientists’ careers. Sociology of
Education, 52: 129-146.
Richter-Antion, D. (1986). Qualitative differences between adult and younger
students. NASPA Journal, 23(3): 58-62.
Roberts, A. (1999). Homer’s mentor: Duties fulfilled or misconstrued? H/sfo/y
Education Journal.
Rousseau, M. & Tam, B. (1995). An apprenticeship model to recruit and prepare
minority students to enter special education doctorai programs. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 8(3): 179-191.
Ryder, R. (1994). Nontraditional students: perceived barriers to degree completion.
College hudent Affairs Journal, 13(2): 5-13.
Sandler, M. (2000). Career decision-making seif-efficacy, perceived stress, and an
integrated modei of student persistence. Research in Higher Education,
41 (5): 537-572.
Sanford, N., (Ed.). (1962). The American college. New York: Wiley & Sons.
Sanford, N. (1966). Self and society. New York: Atherton Press.
Schatzman, L. & Strauss, A. (1973). Field research: Strategies fora natural
sociology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Scheper-Hughes, N. (1992). Death without weeping: The violence of everyday life
in Brazil. Berkeley, CA: University of Caiifornia Press.
Schlossberg, N. K., Lynch, A. Q., & Chickering, A. W. (1989). improving higher
education environments for adults: Responsive programs and services from
entry to departure. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
241
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Schroeder, D. S. & Mynatt, C. R. (1993). Female graduate students’ perceptions of
their interactions with male and female major professors. Journal of Higher
Education, 64; 555-573.
Schwandt, T. (1997). Qualitative inquiry: A dictionary of terms. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Sedlacek, W. (1983). Teaching minority students. In J. H. Connes, J. F. Noonan,
& D. Janha (Eds.). Teaching minority students (pp. 39-50). (New Directions
for Teaching and Learning, 16). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sedlacek, W. & Kim, S. H. (1996). Survey terminology related to sexual orientation:
Does it matter? Report No. 12-96. Maryland: University of Maryland
College Park Counseling Center.
Shandley, T. C. (1989). The use of mentors for leadership development. NASPA
Journal, 27: 59-66.
Shields, N. (1994). Retention, academic success, and progress among adult,
returning students: A comparison of the effects of institutional and external
factors. NACADA Journal, 14(1): 13-24.
Smart, J. C. (Ed.). (1997). Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, 12.
New York: Agathon Press.
Smith, E. P. & Davidson, W. S. (1992). Mentoring and the development of African-
American graduate students. Journal of College Student Development,
33(6): 531-539.
Sonnert, G. & Holton, G. (1996). Career patterns of women and men in the
sciences. American Scientist, 84, 63-71.
Spady, W. G. (1970). Dropouts from higher education: An interdisciplinary review
and synthesis, interchange, 1 : 64-85.
Spady. W. G. (1971). Dropouts from higher education: Toward an empirical model.
interchange, 2(3): 38-62.
Statistical Package of the Social Sciences (SPSS). SPSS base 7.0 for Windows
user’ s guide. (1997). Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.
St. John, E. P. (2000). The impact of student aid on recruitment and retention:
What the research Indicates (pp.61 -75). (New Directions for Student
Services, 89).
Stage, F. K. (1989). Reciprocal effects between the academic and social
integration of college students. Research in Higher Education, 30: 513-526.
242
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Stage, F. K. (1989b). Motivation, academic and social integration and the early
dropout. American Educational Research Journal, 2 6 :385-402.
Stahl, V. & Pavel, M. (1992). Assessing the Bean & Metzner model with community
college student data. Dissertation presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association (ed 344639).
Stainback, S. & Stainback, W. (1988). Understanding and Conducting Qualitative
Research. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
Stake, R. E. (1978). The case study method in social inquiry. Educational
Researcher, 7(2): 5-8.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sternberg, D. (1981). How to complete and survive a doctoral dissertation. New
York: St. Martin’s Press.
Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Subotnik, R. F. & Arnold, L. S. (1995). Passing through the gates: Career
establishment of talented women scientists. Roeper Review, f 8(1): 55-61.
Syverson, P. (1997). The new majority: CGS/GRE survey results trace growth of
women in graduate education. Communicator. Council of Graduate
Schools.
Szabo, V. & Strang, V. R. (1997). Secondary analysis of qualitative data.
Advances in Nursing Science, 20(2): 66-74.
Tam, K. Y. & Rousseau, M. (1998). The Journal of Graduate Teaching Assistant
Development, 6(1): 5-12.
Tanur, J. (1982). Advances in methods for large-scale surveys and experiments.
Behavioral and Social Research: A National Resource, Part II.
Terenzini, P. T., Lorang, W. G., & Pascarella, E. T. (1981). Predicting freshman
persistence and voluntary dropout decisions: A replication. Research in
Higher Education, 15:109-127.
243
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Terenzini, P. I. & Pascarella, E. I. (1978). Voluntary freshman attrition and
patterns of social and academic integration in a university: A test of a
conceptual model. Research in Higher Education, 9: 347-366.
Terenzini, P. T. & Pascarella, E. T. (1980). Towards the validation of Tinto’s model
of college student attrition: A review of recent studies. Research in Higher
Education, 12{3): 271-282.
Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E. T., & Blimling, G. S. (1996). Students’ out-of-class
experiences and their influences on learning and cognitive development: A
literature review. Journai of Coiiege Student Deveiopment, 37: 149-162.
Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E. T., & Lorang, W. G. (1982). An assessment of the
academic and social influences on freshman year educational outcomes.
Review of Higher Education, 5: 86-109.
Terenzini, P. T. & Wright, T. (1987). Students’ personal growth during the first two
years of college. Review of Higher Education, 10(3): 259-271.
Thomas, R. O. (1990). Programs and activities for improved retention, in D.
Hoissler, J. Bean, & Associates (Eds.), The strategic management of
college enrollments {pp.^86-20^). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Tidball, M. E. (1973). Perspectives on academic women and affirmative action.
Educational Record, 130-135.
Tierney, W. G. (1991). Organizational culture in higher education: Defining the
essentials. In M. Peterson (Ed.), Organization and governance in higher
education (pp. 126-139). Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster Custom
Publishing.
Tierney, W. G. (1992). An anthropological analysis of student participation in
college. Journai of Higher Education, 63(6): 603-618.
Tierney, W. G. (1993). Self and identity in a postmodern world: A life story. In D.
McLaughlin and W. G. Tierney (Eds.), Naming silenced lives: Personal
narratives and the process of educational change, (pp. 119-134). New York:
Routledge.
Tierney, W. G. (Ed.). (1998). The responsive university: Restructuring for high
performance. Baltimore MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Tierney, W. G. (1998b). Power, identity, and the dilemma of coiiege student
departure. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California Center for
Higher Education Policy Analysis. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), (2000). Reworking
the student departure puzzle. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
244
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Tierney, W. G. (1999). Building the responsive campus: Creating the high
performance institution. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tierney, W. G. (2000). Power, identity, and the dilemma of college student
departure. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.). Reworking the student departure puzzle
(pp.213-234). Nashville TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Tierney, W. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Teaching qualitative methods in higher
education. The Review of Higher Education, 17(2): 107-124.
Tierney, W. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1997). Introduction: Explorations and discoveries.
In W. G. Tierney & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Representation and the text: Re
framing the narrative voice, (pp. vii-xvi). Alljany, NY: SUNY Press.
Timmons, F. R. (1978). Freshman withdrawal from college: A positive step toward
identity formation? A follow-up study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 7:
159-173.
Ting, S. R. (2000). Predicting Asian Americans’ academic performance in the first
year of college: An approach combining SAT scores and noncognitive
variables. Journal of College Student Development, 41 (4): 442-450.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent
research. Review of Educational Research, 45 (1): 89-125.
Tinto, V. (1982). Limits of theory and practice in student attrition. Journal of Higher
Education, 53(6): 687-700
Tinto, V. (1982b). Defining dropout: A matter of perspective. In E.T. Pascarella
(Ed.), Studying student dropout. (New Directions for Student Services, 36).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving coiiege: Rethinking the causes and cures of student
attrition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1987b). Increasing student retention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Tinto, V. (1989). Misconceptions mar campus discussions of student retention. The
Chronicle of Higher Education. 36 (September 6): B2.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving coiiege: Rethinking the causes and cures of student
attrition. (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1993b). Toward a theory of doctoral persistence. In Leaving college:
Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (pp.230-243). (2nd ed.).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
245
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities: Exploring the educational character
of student persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 68(6): 599-623.
Tinto, V. (1999). Taking retention seriously: Rethinking the first year of college.
NACADA Journai, 19(1): 5-9.
Tinto, V., Russo, P., & Kadel, S. (1994). Constructing educational communities:
Increasing retention in challenging circumstances. Community Coiiege
Journai, 64(4): 26-29.
Tucker, A., Gottlieb, D., & Pease, J. (1964). Factors related to attrition among
doctorai students. (Cooperative Research Project No. 1146). Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Office of Education.
Turner, A. L. & Berry, T. R. (2000). Counseling center contributions to student
retention and graduation: A longitudinal assessment. Journai of Coiiege
Student Deveiopment, 41(6): 627-640.
Ugbah, S. & Williams, 8 . A. (1989). The mentor-protege relationship: Its impact on
Blacks in predominantly White institutions. In J. C. Elam (Ed.), Blacks in
higher education: Overcoming the odds (pp. 29-42). Lanham, MD:
University Press of America.
United States Census Bureau Reports. (1999). School enrollment in the United
States— Social and economic characteristics of students. Washington D.C.:
U.S. Department of Commerce. Available http://www.census.gov/prod/
2001pubs/P20-533.pdf
Upcraft, M. L. & Kramer, G. L. (Eds.). (1995). First year academic advising:
Patterns in the present, pathways to the future (Monograph 18). Columbia,
SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the
Freshman Year Experience and Students in Transition.
Valdez, J. (1993). Cultural capital and its impact on the aspirations of nontraditional
community college students. Community Coiiege Review, 21: 30-44.
van Gennep, A. (1960). The rites of passage. (M. B. Vizedom & G. I. Caffee,
Trans). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
van Maanan, J. (Ed.). (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experiences. New York: State University
of New York Press.
246
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Voorhees, R. A. (1987). Toward building models of community college persistence:
A logit analysis. Research in Higher Education, 27(2): 115-129.
Voorhees, R. A. (1990). A survey of academic advising as an area inquiry. In J.
Smart (Ed.), (1990). Higher education: Handbook of theory and research,
VI. New York: Agathon Press.
Warwick, D. P. (1973). Survey research and participant observation. In D. P.
Warwick & S. Osherson (Eds.), Comparative research methods. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Webb, M. W. (1988). Freshmen year retention at three campuses of a large urban
community college district: 1983-1986. Community/Junior Coiiege Quarterly,
12:2^ 3-242.
Weiss, 0. (1972). Evaluation research: Methods for assessing program
effectiveness. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Wilde, J. B. & Schau, C. G. (1991). Mentoring in graduate schools of education:
Mentees’ perceptions. Journal of Experimental Education, 59:165-179.
Windnall, S. E. (1988). AAAS presidential lecture: Voices from the pipeline.
Science, 241:1740-1745.
Winston, R.B., Miller, T.K., Ender, S.C., Grites, T.J., & Associates (Eds.). (1984).
Developmental academic advising: Addressing students’ educational,
career, and personal needs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Woolcott, H. F. (1990). Writing up qualitative research. London: Sage
Zea, M., Reisen, C., Beil, C., & Caplan, R. (1997). Predicting intention to remain in
college among ethnic minority and non-minority students. Journal of Social
Psychology, 137: 149-160.
Zelditch, M. (1990). Mentor roles. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the
Western Association of Graduate Schools, 11. Tempe, Ariz., March 16—18.
In National Academy of Sciences’ Advisor, teacher, role model, friend: On
being a mentor to students in Science and Engineering. (1997).
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Available
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/ mentor/1 .html
Ziolkowski, T. (1990). The Ph.D. squid. The American Scholar, 59{2): M l -195.
Zwick, R. (1991). An analysis of graduate school careers in three universities:
Differences in attainment patterns across academic programs and
demographic groups. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
247
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Asset Metadata

Creator King, Jack Edward, Jr. (author)

Core Title A study of doctoral student -advisor satisfaction: Considering gender and ethnic grouping at a private research university

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

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

Tag education, administration,Education, higher,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor Sundt, Melora (committee chair), Gothold, Stuart (committee member), Hentschke, Guilbert (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-516299

Unique identifier UC11335874

Identifier 3140498.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-516299 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3140498.pdf

Dmrecord 516299

Document Type Dissertation

Rights King, Jack Edward, Jr.

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 au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA