University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Big dreams lost: the influence of mentoring to reduce PhD attrition

(USC Thesis Other)

Big dreams lost: the influence of mentoring to reduce PhD attrition

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Big Dreams Lost: The Influence of Mentoring to Reduce PhD attrition
by
Charlene Zerbinopoulos
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of Doctor of Education
December 2023
ii
© Copyright by Charlene Zerbinopoulos 2023
All Rights Reserved

iii

The Committee for Charlene Zerbinopoulos certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Dr. Courtney Malloy, Committee Chair

Dr. Kathy Stowe

Dr. Heather Davis

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

2023

iv

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to capture the experiences of dissertation chairs from
Research 1 universities (American Council on Education, 2021) who advise and mentor PhD
students to complete their dissertations. The researcher evaluated the effect PhD mentors’
interactions and tactics, within the student’s environment, have on the completion of the PhD
dissertation. The research questions posed in this research are
1. What are the perceptions of the faculty regarding the strategies, processes, and
techniques they employ to facilitate doctoral dissertation completion?
2. In what ways and when does the faculty chair intervene if a doctoral student is
struggling to complete the PhD?
3. What training and support do faculty chairs receive at their institutions to prepare
them for their dissertation chair/mentoring roles?
This research study used semistructured interviews to capture eight PhD dissertation
chairs’ experiences related to actions they take to mentor students to dissertation completion. The
findings from the research indicate all dissertation chairs agreed their primary role was to support
the dissertation process. Half of the dissertation chairs stated that mentoring was a primary
responsibility of the dissertation chair and that communication between a dissertation chair and
student varies by chair. As well, dissertation project goals are not necessarily communicated at
the beginning of the project.
The research highlighted that each dissertation chair believes writing is a very important
aspect of obtaining a PhD and that dissertation chairs were split on how much help they give
their PhD students on research skills; however, seven of the eight chairs interviewed stated they
assist students with analysis of data once it is collected. Also, all chairs agreed each student

v

requires differentiated support, including emotional support, but not all chairs provide that
emotional support. Six participants agreed a good match between the student and the dissertation
chair is very important and that missed deadlines and cancelled meetings are a sign the PhD
student is struggling and the dissertation chair should intervene. Lastly, the research showed
universities do not offer adequate training and support to assist dissertation chairs with their
mentoring duties.

vi

Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like to thank my wife, Dr. Cari Moorhead, and my daughter,
Shyanne, for their valuable and unending support and encouragement throughout this doctoral
journey. It is not easy to be the family member of someone getting a doctorate, and they both did
everything they could to make the process as easy as possible for me, whether that was bringing
me food while I was writing or keeping the house quiet while I was in class. I could not have
done it without them. Thank you both so very much.
I would like to thank my parents for their foundation of love and instilling in me the
value of hard work; without that, this endeavor would not be possible. Thank you.
I want to thank my German Shepherd Dog, Beau, for his undying support and licks of
encouragement. There is no better study-buddy than a dog. Beau was with me from day one and
is still sitting by my side as I write this.
I would like to thank my committee for assisting me through this process. Thank you,
Drs. Malloy (chair), Stowe, and Davis. Your help was invaluable. Thank you all so much.
To my study group, The Rockstars, your friendship made this effort fun and interesting. I
learned so much from all of you. I will sincerely be forever grateful to you all.
Lastly, I would like to thank all of the friends and family who encouraged me along the
way and celebrated all of my wins, big and small. Thank you for everything.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................. x
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................... xi
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study.............................................................................................. 1
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions ............................................................................. 4
Importance of the Study ................................................................................................................. 5
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology ................................................................ 6
Definitions ...................................................................................................................................... 7
Organization of the Dissertation ..................................................................................................... 8
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .............................................................................................. 9
PhD Completion ............................................................................................................................. 9
Background on PhD conferrals ............................................................................................... 9
Background on Attrition ....................................................................................................... 10
Factors Influencing PhD Completion ........................................................................................... 12
Student Experience ............................................................................................................... 12
Mentoring and Advising ....................................................................................................... 13
Quality of Student/Dissertation Chair Relationship.............................................................. 17
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Issues in the PhD ...................................................................... 19
Demographics ....................................................................................................................... 19
Minority Student’s Environment .......................................................................................... 20
Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................................ 21
Summary....................................................................................................................................... 23

viii

Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................... 25
Research Questions ...................................................................................................................... 25
Overview of Design ...................................................................................................................... 25
Research Setting ........................................................................................................................... 26
The Researcher ............................................................................................................................. 26
Data Sources ................................................................................................................................. 27
Participants ................................................................................................................................... 27
Instrumentation ............................................................................................................................. 28
Data Collection Procedures .......................................................................................................... 29
Data Analysis................................................................................................................................ 29
Validity and Reliability ................................................................................................................ 30
Ethics ............................................................................................................................................ 30
Chapter Four: Findings ..................................................................................................................... 32
Interview Participants ................................................................................................................... 33
Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 34
Findings for Research Question 1 ................................................................................................ 34
Finding 1: All Dissertation Chairs Agreed Their Primary Role Was to Support the
Dissertation Process .......................................................................................................... 35
Finding 2: Four Dissertation Chairs Stated Mentoring Was a Primary Responsibility of the
Dissertation Chair. ............................................................................................................. 37
Finding 3: Communication Between a Dissertation Chair and Students Varies Between
Chairs, as Does Dissertation Project Goal Setting ............................................................ 41

ix

Finding 4: Although Writing Is an Important Aspect of the Dissertation Process, Not All
Dissertation Chairs Believe It Is Their Responsibility to Assist Students With It ............ 44
Findings for Research Question 2 ................................................................................................ 47
Finding 1: Missed Deadlines and Cancelled Meetings Are a Sign the PhD Student Is
Struggling and the Dissertation Chair Should Intervene. .................................................. 47
Finding 2: PhD Students Face Varied Challenges, Including Writing, Transitioning From
Structured Coursework to Less Structured Independent Research, Apprehension With
Data Analysis, and Feelings of Isolation ........................................................................... 49
Findings for Research Question 3 ................................................................................................ 50
Finding 1: Universities Do Not Offer Adequate Training and Support to Assist Dissertation
Chairs With Mentoring Duties .......................................................................................... 51
Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................... 52
Chapter Five: Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 54
Discussion of Findings ................................................................................................................. 55
Recommendation for Practice ...................................................................................................... 58
Recommendation .................................................................................................................. 58
Limitations and Delimitations ...................................................................................................... 60
Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................................................ 61
Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 62
References ........................................................................................................................................ 64
Appendix A: Interview Questions .................................................................................................... 72
Appendix B: Interview LinkedIn Advertisement ............................................................................. 75

x

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Pseudonym and Description of Dissertation Chair Participants ..................................... 33
Table 2: Summary of Findings ..................................................................................................... 35

xi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Bandura’s Triadic Reciprocal Determinism .................................................................. 22

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
The doctoral degree is the pinnacle of educational attainment, with approximately
457,000 students enrolled each year in pursuit of this degree in the United States (Zhou & Gao,
2021). Of those students enrolled in doctoral programs in the United States, there is a continuous
attrition rate of nearly 50% (Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Lovitts, 2001). Some professional
doctoral programs, such as the medical doctorate (MD) and the juris doctorate (JD), have
completion rates as high as 95% (King, 2008); however, doctor of philosophy (PhD) programs
have the lowest average completion rates (Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Lovitts, 2001). For this
reason, this dissertation addresses PhD attrition as its primary focus. High levels of PhD attrition
carry heavy emotional loss for students (Lovitts, 2001) and a tremendous loss of future
knowledge to the field and a significant financial loss to the educational institution and the
students (Grasso et al., 2009).
The average student loan debt among those who possess a PhD, and debt, is $159,625,
with only 14.3% of that debt derived from undergraduate study (Hanson, 2021). Therefore, when
a PhD student drops out of their university program without finishing their degree, they suffer
from emotions of failure (Lovitts, 2001) and carry heavy student loan debt, without possessing
the degree that allows for higher earnings. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (U.S.
BLS, 2021a), the median weekly salary for people who hold a PhD degree is $1,885, versus
$1,545 for master’s degree holders and $1,305 for those who possess a bachelor’s degree.
Likewise, the unemployment rate for PhD degree recipients is 2.5%, versus 4.1% for master’s
degree holders and 5.5% for people with a bachelor’s degree (U.S. BLS, 2021b). Therefore,
when a person drops out of a PhD program, they are more likely to carry significant debt, less
2

likely to make as much money to pay off that debt and are also more likely to be unemployed
than their PhD degree-holding peers.
Universities lose when a student drops out of a PhD program. For every student who
attends a university, there are costs to recruit new students, orient students into the program, and
process the administrative tasks associated with loans, benefits, and scheduling. Added to this is
the loss of the faculty’s time to work with the student (Lovitts, 2001). The University of Notre
Dame found if they cut doctoral attrition by only 10%, they could save over a million dollars in
stipend payments (Smallwood, 2004). When students do not finish their degrees, universities
lose a large investment. According to the Survey of Earned Doctorates, reported by the National
Science Foundation (NSF, 2021), nearly 80% of students in doctoral programs received teaching,
research, fellowship, or scholarship support. This revenue loss for students who do not finish is a
waste of resources that could be funneled into other projects or for students who can finish. This
lost money has an opportunity cost.
The United States loses when a PhD student drops out of a program. Casey (2009) stated
people who possess PhDs produce research that stands as a societal good for all to enjoy. Casey
also said people who hold PhDs exhibit elevated productivity and elevate the production of
workers who do not hold PhDs. This overall improved production is a benefit to society (Casey,
2009). Lastly, in times of national crises, such as the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, researchers who
hold the expertise of a PhD can serve as guides to help society better understand the situation at
hand and can also lend their research expertise to assist with the problem (Katella, 2021).
Studies have suggested the relationship between students and advisors/mentors are
particularly important for PhD completion (Council of Graduate Schools, 2004). Therefore, the
purpose of this study was to capture the experiences of dissertation chairs from Research 1 (R1)
3

universities (American Council on Education, 2021) who advise and mentor PhD students to
complete their dissertations.
Context and Background of the Problem
In the United States, the PhD degree was launched at Yale University in 1860, and in
1861, Yale awarded its first PhD degree (Nettles & Millet, 2006). According to the Council of
Graduate Schools, the PhD degree is “the highest academic degree granted by North American
universities” (Council of Graduate Schools, 2005, p. 1). The author stated the PhD must be
“distinguished from all other doctorates, such as M.D [Medical Doctor], J.D. [Juris Doctor] and
EdD [Doctor of Education]” (p. 1) because these other doctorates focus on applied research in a
professional setting, whereas a PhD expands the “knowledge base of the field” (p. 1).
According to the NSF’s (2021) Survey of Earned Doctorates, in 2020, there were 55,283
doctorates earned and 449 doctorate granting institutions in the United States. These data
represent research doctorates only and do not include professional doctorates, such as MD or JD;
they do include doctorates of education (EdD), which the NSF (2021) classified as a research
doctorate. Of the doctoral degrees conferred, 98.4% were PhD degrees (NSF, 2021). Of all
doctorates conferred, 79% derive from universities classified by the Carnegie classification as
highest research universities (R1; American Council on Education, 2021).
The NSF (2021) has considered doctoral education “critical to a nation’s progress” (para.
1). Therefore, a continuously high attrition rate of these students is of concern (Cassuto, 2013).
Because there are no nationwide studies documenting doctoral attrition on a national level (King,
2008), there is limited data on which students leave and why (Lovitts, 2001).
According to the NSF (2006), doctoral education was a contributing factor to the United
States’ growth from an emerging nation at the beginning of the 20th century, to a leading world
4

power at the end of the century. The Survey of Earned Doctorates stated the number of people
receiving research doctorates in the United States rose markedly, from 8,773 people in 1958, to
55,283 in 2020, when 98% received PhDs (NSF, 2021). Despite the rise in the numbers of people
gaining doctorates, the attrition rate of PhD students has remained relatively the same, at
approximately 50%, from 2003 (Council of Graduate Schools, 2004) to 2013 (Cassuto, 2013),
with students in the hard sciences completing programs at a slightly higher rate than the
humanities and the social sciences (Smallwood, 2004). Denecke et al. (2009) posited the high
attrition rate of what faculty determine are some of our country’s most educated and promising
people “arguably impinges on the capacity of the United States to produce the talented
researchers necessary for long-term success in a global knowledge economy” (p. 36).
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The research in doctoral attrition points to the relationship of doctoral students and their
dissertation chairs as one of the most important factors in doctoral completion (Rigler et al.,
2017; Sowel et al., 2010); therefore, this research focused on the dissertation chair’s role in the
mentorship of doctoral students. The research specifically focused on chairs’ strategies,
processes, and techniques in assisting students to complete their dissertations.
The purpose of this study was to capture the experiences of R1 dissertation chairs who
advise and mentor PhD students to complete their dissertations. Specifically, this research led to
descriptions of positive mentoring techniques dissertation chairs employ for students who are at
risk of not finishing their doctoral work. The research will focus on dissertation chairs who work
at R1 universities, which is the Carnegie classification for a very high research university
(American Council on Education, 2021). The Carnegie classifications track dissertation
completions as part of this classification. One benefit of this Carnegie classification is its
5

importance in attracting the best faculty and graduate students to the universities that have the
strongest record of research excellence (Stickney, 2021)
The research questions posed in this research are
1. What are the perceptions of the faculty regarding the strategies, processes, and
techniques they employ to facilitate doctoral dissertation completion?
2. In what ways and when does the faculty chair intervene if a doctoral student is
struggling to complete the PhD?
3. What training and support do faculty chairs receive at their institutions to prepare
them for their dissertation chair/mentoring roles?
Importance of the Study
The importance of this study is multifaceted. University deans and professors agree some
attrition of doctoral students is expected and may actually be good attrition, considering it may
take 6 to 7 years to complete a doctorate (Smallwood, 2004): people’s lives change over that
time period. Also, not everyone can complete a doctorate, even if they are eager to learn; it is a
daunting process. Attrition does appear to be on the mind of at least one graduate school dean,
Peter Diffly, an associate dean from the University of Notre Dame. While attending a meeting of
the Council of Graduate Schools, Diffly wondered if decreasing attrition would increase the
difficulty in job placement (Smallwood, 2004). Also, there are presently no national data on
graduate school attrition that can be attributed across all graduate schools; therefore, it is not
known if the best students stay and the others leave (Council of Graduate Schools, 2004;
Smallwood, 2004).
According to Lovitts (2001), students who drop out suffer lower self-esteem compared to
their self-esteem when they started the dissertation process. Litalien and Guay (2015) posited this
6

esteem issue is due to lower levels of autonomous regulation due to fewer programmatic
supports, which cause the students to have feelings of being less competent, causing them to
leave their doctoral program. Also, according to Robert Thach, dean of the Graduate School of
Arts and Sciences at Washington University, attrition “destroys people’s confidence in
themselves when they perceive themselves as failures, when the problem should be laid at other
doors” (Smallwood, 2004, para. 38). Those “other doors” are the university’s responsibility.
School environmental factors, not just the student alone, affect student success. Programs with an
overall dropout rate of 50% are not successful. Lastly, with the loss of so many students, schools
may lose diverse perspectives from a wide portion of the population.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The theoretical frameworks for this study were Bandura’s (1978) social cognitive theory
and triadic reciprocal determinism, which stipulates that the environment affects cognition and
emotions, which then affects behavior. This triangle is reciprocal in its effect, so each of these
ends of the triad affects the other (Bandura, 1978). Also, Bandura (2005) presented the idea that
learning can occur through social modeling, and direct experience.
According to Bandura’s (2005) social cognitive theory of reciprocal learning, people
learn from modeling a task when it is performed by others. It stands to reason, then, that a
dissertation chair’s mentorship of a student’s writing and research behaviors will elevate the
student’s learning. Modeling and mentorship as a form of learning is very important, and the
student then learns to take what was modeled (e.g., by the dissertation chair) and to employ the
new behavior in unique and innovative situations (Bandura, 2005). This modeling is especially
important in PhD programs where doctoral students are typically working on their own; this
interaction is very important to the student’s growth (Rigler et al., 2017). Modeling could also be
7

especially important for minority and first-generation students, those who are the first in the
family to go to college, who may benefit by seeing someone like themselves modeling success in
a doctoral program. In this study, the theory addresses how the doctoral chair affects the
student’s environment, which in turn can affect the student’s cognition, and ideas about
themselves as a doctoral student.
This study included qualitative interviews of eight faculty who are dissertation chairs at
R1 institutions. Interviews will allow the researcher to delve more deeply into the possible
causes of doctoral attrition. Interviews are an appropriate method of data collection because it
will allow the researcher to collect dissertation chair perceptions of their processes.
Definitions
Doctoral degrees: The term doctoral degree can mean a PhD or professional doctorates,
such as an EdD, doctorate of veterinary medicine (DVM), and or MD (Lynch et al., 2007).
Doctoral university:
Doctoral university includes institutions that awarded at least 20 research/scholarship
doctoral degrees during the update year and also institutions with below 20
research/scholarship doctoral degrees that awarded at least 30 professional practice
doctoral degrees in at least two programs. Excludes Special Focus Institutions and Tribal
Colleges. (American Council on Education, 2021, para. 2).
Reciprocal causation: There is a triangle of causation, where on one of each of the three
ends are a person, that person’s environment, and that person’s behaviors. Each of these ends of
the triangle have a reciprocal effect on the other (Bandura, 2005).
8

Reciprocal learning: Also called social learning, reciprocal learning is based on the idea
that learning takes place when it is modeled to others and that the student does not need to
practice the method that is presented to learn (Bandura, 2005).
Research 1: Research 1 institutions have very high research activity and “include only
institutions that awarded at least 20 research/scholarship doctoral degrees and had at least $5
million in total research expenditures” ( American Council on Education, 2021, para. 2).
Time to degree completion: In the United States, the median time to earn a doctorate
degree is 5.7 years (Zhou & Okahana, 2019).
Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter 1 introduces the study, detailing why the study is important, the background for
the problem and what factors related to the problem will be considered. This chapter also
includes the purpose of the study and the research questions that will be addressed, creating the
backdrop for the remainder of the study. Chapter 2 outlines the literature review on the research
topic. It helps frame the previous research on the topic and the theoretical and conceptual
frameworks that will be applied. Research methodology is found in Chapter 3, followed by
Chapters 4 and 5, which outline the research findings and the analysis and recommendations,
respectively.

9

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The conference of a PhD degree demonstrates the holder has made an original
contribution of knowledge to their field (Council of Graduate Schools, 2004); therefore, doctoral
education remains vitally important to the advancement of knowledge and progress in the United
States (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2021). This literature review
addresses what is presently known about PhD completion and the factors influencing it. It will
also address diversity, equity and inclusion issues in the PhD, and the conceptual framework for
this research, which is social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2001), and how this theory can be
applied to PhD completion and attrition.
PhD Completion
This section addresses completion rates overall and for various subgroups of the PhD as
well as factors that lead to degree completion. Included is the background on attrition and the
importance of the relationship between a PhD student and their dissertation chair. The section
also includes the median time to degree completion and how many PhD’s find employment in
academia once they have reached degree completion.
Background on PhD conferrals
Overall, in 2021, the last year data were compiled for the Survey of Earned Doctorates
from the NSF, there were 52,250 research doctoral degrees conferred (National Center for
Science and Engineering Statistics, 2022). Of the research degrees conferred to U.S. citizens or
permanent residents of the United States (31,674), more degrees were conferred for women
(16,441) than for men (15,231; National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2022).
Overall, men received considerably more research doctorates in the physical and earth sciences,
10

engineering and math fields, where women received a third to a quarter as many as men
(National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2022).
The median time to complete the research degree for all students varies depending upon
the field of study, with the physical and earth sciences taking the least amount of time at 6.3
years and education taking the most time at nearly 12 years (National Center for Science and
Engineering Statistics, 2022).
Of all PhD degree conferrals from the academic year 2020–2021, only 36% of PhD
graduates found employment in academia, which is a decrease of 12% from the year 2001
(National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2022). This decrease could be related to
the decline of tenure track faculty positions in the United States (Finder, 2007). Regarding
employment, Bair (1999) discovered those students who were teaching assistants (TAs), research
assistants (RAs), and graduate assistants (GAs) had higher rates of completion.
Background on Attrition
The rates of doctoral attrition in the United States, especially for the PhD degree, have
been studied with little positive change in outcomes over an approximate 50-year span, from
around 1960 through 2010 (Lovitts, 2001; Sowel, et al., 2010). Lovitts (2001) asserted the
continued high level of attrition is because the problem of attrition at the PhD level is “invisible”
(p. 1). Lovitts stated because there is no national standard of data collection for exiting PhD
students, the schools do not know when and, many times, why a student leaves. This invisible
attrition goes unnoticed by the schools and the faculty.
Lovitts (2001) discovered several faculty who worked in graduate education were
“shocked and amazed” (p. 1) at the level of attrition in their departments and had no idea why it
was happening. Golde (1996) stated there is no universal agreement among scholars about
11

whether the high level of doctoral attrition is a negative outcome, many thinking it is good that
only the “best” make it through the process and go on to become the next educators in their field.
Golde (1996) stated many see doctoral attrition as the result of a “healthy screening process” (p,
2), where only the strongest prevail; however, Bowen and Rudenstine’s (1992) research
established that there was no universal agreement among universities regarding the definition of
attrition and if high levels of attrition were actually bad. They stated early attrition “is both
inevitable and desirable" (Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992, p. 252). In fact, Golde’s (1996) research
identified late attrition, after a student has made it to candidacy, is not good attrition because it is
a waste of resources for the student and the university. Optimal attrition is “in the middle, after a
student has received a master’s degree” but before candidacy (Golde, 1996, p. 372).
There has not been a great deal of research on the factors leading to attrition; however,
one study by the Council of Graduate Schools (Sowel et al., 2010), a U.S. nonprofit dedicated to
advancing graduate education and research, found data that supports Lovitt’s assertion that the
“onus of responsibility for student departure lies with the university” (p. 22). The data from their
7-year study of PhD education (Sowel et al., 2010) outlines what they deem to be the causes of
attrition. This study details the six factors that affect attrition:
• Selection and admissions
• Mentoring and advising
• Financial support
• Research mode of the field
• Curricular and administrative processes and procedures
• Program environment. (Sowel et al., 2010)
12

Bowen and Rudenstine’s (1992) research highlighted the need for universities to “use a
regularized method of evaluating the progress of students to alleviate late attrition” (p. 282).
They listed four items upon which a university can concentrate their efforts to alleviate attrition:
• Assist students with momentum while they are working on their dissertation
• Assist students with financing their programs
• Provide guidelines to the students for the formation of the thesis
• Facilitate a greater sense of collegiality, dissertation workshops, or faculty student
meetings
Prior to 2000, much of the previous research looked at attrition through the lens of a
doctoral student’s failure to achieve and did not address the university’s responsibility regarding
attrition. Tinto (1994) explained previous researchers placed the entire blame of attrition directly
on the student’s inability to complete the degree requirements. That attrition reflects “some
shortcoming and/or weakness in the individual” (Tinto, 1994, p. 89). Tinto explained placing all
of the blame on the students is not accurate because a student’s behavior is dependent on the
environment in which they find themselves and therefore a function of the university.
Factors Influencing PhD Completion
Several factors have been identified as influential in a PhD student’s journey
through graduate school, including (a) student experience, (b) mentoring and advising, and (c)
the quality of the student/dissertation chair relationship. This section addresses how these factors
enhance or detract from PhD completion.
Student Experience
Researchers have identified the student experience as particularly influential to PhD
completion. For example, Bowen and Rudenstine (1992) found the faculty-to-student ratio,
13

especially regarding the strength of the student advising and whether a student’s performance is
being closely monitored, is a predictor of success. Lovitts (2001) also contended students who
can select their own advisors have a stronger relationship with the advisors, leading to higher
completion rates. Also, Golde (1996) asserted that a student’s environment is important, in that
they need a supportive atmosphere for them to be successful.
Researchers have also found students need socialization to enhance their school
environment. Nettles and Millet (2006) and Golde (1996) found students need socialization with
peers and others in the department in order to be successful. They also noted a student needs to
have relationships with both program faculty and their advisor and that these relationships equate
to program success. Bair (1999) discovered students who had strong peer connections had higher
rates of completion and that attrition varied depending upon the degree, where laboratory
sciences had lower attrition and the humanities and social sciences had higher attrition rates.
Bair’s study (1999) revealed students who were part of a smaller cohort of students had faster
times to degree and higher completion rates.
Mentoring and Advising
The Merriam-Webster (n.d.) dictionary defined a mentor as a “trusted counselor or
guide” (para. 1) and as a tutor” or “coach.” Shah (2017) built on that definition to include “a
relationship in which one person (the mentor) facilitates the development of another (mentee) by
sharing his or her knowledge, experiences, network, etc., and customizes it to the needs of the
mentee” (p.1). Shah (2017) stated a “mentoring relationship is based on mutual respect” (p. 1)
and grows over time “as trust grows” (p. 1) between the mentor and the mentee. Shah stated a
mentoring relationship involves
14

• “The mentor understanding what the mentee’s goals involve and what they want to
learn, including how those goals will be monitored to ensure success.
• Trust by both parties
• Open dialogue between the parties
• Mentors need to possess genuine care for their mentees and the mentee’s success.”
(Shah, 2017, p. 2).
Mentoring PhD students, according to Mullen (2007), requires the mentor to affect the
student on both a personal and professional level that will impact the student’s career and social
development. It requires the mentor to embrace and shape the personal development of the
mentee, including their career development (Mullen, 2007). This idea of mentoring includes
“advising, assisting, coaching, collaborating, compensating, counseling, guiding, leading,
learning, socializing, supporting, teaching, and tutoring” (Mullen, 2007, p. 302). Mentoring is
not one thing; it is a combination of all of the aforementioned (Mullan, 2007). The relationship
between a mentor and mentee is a personal and professional one, where the mentor is the
experienced professional and the mentee, a learner (Mullen, 2007). Strong mentoring practices,
therefore, cover a broad array of tasks and duties. Mullen stated a mentor must make time for
their mentee, if their mentee is to be successful. Lastly, Cockrell and Shelley (2011) asserted it is
important for dissertation chairs to give or find career advice for their students.
With these practices in mind, then, the attributes a good mentor could bring to the
mentoring relationship can enhance student success. Wallace and Gravells (2008) stated positive
mentoring attributes include: “a thirst for knowledge and a commitment to continuous learning
and development [for themselves and their mentee]” (p. 23). Wallace and Gravells (2008) said
the essential skills a mentor must practice while mentoring include “building rapport; listening;
15

questioning; reflecting back; [and] summarizing” (p. 33). It is imperative a mentor is not
judgmental and creates a caring environment where the student feels that the mentor has the
mentee’s “best interest at heart” (Wallace & Gravells, 2008, p. 34). Included in this process is the
building of trust between the mentor and the mentee. The ways to build trust, according to
Wallace and Gravells (2008), are
• Maintaining a transparent process
• Maintaining confidentiality
• Being honest about ourselves
• Being patient
• Doing what you say
• Not judging
Some other best practices in doctoral mentoring include the comentoring model (Mullen,
2007), which in practice involves “mentors and students [working] together [to] construct a
shared professional perspective that emphasizes the importance of partnership in otherwise
isolating circumstances” (Diamond & Mullen, 1999, p. 316). Comentoring involves the mentor
and student working collaboratively to enhance mutuality and interdependence (Mullen, 2007).
This type of mentorship model is identified as a feminist model and may help “women,
minorities and other disadvantaged groups” (Mullen, 2007, p. 304) feel as if they have an equal
input into the relationship.
Knox et al. (2006) described the duties of the advisor as a faculty member who has a
primary responsibility of guiding the student through their doctoral program. According to the
National Academy of Engineering and Sciences (2000), advising is a component within
mentoring, and they stated one can advise without being a mentor. Bird (2001) stated mentorship
16

contains personal and professional aspects, while Holley & Caldwell (2012) added that the
selection of the right mentor for the student is important for program completion.
Bird (2001) stated each position—mentor and advisor—contribute to the overall
preparation of a doctoral student’s understanding of what is expected of a researcher, and even
overlap in some instances; however, each position is distinct in their roles. An advisor is
typically assigned in an official capacity by the university and is responsible to ensure the
student completes all of the academic program requirements (Bird, 2001). A mentor ensures the
student understands the professional standards of the area within which the student is entering,
creates opportunities for the student to network, obtain research funding and also helps develop
the student into a professional (Bird, 2001).
According to Lunsford and Baker (2016), a mentor is a “more senior individual who
provides career and psychosocial support to a junior member” (p. 3), in this case a PhD student.
Mentors can also be peers, or people who are not within the university context (Lunsford &
Baker, 2016). The purpose of a mentor is to provide emotional support for the student’s personal
and professional growth (Lunsford & Baker, 2016).
The National Academy of Engineering and Sciences (2000) asserted a mentoring
relationship develops over time between the mentor and student with assistance of more than just
advising. They concluded that during the duration of the relationship, the needs of the student
change, and mentors lend assistance as these needs evolve, including reassurance and emotional
support. The National Academy of Engineering and Sciences (2000) expressed an “effective
mentoring relationship is characterized by mutual respect, trust, understanding, and empathy” (p.
2).
17

Lindén et al. (2013) supported this assertion and stated PhD students need support
beyond their dissertation research in the form of “psychosocial needs related to personal and
professional development” (p. 640). They also discussed how traditional mentoring relationships
were more hierarchical and less relational, and that modern mentoring practices should resemble
more of a “reciprocal learning relationship” (Lindén et al., 2013, p. 641). This idea of reciprocal
learning was highlighted in Bandura’s (1977) work on social cognitive theory.
Quality of Student/Dissertation Chair Relationship
Several researchers identified the relationship between PhD students and their
dissertation chairs/advisors as important to dissertation completion (Golde, 1996; Rigler et al.,
2017; Sowel et al., 2010). Most research on the advisor/advisee relationship is addressed from
the perspective of the PhD students, therefore research from the advisor’s perspective is sparce.
However, Barnes (2005) conducted qualitative research with 25 doctoral advisors and found
advisors can affect the students/advisor relationship in four ways:
• Developing partnerships with students
• Caring about students
• Viewing advising as something they want to do, not something they have to do
• Reflecting on their advising and its effects to discern how they can make their
practice better or more effective
Gilmore et al. (2016) conducted research focused on faculty perceptions of support
needed for graduate students. They interviewed 38 graduate faculty advisors and found that
students need to set goals and that there must be strong communication between the advisor and
the student. Golde also established that if a student has a poor relationship with their dissertation
advisor, which is often due to poor communication surrounding expectations, that could lead to
18

student attrition (Golde, 1996). Lastly, according to doctoral students in Cockrell and Shelley’s
(2011) research on academic support systems and persistence, the support the students most
wanted in an advisor was regular feedback on writing, emotional support when needed, the
advisor caring about them as people, and helping them with career advice.
According to research conducted by the Council of Graduate Schools, PhD students
require strong relationships with their advisor to be successful (Sowell, et al., 2010); however,
Knox et al. (2006) found relationships with advisors and advisees were most problematic when
there was a breakdown in communication, an avoidance of addressing conflict, and a lack of
mutual respect. This breakdown can be detrimental to dissertation completion and student
success—though all students are different, and Holley and Caldwell (2012) found that because of
the differences between students, the needs of the student differ greatly; therefore, it is
paramount that there is careful selection of advisors for doctoral students for the best outcomes.
The previous research on the student/advisor relationship has focused on either the
student’s needs or actions, or on that of the advisor; however, Cassuto and Weisbuch (2021)
indicated student advising should not be the sole responsibility of just the one advisor. They
indicated the one-on-one advising relationship between the student and their advisor could
become problematic and that graduate advising should be the responsibility of the university, and
it should not be the sole responsibility of a professor who may not be trained in advising.
Likewise, they stated doctoral advising should have accountability and oversight to ensure
students finish their degrees and that “good advisors help students finish faster” (Cassuto &
Weisbuch, 2021, p. 232). Lastly, they highlighted that advisors need to discuss career options
outside of the academy with PhD students, and if specialists from those fields need to be brought
19

into advising meetings, then that should be planned, so the student obtains advising to meet their
needs.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Issues in the PhD
One cannot discuss the effects on PhD completion without discussing how diversity,
equity, and inclusion issues are addressed within a doctoral program. According to Bandura’s
(1978) triadic reciprocal determinism a student’s actions may be affected by what is happening
in their environment and these events affect the student’s ideas about themselves. This
environmental effect can either be positive or negative.
Demographics
In 2021, there were 52,250 research doctorates awarded in the United States (National
Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2022). Of those recipients who were U.S. citizens
or permanent residents, 31% were people of color. The number of non-White research PhD
recipients, according to the National Center for Science and Engineering (2022), is on the rise.
Wilson (1988) stated most academic training, particularly for students of color, happen in White-
majority universities, presenting challenges for the students of color that White students do not
face.
Minority students in predominantly White institutions face professors and mentors who
are mostly White. According to the American Council on Education (n.d.), “Among the over
700,000 full-time faculty employed by higher education institutions in the fall of 2016, 73.2%
were White, 21.1% were faculty of color, 3.1% were international, and 2.6% were of unknown
racial and ethnic backgrounds” (para. 1).
20

Minority Student’s Environment
Due to the demographics of the minority student’s learning environment, these students
may struggle in ways that majority students do not. Students of color may have mentors who are
White and who may not understand the complexities of the student’s educational experience
(Davidson & Foster-Johnson, 2001). Davidson and Foster-Johnson (2001) stated the daily
practices of a White mentor may not be effective or suitable for the mentee who is not part of the
dominant, White culture. The workplace practices of the dominant culture may not fit well with
the culture and norms of the mentee and leave that person feeling as if they do not fit into the
norms of their predominantly White, graduate program (Davidson & Foster-Johnson, 2001).
Lastly, due to the small numbers of minority faculty members at U.S. universities, many
minority students do not have minority mentors to help them navigate the PhD/graduate school
experience as a minority person (Davidson & Foster-Johnson, 2001).
Brunsma et al. (2017) stated students of color do not have the same programs or even the
same experiences in their departments as White students do. They added there is not enough
research about the effects of race on attrition, nor how students of color and other marginalized
students experience graduate school. Holley and Caldwell (2012) stated students who are in the
minority struggle because of the shortage of minority faculty who can serve as advisors.
According to the American Association of University Women, 44% of tenure-track faculty are
women (American Association of University Women, n.d.). Furthermore, according to the
American Psychological Association, only 2% of Black women and 2% of Black men make up
the full professor rank in the United States (2019). Black women make up only 5% of assistant
professor roles and Black men makeup 3%. Therefore, students of color may have an especially
21

difficult time finding a mentor who shares in their cultural norms and experiences (American
Association of University Women, n.d.).
Brunsma et al. (2017) asserted Lovitts’s (2001) research on the 50% attrition rate in
graduate education is a “Whitewashed” version of the graduate school experience because it does
not address research around race as a factor for attrition. Lastly, because there is no national
database on the PhD students who leave their programs, little is known about the students who
leave (Council of Graduate Schools, 2004; Smallwood, 2004) and whether diverse students leave
at a higher rate than their White counterparts. All these environmental factors may have an effect
on the minority student, which in turn may affect how the student feels about themselves as a
student. This reciprocal effect on environment, actions and agency are highlighted in Bandura’s
work social cognitive theory (1978).
Conceptual Framework
Bandura’s (1978) social cognitive theory and the idea of reciprocal determinism include
three factors that determine what a person does or does not accomplish: (a) the person’s
perceptions and actions, (b) the person’s environment, and (c) the behaviors of the person.
Bandura stated that each factor has a reciprocal effect on the other and that these factors do not
work independently from one another (see Figure 1).
Bandura (2001) stated, “To be an agent is to intentionally make things happen by one's
actions” (p. 2). When discussing reciprocal learning, Bandura (1977) asserted people can learn
by watching and modeling the behavior of others, even without practicing the task. This idea
strengthens the concept that dissertation chairs have a strong influence on the environment of the
student and, possibly, the student’s agency.

22

Figure 1
Bandura’s Triadic Reciprocal Determinism

(P) Person’s perceptions and actions

Person’s External Environment (E) (B) Person’s Behaviors and Actions
Note. Adapted from “The Self-System in Reciprocal Determinism” by A. Bandura, 1978, The
American Psychologist, 33(4), 344–358. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.33.4.344

Bandura (2001) affirmed one’s environment, although effected by outside influences, can
be influenced by one’s own thoughts, thereby creating an influence on one’s own environment.
Therefore, students, according to Bandura, can influence their own environment by setting goals
and envisioning their success in their future. This can all happen without having to live through
the events in the future and suffer the loss before learning to change their actions.
Applied to this study, Bandura’s (1978) triadic reciprocal determinism addresses how a
PhD student’s interactions in their environment, which includes their beliefs about themselves,
and their ideas of self-efficacy relating to their PhD completion, can affect their actions. This
theory brings to light the importance of the dissertation chair’s actions, as they relate to PhD
students’ ideas of personal agency. The dissertation chair, as they interact with the student,
places them in the students’ environment. This reinforces Barnes’s (2005) idea that dissertation
chairs need to demonstrate care for the well-being of students for the students to be successful. It
also highlights what Sowel et al. (2010) stated about students benefitting from strong
relationships with their advisors.
23

An advisor meeting with a PhD student and communicating with them may influence the
student’s learning and their ideas of self-efficacy, which could affect the student’s actions and
their environment, in a constant feedback loop. The dissertation chair setting goals for the
student’s dissertation progress, as suggested by Gilmore et al. (2016), can have a reciprocal
effect on the student and their behavior, which may affect their external environment, including
their future interactions with their dissertation chair. This triad of reciprocal effects is constant
and continues with every interaction or change in thought (Bandura, 1978).
A student not having a strong relationship with the dissertation chair, or a breakdown in
communication, may affect a student’s thoughts around their self-efficacy and belief in their
abilities to complete their PhD, which may affect the student’s behavior (Bandura, 1978). A
student who may not feel supported by their dissertation chair, or who feels they are not being
mentored in appropriate research skills may affect the triad of responses (Bandura, 1978). In the
worst cases, these interactions may negatively affect the student’s behavior and actions. In the
best case, this relationship may strengthen the student’s feelings of self-efficacy and therefore
completion rates.
Summary
Since the topic of doctoral attrition was first discussed by Berelson (1960), PhD attrition
has averaged approximately 50% in the United States (Lovitts, 2001; Sowel et al., 2010). Many
researchers have looked at the possible causes, but because there is no national database or
standard for PhD attrition tracking (Council of Graduate Schools, 2004; Smallwood, 2004), it is
difficult to pinpoint the exact causes.
Presently, research has outlined several actions that can be taken by the dissertation chair
to affect a more positive outcome to PhD completion:
24

• Set goals for dissertation completion and focus on strong communication between
the student and chair (Gilmore et al., 2016).
• Select the right mentor for the student (Holley & Caldwell, 2012).
• Give students regular feedback on their writing, care about them as people and
give them emotional support when needed. Also, dissertation chairs should give
or find career advice for their students (Cockrell & Shelley, 2011).
• Dissertation chairs should explicitly state to students what is expected of them and
describe the process of conducting research and writing a dissertation (Bégin &
Géarard, 2013).
• Develop a partnership with students and reflect on their own mentoring, after the
fact, to determine if they could have done a better job as a mentor (Barnes, 2005).
• Minority students benefit from being mentored by faculty who are from similar
cultures as the student (Davidson & Foster-Johnson, 2001).

25

Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to capture the experiences of dissertation chairs from R1
universities (American Council on Education, 2021) who advise and mentor PhD students to
complete their dissertations. The researcher evaluated the effect PhD mentors’ interactions and
tactics, within the student’s environment, have on the completion of the PhD dissertation.
This chapter addresses the specific research methodology used to interview and annotate
the responses of eight dissertation chairs to determine patterns for theory development. Included
in this chapter are the research questions, an overview of the research design, the research
setting, data sources, participants and methods used to obtain the data. Also included in this
chapter is information on the researcher and her positionality and relationship to the participants.
Lastly, this chapter discusses the validity and reliability of the study and the ethics under which
the study was developed.
Research Questions
The research questions posed in this research are
1. What are the perceptions of the faculty regarding the strategies, processes, and
techniques they employ to facilitate doctoral dissertation completion?
2. In what ways and when does the faculty chair intervene if a doctoral student is
struggling to complete the PhD?
3. What is the training and support faculty chairs receive at their institution to prepare
them for their dissertation chair/mentoring role?
Overview of Design
This study had a qualitative research design. Merriam and Tisdell stated (2016)
researchers use qualitative research methods to “understand how people interpret their
26

experiences” (p. 6) and employ “words as data” (p. 6). This research study used semistructured
interviews to capture the PhD dissertation chairs’ experiences related to actions they take to
mentor students to dissertation completion.
This semistructured interview design allowed for rigor, in that the interviewees are all
asked the same questions; however, it allows for question order flexibility, as the interview takes
place (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This research method of interviews allows for participants’
meanings to develop and ensures the interviewee’s meaning is developed through questioning
and not predetermined meaning compiled by the researcher (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). This
method of data collection was chosen specifically because it allows for elaboration from the
dissertation chairs to describe how and why they mentor their students the way they do.
Research Setting
As the researcher, I interviewed eight dissertation chairs from R1 universities (Carnegie,
2021). The recruited individuals were dissertation chairs who work in the social sciences and
who hold tenured status and work advising PhD students as a dissertation chair as a regular
responsibility of their role and are at least an associate professor in rank.
I chose to interview dissertation chairs from R1 universities because those universities
earn their classification through the production and graduation of PhDs (Carnegie, 2021).
Therefore, those dissertation chairs might have more incentive to focus on awarding PhDs.
The Researcher
I adopted a social constructivist worldview (Creswell & Creswell, 2017), which blended
well with and intersects Bandura’s (1978) social cognitive theory, where meaning and actions are
developed and effected by others’ actions and one’s environment. In this research, the
dissertation chairs relayed to me the chair’s effect on their students’ environment.
27

At the time of this writing, I am a doctoral candidate with a dissertation chair. Therefore,
I had to remain impartial in the responses of the interviewees and could not impart my own
thoughts or experiences into the responses. I am also married to a graduate school dean at a R1
university. I did not interview participants at the university where my spouse is employed, nor
the university where I am a doctoral student. I remained vigilant to preclude any biases and
assumptions I may have had about the dissertation process or dissertation chairs from my
research. I used rich data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) as a means of protecting against any bias I
may have held.
I identify as a first-generation college student, who is a White woman from a
predominately White northeastern state in the United States. I am also a lesbian and am part of
the LGBTQ community. Although this research was not specifically focused on the effects of
power and diverse student experiences, it is the lens through which I have lived my life.
Data Sources
The data sources for this research are semistructured, 60-minute interviews of eight, R1
university professors who presently served or had served as dissertation chairs. The researcher
obtained data on the perceptions of the faculty about the strategies, processes and techniques
they employed to facilitate doctoral dissertation completion.
Participants
The participants were professors who served or were serving as PhD dissertation chairs at
a R1 university. The professors were recruited electronically via the researcher’s personal
network and an advertisement on LinkedIn. Once the subjects were identified via professional
networking, they were contacted via email and/or phone call, as requested, per the interview
28

subject. The participants were people with whom the researcher did not have a personal
relationship.
Instrumentation
The instrumentation used in this research is the semistructured interview (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). The interviews were conducted via video conferencing. I asked specific questions
to gather the data I sought for the research and still allowed for a conversational flow to build
rapport with the interviewees. The question sequence depended on the interview, but all
questions were addressed. The questions related to the perceptions of the dissertation chairs and
their interactions with their PhD students (see Appendix A). The researcher looked for specific
strategies, processes, and techniques employed by the chair to help the PhD student achieve their
dissertation completion. This data helped me compile a list of experiences of dissertation chairs
from RI universities (American Council on Education, 2021).
The semistructured interviews developed a picture of how a dissertation chair effectively
mentors PhD students through their dissertation. The form of the questions lay out a conceptual
framework for PhD mentoring and follows Bandura’s social cognitive theory (1978), which
states that a person is affected by the actions of their environment and in turn this affects both
their own thoughts and actions.
The semistructured interview protocol began with whether the chair received training on
how to mentor students before they were paired with a student and how the students were paired
with the chair. They were then asked about how often the two meet, communication practices
before and during the dissertation process, support by the chair, and if and when the chair
intervened with struggling students. The interview ended with an open-ended question about any
29

pertinent information that may have been overlooked by the researcher, as well as dissertation
chair training the participants thought could enhance future dissertation chair mentoring practice.
Data Collection Procedures
Participants were invited to take part in the research via an advertisement sent out on
LinkedIn (see Appendix B). I used my personal network to obtain the first participant. Once one
person was obtained for an interview, that person referred other participants through their
professional network, and so on until I had obtained the needed participants. This snowball
sampling method is used when the target audience is not easily accessible (Naderifar et al.,
2017). The people referred then contacted me via email if they were interested in participating. I
kept the referrals and their identities, as well as the participation of each individual confidential.
Once I received an email from a referral asking for participation, I researched that
referred person via their university’s website to ensure they met the participation requirements of
the study. The referred participants were then contacted and were sent an Information Sheet for
Exempt Research. Once this was completed and the participant agreed to participate in the
research, a meeting was scheduled for the interview.
Sixty-minute, semistructured interviews were conducted via a video conferencing tool at
the convenience of the interviewee. The interviews were recorded within the video conferencing
tool, with the appropriate approvals from interviewees prior to the beginning of the interview.
Data Analysis
The semistructured interview video recordings were viewed and compared to the video
transcripts as a reference to ensure data integrity. The video recordings were essential to
correctly code the data for accuracy, taking the exact words used during the conversation. Any
irregularities, or errors in missed speech were corrected on the transcripts. I then printed out the
30

transcripts for each interview and notes were taken in the margins of the hard-copy transcripts.
The transcript data were then analyzed from the interview recordings by me. I then developed
another hard-copy transcript with the responses to each question for ease of participant response
comparison.
Coding data is a means of categorizing statements and words obtained in the interview to
put the responses in categories (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Once I coded each interview, the
codes were compared with the other interviews to analyze and determine themes of participant’s
responses.
Validity and Reliability
I ensured validity in data collection and analysis by using rich data (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). The use of rich data involves using data, such as quotes and excerpts from interviews, to
convey the research findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Internal research validity compares
“how research findings match reality” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 242).
To ensure reliability of the research, or whether the research “can be replicated”
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 250), I adhered strictly to protocols for all interviews and all
responses were documented to ensure the consistency of data collection. The recording of the
interviews helped with reviewing for consistency of the interview protocols. Merriam and Tisdell
(2016) stated the idea behind reliability of the data from qualitative research is if the data “results
are consistent with the data collected” (p. 251).
Ethics
The ethical considerations of this research are that prior to the any research activities, I
submitted a research proposal to the University of Southern California Institutional Review
31

Board (IRB) for approval. No research activities were allowed to commence until such time as
approval was obtain from the IRB.
Once approval was obtained and participants were contacted, each participant was given
a written statement, prior to the start of the interviews, that the research is voluntary and that
their identity would remain confidential (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). The statement informed
the participants that the interview and their responses would be recorded for accuracy and any
and all responses would remain strictly confidential and would only be used for the extent of this
research, with all identifying information removed to maintain their confidentiality (Creswell &
Creswell, 2017; Patton, 2015).
All interview recordings were transcribed utilizing a voice activated transcription in
Microsoft Word on my password protected, personal computer, so as not to upload the
transcripts to an external source on the internet. Interview transcripts were then hand-coded by
me. Interview participants were given a pseudonym and all identifying information was not, and
will not be saved with the transcripts.
All interview recordings are held on my personal, password-protected computer. The
interview recordings will be accessed by me only and will be securely stored for the requisite
five years, then destroyed so as not to be replicated or used by others, per the American
Psychological Association (2019).

32

Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this study was to capture the experiences of R1 dissertation chairs who
advise and mentor PhD students to complete their dissertations. The focus of the study was the
effect the dissertations chairs’ actions have on students’ environments, which could affect the
students’ actions, perceptions, and behaviors. The questions posed illuminate common strategies
and intervention techniques R1 dissertation chairs found to be effective for student dissertation
completion. Also included are the dissertation chairs’ responses to questions surrounding their
own training and preparation for their roles as dissertation chairs.
The theoretical framework used for this study was Bandura’s (1978) social cognitive
theory and the idea of triadic reciprocal determinism. Social cognitive theory states people are
affected by their environments, which affects their behaviors and actions (Bandura, 1978). This
effect works in a triangular fashion, with each end of the triangle (i.e., people, environment,
actions) affected by the others (Bandura, 1978). This framework supports how the actions of a
dissertation chair may affect the performance and perseverance of PhD students.
Chapter 4 analyzes findings from those interviews to shed light on the following research
questions:
1. What are the perceptions of the faculty regarding the strategies, processes, and
techniques they employ to facilitate doctoral dissertation completion?
2. In what ways and when does the faculty chair intervene if a doctoral student is
struggling to complete the PhD?
3. What is the training and support faculty chairs receive at their institutions to prepare
them for their dissertation chair/mentoring roles?
33

Interview Participants
This study used a qualitative format where participants were involved in 60-minute,
semistructured interviews to collect responses to questions about interactions with their PhD
students. The participants were eight university professors who reside in the United States, are in
the social sciences, hold a rank of at least a tenured associate professor at a R1 university, and
advise PhD students as a regular responsibility of their role (see Table 1). The researcher used
gender-neutral pronouns and pseudonyms to protect the identities and confidentiality of the
participants.

Table 1
Pseudonym and Description of Dissertation Chair Participants
Pseudonym Rank Public/Private
R1 University
U. S. Location Years of
Experience
Angél Associate
Professor
R1 Public East 20+
Aspen Full Professor R1 Private South 20+
Rain Full Professor R1 Private South 30+
Phoenix Associate
Professor
R1 Public East 15+
Finley Full Professor R1 Public East 22+
Grayson Full Professor R1 Public South 20+
Jackie Full Professor R1 Public South 35+
Paris Associate
Professor
R1 Public West 15+

All eight research participants are experienced graduate faculty with no less than 15
years’ experience. All have extensive experience mentoring and advising PhD students. Three
participants work in universities in eastern U.S. states, four are from southern U.S. states, and
one works at a western U.S. university.
34

Five of the eight participants are full professors in rank, while three others are associate
professors. Six of the eight participants work at public, R1 universities, while two work at private
R1 universities. All interviews were conducted with an online, video platform.
Findings
The findings from this research highlight that dissertation chairs felt their main role was
to support their students through the dissertation process. They also asserted communication
between the dissertation chair and the student is an important aspect of the dissertation process
for the student to be successful. All chairs agreed writing is a very important aspect of student
success with the PhD process, but not all agreed it is their responsibility to assist students with it.
All chairs also agreed each student is different, and they all offered differentiated support for
students. Another important finding is that dissertation chairs felt missing deadlines or canceling
meetings with the chair were signs the student is struggling and the chair needs to intervene.
Lastly, seven of the eight participants stated they received no training prior to assuming their role
as dissertation chair. See Table 2 for the complete summary of findings.
Findings for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 was focused on the primary role of the dissertation chair and how
the chairs support the dissertation process for their students. The responses to this research
question highlight the dissertation chairs’ perceptions of their primary responsibility as a
dissertation chair, how they communicate to and with their students, and mentoring techniques
they employ to assist their students to dissertation completion. There are five research findings
related to this research question.

35

Table 2
Summary of Findings
Research Question Findings
1. What are the perceptions of the
faculty regarding the strategies,
processes and techniques they
employ to facilitate doctoral
dissertation completion?

Finding 1: All dissertation chairs agreed their primary
role was to support the dissertation process.
Finding 2: Four Dissertation Chairs Stated Mentoring
Was a Primary Responsibility of the Dissertation
Chair.
Finding 3: Communication between a dissertation
chair and students varies between chairs, as does
dissertation project goal-setting.
Finding 4: Although writing is an important aspect of
the dissertation process, not all dissertation chairs
believe it is their responsibility to assist students
with it.
Finding 5: All chairs agree that each student requires
differentiated support, including emotional support.
2. In what ways and when does the
faculty chair intervene if a doctoral
student is struggling to complete the
PhD?
Finding 1: Missed deadlines and cancelled meetings
are a sign the PhD student is struggling and the
dissertation chair should intervene.
Finding 2: PhD students face varied challenges,
including writing, transitioning from structured
coursework to less structured independent research,
apprehension with data analysis, and feelings of
isolation.
3. What is the training and support
faculty chairs receive at their
institution to prepare them for their
dissertation chair/mentoring role?
Finding 1: Universities do not offer adequate training
and support to assist dissertation chairs with
mentoring duties.

Finding 1: All Dissertation Chairs Agreed Their Primary Role Was to Support the
Dissertation Process
All interview participants agreed one of the primary responsibilities of the dissertation
chair is to support students, with seven of the eight also agreeing one of their primary
responsibilities is to assist their students with the PhD dissertation project to facilitate
completion. Phoenix shared that the primary responsibility of the dissertation chair is to assist
36

students in determining their research design and to help them stay on track. For example, when
asked about the primary responsibility of the dissertation chair, Phoenix explained,
to help a doctoral student formulate and refine their ideas for [the] dissertation project
and to ensure their progress throughout that dissertation phase, and to ensure that when
the time comes for their dissertation defense that there are no big surprises or
conundrums.
Jackie similarly explained that the role of the chair is to offer feedback and advise a student in
producing a doctoral-level research project and noted the primary responsibility of the chair “is
to provide feedback in a timely way and to guide the student in producing a PhD-level quality
[dissertation] product.” Angél discussed that the chair is the primary advisor supporting the
student as they transition out of coursework and develop their dissertation project as a more
independent researcher:
What first comes to mind is advocacy for the doctoral student, really being the point
person regarding all aspects of advising from the transition out of coursework often
through qualifying exam of some sort, onto a proposal, and then on to a dissertation.
Finley likewise explained the primary role as being support in the dissertation process, but also
said the advisor has responsibility to motivate: “to motivate, guide and support the student in
their [dissertation] process.” Although there were differing answers to what the chair believed
their “primary” responsibility was, each response supported the idea that the chair is there to help
the student to be a researcher and to produce a high-quality research project in the form of a
dissertation.
Participants also highlighted a few, very specific types of support they offered to assist
specifically with dissertation completion, including mentoring, communication, goal setting,
37

writing support, research support, and support differentiated for each specific student’s needs.
Four participants stated mentoring the PhD student was the most important responsibility of the
dissertation chair.
Finding 2: Four Dissertation Chairs Stated Mentoring Was a Primary Responsibility of the
Dissertation Chair.
While most of the dissertation chairs’ responses focused on assisting students with
dissertation completion, half of the dissertation chairs stated mentoring was a primary
responsibility, and two stated advocacy was a primary responsibility of their role as dissertation
chair. Even though four of the eight dissertation chairs did not mention mentoring as a primary
aspect of the dissertation chair role, all but one participant emphasized the importance of
mentoring when asked specifically about it.
How that mentoring was accomplished varied by dissertation chair. Angél used a strategy
to help both them and students come to a consensus on what the student needs to be successful:
I use kind of this strategy. … I wouldn’t say even explicitly. It’s just more implicitly. It’s
just a think-aloud strategy: “This is what I’m thinking about how to help you be
successful. Why don’t you sort of respond to that? Make sure you're in agreement.” I
think surprises are rarely in anybody's advantage.
Rain also used a similar approach and talks through the process with their student: “A lot of time.
I mean, I’m not there to tell them what to do. It’s more that I’m asking them questions to move
them to a direction.”
Of the four dissertation chairs who stated mentoring their students was a primary
responsibility, three stated their students need a great deal of mentoring from their chair. Finley
stated there is a mix of readiness and confidence with students when they first arrive at the
38

dissertation phase. Some students come in thinking they already understand how to complete a
dissertation, and others have little confidence in themselves and it is up to the mentor to help
each of them in whatever way they need mentoring. Finley commented, “[Students] need a ton of
mentoring. Some come in thinking that they already have all the skills and know everything, and
they don’t.”
Unlike Finley, Aspen believed the students with whom they worked are very well
prepared when they arrive at the dissertation stage and need little mentoring. Aspen stated the
students “are adults” and “they’re pretty good about finding this stuff [job opportunities]
themselves.” Aspen said, “I love when they tell me about things that have worked for them that
they found out about themselves. They weren’t hand carried to it by somebody else.” Aspen was
typically a stand-out from the other participants and believed their role is to guide the student,
but the student is “an adult” and should be able to be more independent as a PhD student.
Four of the participants in this study used peer mentoring groups to help mentor students,
with advising support by the dissertation chair, as needed. Of those, three chairs (Grayson,
Jackie, and Paris) stated they leave most of that mentoring help to student groups. These chairs
use and rely on peer mentoring to assist PhD students through the dissertation process, with
Jackie stating this “frees up the other major professors not to do some of the stuff that we know
is covered [in the group, peer sessions].” The group peer sessions cover many topics, such as
writing and editing assistance, emotional support, accountability, and interview and defense
preparation and practice. Paris stated, “It’s not just me providing support to the group. It’s them
supporting each other.”
Grayson discussed how many of their students believe they need one-on-one time with
their mentor until they spend time in their peer group. It is then that the student realizes their
39

peers have most of the answers the student needs. Grayson stated, “Most of the time they [the
student] don’t need to meet me individually because the group knows how to answer the
questions because they’re all in those stages.” When asked by the researcher if peer mentoring
was a large part of their mentoring of students Grayson answered, “Yes.”
Dissertation chairs’ levels of peer group reliance varied by professor. Every chair who
stated they use a peer group stated they are there for one-on-one mentoring if a student requests
it, with all requiring some time one on one with the primary dissertation chair. Grayson said, “I
probably meet with my students maybe two times individually before their prospectus defense,
two times for their dissertation defense outside of the weekly meetings because they’re
scaffolded not only by me, but the other people that are there.” No participant stated the process
was a totally hands-off endeavor by the dissertation chair; however, Paris commented about their
use of peer mentoring as a time saver for the dissertation chair:
Because I advise so many students, I do not have time to meet with every one of them
every single week, not in individual meetings. So, I have our research group meeting.
Not everyone agreed with this practice of peer mentoring as a primary source of
mentoring for PhD students. Two of the study participants felt one-on-one mentoring from the
dissertation chair themselves was a big responsibility of the chair, and Angél stated their students
are in a “4-year apprenticeship,” one-on-one with them. Phoenix also felt that mentoring was an
important responsibility of the dissertation chair stating,
If they [students] don’t have mentoring then essentially all of what they’re learning
they’ve taught themselves, and that’s just not the way researchers and scholars are
supposed to be. You know? One person on an island. You’re supposed to learn from the
40

community of scholars around you, and if a doctoral student is not getting deep
mentoring from an advisor, that’s a disservice.
For professors who have the luxury of mentoring one PhD student at a time, this one-on-
one mentoring model may work well; however, for chairs who are required to mentor many PhD
students, such as those who manage a large laboratory, the peer mentoring appears to be a
favored approach. It works well for those chairs that are pressed for time, as stated by Paris.
Whether participants conducted mentoring and advising in a more traditional, one-on-one
approach, or used peer mentoring, all participants stated they were open to other faculty
mentoring their students, if that faculty member had a specialty the primary advisor lacked. This
seemed especially true regarding research methods. Angél wanted to be clear that they
understood their own limitations regarding helping their students:
Even though mentoring is very intimate in some ways, professionally obviously, it
doesn’t mean it’s exclusive. And so, in supporting people, you [have] to be willing to
connect them, not only into departmental and school and university community but to put
them in touch with people you know from all over the world.
Rain also wanted to be clear that they wanted their student to be mentored by more than just
them. They felt this should be the norm, that students should seek and gain knowledge from
multiple professors for their dissertation: “Multiple mentoring is so important. You need more
than one [mentor], you know? You need a group.”
Finley understood the benefit to the student when they seek input and mentoring help
from other professors other than their chair: I “get them [PhD students] on a team initially, you
know, maybe do some collaborative work, so they’re learning from me and other [faculty] on my
team.” Paris also discussed understanding that they may not have a strength in an area where the
41

student may need assistance and how it is very important for the student to seek out help from a
team of mentors:
So, if someone’s doing a highly quantitative dissertation, that’s not my expertise, you
know? I’ll say, “You need to get one of the quantitative folks on your committee, so you
have more help with methods than I can provide you.”
It was interesting to note that again, not every participant practices their chair role in the
same manner. For the participants who practiced a more traditional, one-on-one mentoring
approach, two stated they made very close relationships with students, with Angél stating they
ended the mentoring period as “good friends”; however, Aspen again stood out from the rest by
stating that the student–mentor relationship was more hierarchical throughout, stating, “Well, it’s
not a colleague-to-colleague relationship. I don’t think that anybody should think about it that
way.”
Finding 3: Communication Between a Dissertation Chair and Students Varies Between
Chairs, as Does Dissertation Project Goal Setting
The dissertation chairs were asked how they communicate with students, and although
some work on scheduling and formal approaches, others let the student take the lead on how and
how often they communicate, while others blend approaches to their communication practices.
Angél relayed a more student-lead approach:
My PhD students and I, it’s a grown-up relationship. PhD advising is special. … There’s
a power dynamic that has to be respected and understood, but even within that realm, it’s
as close to peer-to-peer as it could possibly be. So, my students are just afforded all of the
respect and the access that my inner circles of colleagues would. If they need something
they’ll call.
42

Angel believed in allowing the student to call if they need help. Jackie also wants the student to
take the lead in how they communicate with the chair: “I work with the students and say, ‘Well
now my expectations have changed and you're the driver of this machine, and you know, you tell
me what you need.’”
Participants did not all communicate in the same way with PhD students. Three chairs
answered that the dissertation chair sets the communication schedule and parameters of the
mentoring relationship through the dissertation process. Aspen stated, “I set up every other week
meetings with everyone at the beginning of the semester. [And] I'll look at [the schedule] and
say, ‘OK, well, we’ll see you in 2 weeks,’ and those are on repeat.” Rain stated they are active in
setting communication frequency with their PhD students to keep them moving forward:
Some students I’m more proactive about, ‘Hey why don’t we meet once a week’ because
[they] might be afraid to ask that, or something, but I know that they need it and they
might need it for a certain period of time. … You know, it kind of changes depending on
how things are going.
Finley stated they schedule and encourage regular, monthly meetings, with the meeting length
fluctuating instead of frequency, depending upon the student’s needs:
I meet with my dissertation advisees every month, depending on what they need. If they
are somebody who needs a lot more time and attention, I'll do an hour. If it’s somebody
who’s a little bit more independent, they might only want 30 minutes.
Like communication, dissertation project goal expectations varied by chair. As defined
by the research of Gilmore et al. (2016), one of the supports faculty determined was needed by
students was goal setting; however, according to the participants in this research, dissertation
project goals may or may not be established by the dissertation chairs at the beginning of the
43

projects. Three of the chairs stated dissertation goals are established at the beginning of the
project; another two stated no goals are set at all; and a further two stated students may set their
own goals.
Angél stated students’ goals are set “up front. … That timetable is set. The expectations
of our relationships, we talk about what I expect of their work.” Angél stated that within the
dissertation process, “that timetable, that mentorship, that expectation, that’s an ongoing process,
but yes, we start with some very clear expectations of each other in terms of their program.”
Phoenix stated they “do that [give goals] verbally, all the time, and then sometimes, I’ll put it in
writing in an e-mail, but, generally speaking, after every single meeting with a student I’ll close
the meeting with, ‘OK, so by next week, or next meeting, [we’ll meet this goal].’” This variation
in goal setting is used by dissertation chairs as a means to restate expectations as the student
progresses through the dissertation.
Other faculty have a more relaxed approach to goal setting and allow the students to take
the lead on what they may need for communication. Grayson had students set their own goals
and report to the peer group each week: “Each week [the student has] to say what [they]’re
working on what [thei]r goals are for the next week. Did [they] accomplish those goals?” Jackie
stated that they give the students agency to make their own goals. “I’m actually pretty laissez
faire and let the students [decide their goals, or not].” Paris asked “students when [they] want to
graduate, and then I have a backwards timeline [for goals].” Each dissertation chair appears to
address goal setting in a different form, depending on the student, so there was a wide variation
in dissertation goal setting among the participants. Like goal setting, the chairs’ practices on
providing writing assistance also varied.

44

Finding 4: Although Writing Is an Important Aspect of the Dissertation Process, Not All
Dissertation Chairs Believe It Is Their Responsibility to Assist Students With It
This research looked into dissertation chairs’ strategies to facilitate doctoral dissertation
completion, which included whether they provide direct instruction on writing and research
techniques. Although all dissertation chairs stated the importance of writing skills in completing
a dissertation, they were not uniform in their approaches to this task. Grayson stated, “I don’t
really see this as falling into my purview.” This chair believed students either need to come into
the program with these skills, or obtain help from peers, or the university writing center.
Although four of the dissertation chairs stated they conduct line-by-line editing of student
work, the other four stated the university writing center, or PhD peer groups were a great place
for the student to seek assistance. Grayson stated once students “get to the dissertation stage,
they have all of those things [writing and research skills],” and Grayson added, “We really
encourage them heavily to use the writing center.” Paris’s response to whether they helped PhD
students with their writing was “Oh Lord, this is the bane of my existence! Students come with
such different writing skills.” Paris stated they
send students to resources on campus if they need real help with their writing mechanics,
[or] I pair the students up with each other to provide peer mentoring for each other for
their writing.
Angél stated, as the dissertation chair, they are the “primary editor” of their student’s
dissertations:
[Working on student’s writing] requires the on the ground, heavy-duty, time-consuming
editing part, where it could take days to respond to a couple of chapters of the
dissertation. And it’s the kind of thing where we don’t get course credit or anything like
45

that. It’s just—It just comes out of your work, your day, and your life, but the good news
is—Right? I’m not supporting dozens of students at a time. So, that’s the other side. …
The privilege is again that intimacy of that connection.
Finley discussed how important writing is to them and therefore they grade heavily on writing
skills throughout their courses to prepare students for the dissertation process. They stated they
work on writing mechanics
probably more than almost anything. I care really deeply about [writing]. I probably give
more feedback on the dissertation on the writing than anything because you know part of
it is that. … The reason why students are really bad at analysis and using their theory and
the literature to understand their findings is they’re not good writers.
Conducting line-by-line editing for the student is not a practice that all chairs adhered to,
even if they have time. One dissertation chair, Phoenix, stated they look at a student’s writing
skills prior to admission into the program, and if the student does not already write well, they are
not admitted. They then stated, “If you can’t write, forget about a PhD.”
Finding 5: All Chairs Agreed Each Student Requires Differentiated Support, Including
Emotional Support
All dissertation chairs agreed students are all different, and each one requires support
specific to their life. Angél, Aspen, and Phoenix stated chairs need to respect the life events that
present themselves to the students and give assistance specific to that event, as required by the
student (i.e., more time, renewed goals, time off, etc.). Angél stated, “You’re mentoring adults,
so anything can happen. Right? In an adult life—from a pet dying to a parent moving in and full-
time care. You know? So yeah, [stuff] happens, and you gotta be respectful of it.” Phoenix
iterated,
46

I think all students need that sort of support, but they need different types of support in
that way. I mean, the differentiation part of it is really. … It’s about understanding what’s
going on in a student’s personal situation and developing a personal and comfortable
relationship with them.
Although all chairs stated emotional support is something students need, not everyone
felt it was their role to provide that support. Some let other staff provide that support. Aspen
implied they keep a professional barrier between themselves and their students and sometimes
use university staff to handle the emotional support of their students, stating,
That’s up to them what they want to share. If they want to keep their problems more
private from you because you have power and status, and you write letters for them, then
I shouldn’t be prying in their private life.
Angél had another view on their mentoring role and stated they are a “coach, cheerleader, and
academic therapist.” Whereas another three (Grayson, Jackie, and Paris) stated students obtain
most of their support, including emotional support from their peer groups. Grayson stated
emotional support is very important to their students:
I think it is equally as important as the academic. They need academic support and they
need that psychosocial support and that’s what the group provides them. You know? We
not only talk about where they are, but we talk about current events. We must have spent
two or three months really focusing on the racial issues [in the United States] and how
that was impacting them.
For some chairs, even though they know the students need emotional support, it is just
not something the chair is comfortable providing. Jackie stated, “I’m probably not perceived as
47

the most warm and fuzzy, so [the student] might approach somebody else other than me. I’m
kind of more like ‘all business.’”
Findings for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 endeavored to understand how and when faculty chairs intervened
when doctoral students were struggling to complete the PhD. The questions attempted to
ascertain the challenges PhD students experience while conducting their dissertation, as well as
the signs of struggle the students exhibit. Bandura’s (1978) research on triadic reciprocal
determinism states that one will be affected by their environment, which in turn will affect one’s
actions. According to this theory, strong support from the dissertation chair when a student is
struggling could affect the student’s environment and actions, and therefore may help the student
to be most effective in their dissertation work.
Finding 1: Missed Deadlines and Cancelled Meetings Are a Sign the PhD Student Is
Struggling and the Dissertation Chair Should Intervene.
The chairs were asked to help identify how they recognize signs that a student is
struggling with their work. And, according to six dissertation chairs, missed commitments,
whether scheduled meetings with the chair, or missed deadlines for work submissions, are a sign
that PhD students are struggling, and the dissertation chair should intervene. Angél said when a
student misses deadlines, that is a sign that they are struggling. When asked to identify signs of a
struggling student, Angél stated,
Missed deadlines. Missed deadlines. OK, so I’ve got a student who says, “Oh I’m gonna
have you methodology on Friday.” Friday comes and goes. I’m not worried. The next
Friday comes and goes. I’m going to send a “Hey, did I get my Fridays [wrong]?” and
48

[they say], “Oh, I’m working on it.” And if that turns into 3 or 4 more weeks, then
something’s wrong, right?
Finley added that it is obvious that a student is struggling when they start “canceling meetings. If
they start canceling meetings, and I’ve had them do that occasionally, taking a lot of time to
respond to e-mail. Let’s see … not meeting deadlines."
However students’ issues present themselves, all chairs stated if a student is found to be
struggling, they reach out to the student and reengage with them. Seven of the dissertation chairs
used either increased meeting frequency or restating expectations as a strategy for struggling
PhD students. Phoenix said, “I meet with them more often. I ramp up the meetings. They need
more contact time and they need less time between meetings and clear tasks. It’s more hand
holding.” Finley added to that by stating they “get up in their business. I’ll ask them if they’re
exercising. I’ll ask them about their eating habits. I mean, I will. I’ll ask them all that because it’s
all connected.” The participants stated the chair needs to set the expectations, be flexible with the
student, but set deadlines the student can meet and include more contact time with the
dissertation chair, if necessary. Chairs use either increased meeting frequency and/or restating
expectations as a strategy for their students who are struggling. Paris stated they conduct a
reverse timeline, with the student’s input, to make a schedule the student feels they can meet:
I ask students when [they] want to graduate, and I say, “Great. If you want to graduate,
you know, in that time frame, these are the things that you have to do, and it’s on you.
It’s up to you how fast you get out of this program. I’m going to support you in getting
there.”
Aspen also stated how they ensure the students are engaged and on track. “You need to
keep the pressure on them for their own good to get [the dissertation] done”; however, Aspen
49

deviated from all others by stating that students “shouldn’t need somebody telling them what to
do.” Aspen felt that once a student reaches the PhD stage they should be more self-reliant. And
although Aspen’s response deviated a bit from the others’ responses, all chairs agreed that once
they identify that a student is struggling the chair should intervene and either increase meeting
frequency or restate expectations to ensure the student stays on track.
Finding 2: PhD Students Face Varied Challenges, Including Writing, Transitioning From
Structured Coursework to Less Structured Independent Research, Apprehension With
Data Analysis, and Feelings of Isolation
All students are different and each one brings their own experiences and history to their
program; therefore, how they respond within their environment will be different as well. When
discussing the challenges students face with dissertation completion, the chairs stated several
factors that stood out as challenges such as writing, transitioning from structured coursework to
less structured independent research, apprehension with data analysis and the feelings of
isolation faced by PhD students when writing a dissertation. When asked what challenges their
students face, Angél stated,
That’s an easy one: writing. I think there are people who are fearful of using the process
of writing to their advantage. They’re thinking of writing as a product, not a process.
It has been stated previously that all dissertation chairs identified that writing is a very important
element of obtaining a dissertation, and that all students require help with their writing, so it
should be expected that writing is one of the challenges with which PhD students struggle.
Angél also included that students spend a great deal of time at the beginning of their program
going through all their courses and then have to switch their mindset to that of an independent
researcher, which can be much less structured than coursework. Angél stated students can
50

struggle with “transitioning from all of the structure at the front end of the doctoral program to
that open-ended. … Now, they’re really taking those first steps on their own as independent
scholars, and so that lack of structure sometimes people. … It’s never a priority.”
Two other chairs then stated they often see students who suffer from apprehension with
data analysis. Once the students collect their data, they are not quite sure what to do with it.
Grayson and Jackie discussed the anxiety around data analysis, with Jackie stating, “I would say
anxiety around their [data] analysis. It’s a new muscle that’s being exercised.” Grayson also
discussed students’ struggles with data analysis, in that students are “overwhelmed with what to
do with the data. It’s probably one of the most common things specifically for the dissertation.
And that’s understandable because this is probably the biggest project they’ve ever worked on.”
Rain discussed the issue PhD students have with the isolation associated with being a
PhD student and an independent researcher: “One of the challenges can be that they feel very
isolated.” Rain then discussed how their university utilizes dissertation student groups to assist
students with the challenges of dissertation writing and research. Rain stated they place students
within a “group, so that even though they’re all, you know, they’re working on chapters and
everything, they’re coming together.” This coming together is supported by Nettles and Millet
(2006) and Golde (1996), who stated students require socialization with peers and others in the
department in order to find success. Because students are unique, their challenges will also be
unique to them and their dissertation process.
Findings for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 was asked to address the training and support faculty chairs received
at their institution to prepare them for their dissertation chair/mentoring role. The findings in this
51

section highlight that the respondents do not feel their universities offer enough training and
support for dissertation chairs, especially when they are new to the role.
Finding 1: Universities Do Not Offer Adequate Training and Support to Assist Dissertation
Chairs With Mentoring Duties
Research has indicated that one’s environment can affect one’s feelings about themselves
and that then may affect one’s actions (Bandura, 1978), therefore a lack of training by the
universities may leave faculty feeling unsupported and this may, in turn, affect the dissertation
chair’s performance as advisors and mentors.
Grayson highlighted their lack of training this way: “Zero [training]. It’s really ridiculous.
All of this I just learned on my own. I kind of read articles in this area to be more prepared and
support the students, but it’s really disappointing.” The feelings of disappointment expressed by
Grayson may underscore the outcome of not feeling supported by the university. Angél also said,
“There’s an unstated assumption: you went through it, so now you can do it [mentor PhD
students].” Angél is stating that their university is assuming the dissertation chairs already have
the knowledge of advising and mentoring because they were once PhD students themselves. That
may not be true.
All but one participant stated they did not receive any training prior to assuming their role
as dissertation chair. The one participant who had training stated they did receive training in the
area of advising and mentoring. Rain stated their school hired a theater group to act out scenarios
“on diversity issues and inclusion and the kinds of things that can happen even subtly in
mentoring that you don’t even recognize.” Rain stated that the training was helpful. Lastly, two
of the chairs stated their school now offers training “if people want it” (Rain), but it is not
required to be a dissertation chair.
52

When asked what training and support the participants would like to see to help
dissertation chairs to better perform in their mentoring roles, there were several responses:
• Faculty orientation should include dissertation chair training for new faculty (Finley).
• There should be a support group/informal meetings for dissertation chairs to meet and
discuss issues (Angél and Finley).
• New mentors should be “assigned one, two or three formal mentors that they could
meet with once a semester about this topic. That would go a long way to helping
people feel confident in developing their own skillset to be the kind of advisors and
mentors they want to be” (Angél).
• “Just-in-time training” for new mentors as issues present themselves, so they could
work through the issues in real time (Angél).
• There should be “a guide for how to lead dissertations that’s not bureaucratic, but
that’s done by school and has flexibility” (Finley).
• “I also think it would be great to have students come in and talk about how they wrote
their dissertation and have faculty listen,” so they could understand from the student’s
perspective (Finley).
• Have a new graduate faculty member “co-chair with someone that has more
experience and then after that become a chair of a dissertation” (Grayson).
Summary of Findings
Although all dissertation chairs agreed their primary role was to support the dissertation,
each dissertation chair and each student presented variables in their interactions that make their
mentoring partnership unique. Each dissertation chair stated that all students are different and
53

therefore require differing levels of support, but even with that, there are certain actions that are
the same across the dissertation chair mentoring role.
Six of dissertation chairs believed PhD students should drive the communication process
during the dissertation quest. Each chair stated writing is an essential element in the dissertation
writing process and that students need help with their writing; however, not every chair agreed
this task is the responsibility of the dissertation chair, with several chairs stating they send their
students to the campus writing center, or other campus resource for this help. Also, seven of the
dissertation chairs agreed PhD students need assistance with data analysis, and they were willing
to assist their students with this task.
Of the participants, six of dissertation chairs stated missed commitments, whether
meetings or work submissions are a sign that a student is struggling. All chairs stated if they
believe a student is struggling they reach out and reconnect with the student and either restate
expectations or increase meeting frequency to get the student back on track.
Lastly, the dissertation chairs stated their universities did not provide adequate training or
give adequate support prior to their dissertation chair role, with seven of the eight chairs stating
they received zero training prior to dissertation chair assignments; however, the chairs provided
many ideas on ways in which their department, or the university could help prepare future
dissertation chairs to become better PhD mentors.

54

Chapter Five: Recommendations
The purpose of this study was to capture the experiences of dissertation chairs from R1
universities (American Council on Education, 2021) who advise and mentor PhD students to
complete their dissertations. The researcher evaluated the effect PhD mentors’ interactions and
tactics in the student’s environment have on the completion of the PhD dissertation. The research
questions posed in this research are
1. What are the perceptions of the faculty regarding the strategies, processes, and
techniques they employ to facilitate doctoral dissertation completion?
2. In what ways and when does the faculty chair intervene if a doctoral student is
struggling to complete the PhD?
3. What training and support do faculty chairs receive at their institutions to prepare
them for their dissertation chair/mentoring roles?
Bandura’s (1978) social cognitive theory and the idea of triadic reciprocal determinism
was the theoretical framework used for this study. Social cognitive theory states people are
affected by their environments, which affects their behaviors and actions (Bandura, 1978). This
effect works in a triangular fashion, with each end of the triangle (i.e., people, environment,
actions) affected by the others (Bandura, 1978). This framework supports how the actions of a
dissertation chair may affect the performance and perseverance of PhD students.
Eight dissertation chairs from R1 universities were chosen for this research. The
dissertation chairs participated in 60-minute, semi structured interviews over a video
conferencing platform. The researcher’s goal was to obtain data on the perceptions of the faculty
about the strategies, processes, and techniques they employed to facilitate dissertation
completion by PhD students.
55

Chapter 5 is structured to include the discussion of the findings, recommendations for
practice for future dissertation chairs, and limitations and delimitations of the research. Lastly,
the chapter ends with recommendations for future research and concluding thoughts on the
research.
Discussion of Findings
The findings for this research capture the experiences of dissertation chairs who advise
and mentor PhD students through their dissertation journeys. The first two findings for Research
Question 1 highlighted that all the dissertation chairs agreed their primary role was to assist the
PhD student with the completion of the dissertation, and four of the eight dissertation chairs
stated mentoring was a primary responsibility of the chair. It was the third finding that is one of
the most interesting in that it presents an opportunity for enhancing future practice by the
dissertation chairs.
The third finding for Research Question 1 highlights how communication varies between
chairs, as does dissertation project goal setting. Gilmore et al. (2016) found dissertation chairs
should focus on strong communication between the student and chair and set goals for
dissertation completion. Golde (1996) highlighted the importance of communication around
dissertation expectations and that poor communication may lead to a poor relationship between
the student and the dissertation chair, which could lead to student attrition. This research found
three of the eight dissertation chairs set the communication schedule and expectations for the
students at the beginning of the dissertation project. These chairs set specific frequencies, as well
as length of meetings, that way the student knew what to expect. Likewise, the chairs were
specific around project goals and when writing was due to them for their review. Other chairs
stated they would leave the frequency of the student meetings up to the students to define, if they
56

needed assistance from the chair, they could call or email the chair. Based on current research,
this student-lead communication frequency could be an area for improved performance by the
dissertation chairs who are not being proactive with specific communication schedules and
strong project goal setting.
The research showed the students could affect their own environment in a positive
manner. Bandura (2001) stated although one’s environment can be affected by outside
influences, it can also be affected by the person’s mindset; therefore, if a student sets goals and
visualizes their success, they may be more successful. Golde (1996) highlighted a supportive
atmosphere is important for a student’s success, which aligns with Bandura’s (1978) social
cognitive theory and the idea of triadic reciprocal determinism, in that a person’s environment
affects their actions and their perceptions in a reciprocal triangle, with each affecting the other.
The fourth research finding relating to Research Question 1 was that each dissertation
chair believed writing is a very important aspect of obtaining a PhD; however, all chairs did not
believe it is their responsibility to assist students with writing. For those assisting students with
their writing, this finding aligns with Cockrell and Shelley’s (2011) research, which found it is
important for dissertation chairs to give students regular feedback on their student’s writing.
Likewise, Bégin & Géarard (2013) found it is important for dissertation chairs to describe the
process of conducting research and writing a dissertation, aligning with Cockrell and Shelley’s
(2011) research on academic support systems and persistence, where they described the student’s
desire to have regular feedback on their writing from their advisor. Not every dissertation chair
thought it was their responsibility to assist the student with writing, leaving an area for enhanced
future practice for the chair or an area that could be better supported by university resources,
such as a dissertation writing center or other student support group.
57

The fifth and final research finding from Research Question 1 is that all chairs agreed
each student requires differentiated support, including emotional support; however, not all chairs
provide emotional support to students. For those who did provide emotional support, they felt it
is important for the students’ emotional well-being, as described in Bandura’s (1978) social
cognitive theory and the idea of triadic reciprocal determinism. For the students, feeling they are
in a supportive environment may affect a student’s actions and perceptions of their doctoral
journey. This idea is supported by Cockrell and Shelley’s (2011) research, which showed
students need their advisors to care about them as people and give them emotional support when
needed. Golde (1996) also stated students need a supportive atmosphere in order to be
successful. This idea is also supported by Lunsford and Baker (2016), who indicated a mentor’s
purpose is to provide emotional support for the personal and professional growth of the student.
Conversely, for those chairs that aren’t offering emotional support to their students, they may be
missing an opportunity for connection that research has stated is an important aspect of the
chair/student relationship.
Finding 1 from Research Question 2 indicated students missing deadlines and canceling
meetings are signs the PhD student is struggling and the dissertation chair should intervene. This
finding relates to Wallace and Gravells’s (2008) research, which showed mentors need to create
a caring atmosphere where the mentor has the students “best interests at heart” (p. 34). Wallace
and Gravells (2008) also stated a mentor must have “a commitment to continuous learning and
development [for themselves and their mentee]” (p. 23). According to this research, if a mentor
feels a commitment to their student, they may feel compelled to intervene when they see their
students struggling.
58

Research Question 3 asked about the preparation of the faculty for their dissertation role.
There was only one finding from this research question and that is that universities do not offer
adequate training and support to assist dissertation chairs with the mentoring duties. This aligns
with Titus and Ballou’s (2013) research which indicated that only 25% of faculty stated their
university has mentor training.
Recommendation for Practice

Following is one recommendation for R1 universities to put into practice to assist
dissertation chairs with their mentoring role. The recommendation is that R1 universities should
offer PhD mentor training for all graduate faculty, especially for faculty who have never
practiced mentoring for PhD students.
Recommendation
Research 1 universities should offer PhD mentor training for graduate faculty who have
the responsibility to mentor PhD students. This training is especially important for those faculty
who are new to mentoring PhD students. Mentoring is a skill like any other and mentors should
not be left to try to figure out effective mentoring techniques on their own, without proper
training. Titus and Ballou’s (2013) research highlighted the need for faculty training and stressed
that the terms mentoring and advising are viewed by many faculty as synonymous, with little
understanding of the differentiation of the two in practice. Bird’s (2001) research highlighted that
although many people use the terms, research advisor, supervisor, and mentor interchangeably,
they are different roles and have different responsibilities.
Only one of the eight participants in this study received any training in mentorship, which
may demonstrate a gap in mentor preparation. Included in the mentor training would be sections
on effective communication with a PhD student, as well as project goal setting for dissertation
59

completion. Also encapsulated within the training would be the idea that if a PhD student is
cancelling meetings and/or missing deadlines this is a marker for a student who is struggling and
the dissertation chair should intervene.
According to research by Wallace and Gravells (2008), mentors need to create a caring
atmosphere where the mentor has the students “best interests at heart” (p. 34). Wallace and
Gravells (2008) stated a mentor must have “a commitment to continuous learning and
development [for themselves and their mentee]” (p. 23). Therefore, it is possible that if a
dissertation chair waits for the students to make first contact, after a period of unusual quiet from
the student, such as cancelled meetings, or failing to answer emails, or phone calls from the
chair, then that could be a missed opportunity to support the student in their environment in a
positive manner.
According to Bandura’s (1978) social cognitive theory and idea of triadic reciprocal
determinism, the dissertation chair may be able to affect the student’s actions and beliefs about
their self-efficacy, in this case by reaching out to the student and ensuring the student is still on
track or ascertain if the student is struggling and needs assistance. This proactive mentoring
approach is also supported by Barnes and Austin’s research (2009), which showed it is important
for the mentor to recognize when a student is struggling and provide support to the student to
motivate the student. Mentors will understand this better if they are trained that missed and
cancelled meetings, as well as prolonged student silence, may be an indication that a PhD student
is struggling.
Lastly, Bandura’s (1978) social cognitive theory and the idea of triadic reciprocal
determinism applies to the mentor and the student: If the mentor does not feel supported in their
university environment, their self-efficacy and their actions around mentoring may be affected.
60

By providing training to the mentors, the university may positively affect the dissertation chair in
their environment, which in turn may affect their feelings of self-efficacy and effect different
actions in mentoring.
The university mentor training should include what previous research has defined as the
characteristics of effective mentoring, which are
• Select the right mentor for the student (Holley & Caldwell, 2012).
• Dissertation chairs should explicitly state to students what is expected of them and
describe the process of conducting research and writing a dissertation (Bégin &
Géarard, 2013).
• Develop a solid communication plan between the student and chair and set project
goals for the PhD student’s dissertation project (Gilmore et al., 2016)
• Give students regular feedback on their writing, care about them as people and give
them emotional support when needed. Also, dissertation chairs should give or find
career advice for their students (Cockrell & Shelley, 2011).
• Develop a partnership with students and reflect on their own mentoring, after the fact,
to determine if they could have done a better job as a mentor (Barnes, 2005).
• Understand that minority students benefit from being mentored by faculty who are
from similar cultures as the student (Davidson & Foster-Johnson, 2001).
Limitations and Delimitations
The limitations of this research are related to the small, purposeful (Patton, 2015) sample
size. Although these participants were picked exclusively for their expertise, the research may
have been stronger with a larger sample size.
61

Delimitations, or elements that are outside of the boundaries set for the research, include
looking at mentoring practices and attrition specifically related to minority students. The
researcher felt that this topic could be a dissertation topic in and of itself and the researcher did
not want to gloss over the importance of the issues of PhD minority students and the issues they
face in mentoring.
Another delimitation element is that of the boundaries of qualitative interviews. The
researcher could have used surveys and expanded the research to a mixed-methods approach, but
the researcher felt these purposeful (Patton, 2015) participants gave a more in-depth look at
mentoring from the dissertation chair’s perspective that may have been less thorough outside of
personal interviews.
Recommendations for Future Research
Future research is needed to reach more dissertation chairs from R1 universities in the
United States to obtain a better understanding of dissertation chair practices related to their
actions surrounding PhD students who struggle with dissertation completion. More research is
needed on how dissertation chairs recognize when a student is struggling, as well as if they do
recognize it.
PhD completion rates have hovered around 50% (Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Lovitts,
2001) since the 1960’s; researchers need to better understand the daily practices of dissertation
chairs to understand how to better train both the chairs and the students to work toward
dissertation completion. According to the National Science foundation (2020) it is “critical to a
nation’s progress” (para. 1).
Future research is needed around R1 universities and the efficacy of mentor training and
its outcomes for PhD attrition. As stated previously, without training, mentors are left to try to
62

figure out proficient mentoring practices on their own, and with a 50% PhD completion rate
(Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Lovitts, 2001) year after year, this researcher is stating that what
has been done in the past is not working well enough.
Lastly, future research is needed for specific issues related to PhD attrition as it relates to
minority students, including students of color, LGBTQ students, and others who may not fit into
the dominant culture. It is known that there are few minority faculty members in the United
States, and Davidson & Foster-Johnson (2001) stated minority students may do better with
faculty members who are more like their students and from their student’s culture, so if
researchers can determine and better understand the needs of these students, we may have better
ideas on how to serve them and hopefully produce stronger PhD completion rates from minority
students.
Conclusions
With an historical attrition rate hovering at approximately 50% for the past 60+ years
(Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Lovitts, 2001), PhD attrition is a wonder. It was the purpose of this
study to capture the experiences of dissertation chairs from RI universities (American Council on
Education, 2021) who advise and mentor PhD students to complete their dissertations. As
Smallwood found (2001), if Notre Dame curbed attrition by just 10%, they could save millions a
year in stipend payments alone. As stated in Chapter 1 of this dissertation, Denecke et al. (2009)
posited the high attrition rate of what faculty determine are some of our country’s most educated
and promising people “arguably impinges on the capacity of the United States to produce the
talented researchers necessary for long-term success in a global knowledge economy” (p. 36).
Again, as stated in Chapter 1 of this dissertation, the NSF (2021) considered doctoral education
“critical to a nation’s progress” (para. 1). Therefore, a continuously high attrition rate of these
63

students is of concern (Cassuto, 2013). Also, the fact that there is no national database on
doctoral attrition (King, 2008), the United States really does not understand which students they
are losing and what that is costing the country’s capabilities now and in the future.
My final thoughts are best summarized by a quote from one of the participants, Finley:
“What a privilege it is to have a life of the mind … to be able to think and be paid to do it. To be
able to work with young people, shaping their minds and encouraging them. What a privilege!”

64

References
American Association of University Women. (2023).
https://www.aauw.org/resources/article/fast-facts-academia/
American Council on Education. (2021). Carnegie classification of institutes of higher education.
https://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/classification_descriptions/basic.php
American Council on Education. (2023). Race and ethnicity of higher education faculty.
https://www.equityinhighered.org/indicators/postsecondary-faculty-and-staff/race-and-
ethnicity-of-higher-education
faculty/#:~:text=Among%20the%20over%20700%2C000%20full,unknown%20racial%2
0and%20ethnic%20backgrounds
American Psychological Association. (2019). Publication manual of the American Psychological
Association (7th edition.).
Bair, C. (1999). Doctoral student attrition and persistence: A meta-synthesis. Paper presented at
the Association for the Study of Higher Education Annual Conference, San Antonio, TX.
Bandura, A., & Walters, R. (1977). Social learning theory (Volume 1). Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1978). The self-system in reciprocal determinism. The American
Psychologist, 33(4), 344–358. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.33.4.344
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-839X.00024
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith, & M. A. Hitt
(Eds.), Great minds in management (pp. 9–35). Oxford University Press.
65

Barnes, B. (2005). Success in graduate school: How exemplary advisors guide their doctoral
advisees [Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University].
https://www.proquest.com/openview/dcdfc002cca984dadc63b19049026a18/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
Barnes, B. J., & Austin, A. E. (2009). The role of doctoral advisors: A look at advising from the
advisor’s perspective. Innovative Higher Education, 33, 297–315.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-008-9084-x
Bégin, C., & Géarard L. (2013). The role of supervisors in light of the experience of doctoral
students. Policy Futures in Education. 11(3), 267–276.
https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2013.11.3.267
Berelson, B. (1960). Graduate education in the United States. McGraw-Hill.
Bird, S. (2001). Mentors, advisors and supervisors: Their role in teaching responsible research
conduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7(4), 455–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-
001-0002-1
Bowen, G., & Rudenstine, N. (1992). In pursuit of the PhD. Princeton University Press
Brunsma, D., Embrick, D., & Shin, J. (2017). Graduate students of color: Race, racism, and
mentoring in the White waters of academia. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 3(1), 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649216681565
Casey, B. (2009). The economic contribution of PhDs. Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, 31(3), 219–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800902974294
Cassuto, L. (2013, July 1). PhD attrition: How much is too much? The Chronicle of Higher
Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/ph-d-attrition-how-much-is-too-much/
66

Cassuto, L., & Weisbuch, R. (2021). The new PhD: How to build a better graduate education.
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Cockrell, C., & Shelley, K. (2011). The relationship between academic support systems and
intended persistence in doctoral education. Journal of College Student Retention:
Research, Theory & Practice, 12(4), 469–484. https://doi.org/10.2190/CS.12.4.e
Council of Graduate Schools. (2004). Ph.D. completion and attrition: Policy, number, leadership
and next steps. https://cgsnet.org/sites/default/files/phd_completion_and_attrition.pdf
Council of Graduate Schools. (2005). The doctor of philosophy degree: A policy statement.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED331420.pdf
Creswell, J., & Creswell, J. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Davidson, M., & Foster-Johnson, L. (2001). Mentoring in the preparation of graduate researchers
of color. Review of Educational Research, 71(4), 549–574.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071004549
Denecke, D., Frasier, H., & Rudd, K. (2009). The Council of Graduate Schools’ PhD completion
project. In Ehrenberg R. & Kuh C. (Eds.), Doctoral education and the faculty of the
future (pp. 35–52). Cornell University Press.
Diamond, C., & Mullen, C. (1999). “Roped together”: Artistic forms of comentoring in higher
education. In C. A. Bowen (Ed.), Counterpoints (Volume 89; pp. 315–340). Peter Lang
AG.
Finder, A. (2007, November 20). Decline of the tenure track raises concerns. The New York
Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/education/20adjunct.html
67

Gilmore, J., Wofford, A., & Maher, M. (2016). The flip side of the attrition coin: Faculty
perceptions of factors supporting graduate student success. International Journal of
Doctoral Studies, 11(1), 419–439. http://www.informingscience.org/Publications/3618
Golde, C. (1996). How departmental contextual factors shape doctoral student attrition
[Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University].
https://www.proquest.com/openview/35e7b2e17215bab6abcb8814b652049e/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
Grasso, M., Barry, M., & Valentine, T. (2009). A data-driven approach to improving doctoral
completion. Council of Graduate Schools.
Hanson, M. (October 13, 2021). Average graduate student loan debt. Education Data.
https://educationdata.org/average-graduate-student-loan-debt
Holley, K., & Caldwell, M. (2012). The challenges of designing and implementing a doctoral
student mentoring program. Innovative Higher Education, 37(3), 243–253.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-011-9203-y
Katella, K. (March 15, 2021). Meet the COVID-19 researcher whose studies help shape patient
care. https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-19-research-patient-care
King, M. (2008). Ph.D. completion and attrition: Analysis of baseline program data from the
Ph.D. Completion Project. Council of Graduate Schools. https://legacy.cgsnet.org/phd-
completion-and-attrition-analysis-baseline-program-data
Knox, S., Schlosser, L., Pruitt, N., & Hill, C. (2006). A qualitative examination of graduate
advising relationships: The advisor perspective. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(4),
489–518. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006290249
68

Lindén, J., Ohlin, M., & Brodin, E. (2013). Mentorship, supervision and learning experience in
PhD education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 639–662.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006290249
Litalien, D., & Guay, F. (2015). Dropout intentions in PhD studies: A comprehensive model
based on interpersonal relationships and motivational resources. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 41, 218–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.03.004
Lovitts, B. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure from
doctoral study. Rowman and Littlefield.
Lunsford, L., Baker, V. (2016). Great mentoring in graduate school: A quick start guide for
proteges. Council of Graduate Schools. https://art.unc.edu/wp-
content/uploads/sites/344/2019/11/CGS_OPS_Mentoring2016.pdf
Lynch C., Hulse, C., Attiyeh, R., Bowen, R., Cadwallader, M., Dykstra, L, Grasso, M. Denecke,
D. (2007). CGS task force report on the professional doctorate. Council of Graduate
Schools. https://cgsnet.org/sites/default/files/task_force_on_professional_doctorate.pdf
Merriam, S. & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th edition.). Jossey-Bass
Merriam-Webster (n.d.). Mentor. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mentor
Mullen, C. (2007). Trainers, illusionists, tricksters, and escapists: Changing the doctoral
circus. The Educational Forum, 71(4), 300–315.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131720709335021
Naderifar, M., Goli, H., & Ghaljaie, F. (2017). Snowball sampling: A purposeful method of
sampling in qualitative research. Strides in development of medical education, 14(3),
e67670. https://doi.org/10.5812/sdme.67670
69

National Academies Press. (2000). Adviser, teacher, role model, friend: On being a mentor to
students in science and engineering.
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/5789/adviser-teacher-role-model-friend-on-
being-a-mentor-to
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES). 2021. Doctorate recipients
from U.S. universities: 2020. NSF 22-300. National Science Foundation.
https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf22300.
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES). 2022. Doctorate recipients
from U.S. universities: 2021. National Science Foundation.
https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf23300.
National Science Foundation (NSF). (October, 2006). U.S. doctorates in the 20th century.
https://wayback.archiveit.org/5902/20160210224025/http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf063
19/chap1.cfm
Nettles, M., Millett, C., & Millett, C. M. (2006). Three magic letters: Getting to Ph.D. JHU
Press.
Patton, M. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice.
Sage Publications.
Rigler, Jr., K., Bowlin, L., Sweat, K., Watts, S., & Throne, R. (2017). Agency, socialization, and
support: A critical review of doctoral student attrition. Paper presented at the 3rd
International Conference on Doctoral Education, Orlando, FL.
Shah, A. (2017). What is mentoring? The American Statistician, 71(1), 1–2.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2016.1269686
70

Smallwood, S. (2004). Doctor dropout. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/doctor-dropout/
Sowel, R., Zhang, T., Bell, N., & Kirby, S. (2010). PhD completion and attrition: Policies and
practices to promote student success. Council of Graduate Schools.
Tinto, V. (2012). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.
University of Chicago Press
Stickney, K. (December 28, 2021). Up side [sic] to R1 research status is that UL can share in
federal research dollars. The Advocate.
https://www.theadvocate.com/acadiana/news/education/article_c1737a96-675f-11ec-
acf0-1f437033016b.html
Titus, S. & Ballou, J. (2013). Faculty members’ perceptions of advising versus mentoring: Does
the name matter? Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(3), 1267–1281.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-012-9366-7
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (U.S. BLS). (April 21, 2021). Employment projections: Earnings
and unemployment rates by educational attainment, 2020.
https://www.bls.gov/emp/chart-unemployment-earnings-education.htm
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (U.S. BLS). (September 8, 2021). Education pays:
Unemployment rates and earnings by educational attainment, 2020.
https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/unemployment-earnings-education.htm
Wallace, S., & Gravells, J. (2008). Mentoring (2nd edition). Learning Matters.
Wilson, R. (1988). Developing leadership: Blacks in graduate and professional schools. Journal
of Black Studies, 19(2), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/002193478801900204
71

Zhou, E., & Okahana, H. (2019). The role of department supports on doctoral completion and
time-to-degree. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory &
Practice, 20(4), 511–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025116682036
Zhou, E., & Gao, J. (2021). Graduate enrollment and degrees: 2010 to 2020. Council of
Graduate Schools.

72

Appendix A: Interview Questions
Introductory Questions
1. What is the primary responsibility of a dissertation chair? (RQ1)
2. Can you tell me how you are paired with your PhD students and what that process looks
like? (RQ1)
• Follow-up: Tell me about your communication approach when it comes to
advising students.
How often do you meet with them?
Is it scheduled ahead of time, or when requested by the student?
Do you have goals and an agenda for each meeting?
What mode do you use for the meetings? In-person, zoom, etc.
Strategies, processes and techniques employed to facilitate doctoral dissertation completion:
3. Once you have the students assigned to you, how do you go about advising/mentoring
those students? Walk me through the process. (RQ1)
4. What are the core areas you work on with your dissertation students when it comes to
their dissertations? How do you go about providing support in those areas? (RQ1)
5. In what ways, if at all, do you work with your students directly on writing mechanics?
(RQ1)
Formally or informally?
6. In what ways, if at all, do you work with your students directly on research skills? (RQ1)
Formally, or informally?

73

7. In what ways do you provide feedback to students on their dissertations? What areas
do you focus your feedback on? And what are the primary ways to deliver that
feedback? (RQ1)
Can you give me an example?
Is the feedback documented?
8. To what extent would you say that your students need mentoring from you? How do
you go about providing that support? Can you walk me through a recent example?
(RQ1)
9. To what degree if at all, do you think that students need emotional support or support
for their overall well-being? How do you go about providing that support? Can you
walk me through a recent example? (RQ1)
If not, why not?
10. In what ways, if at all, do you differentiate the types of support and advisement you
offer to students? (RQ1)
11. How important do you think it is for there to be a “good match” between student and
chair? What do you do when it doesn’t feel like a good match? (RQ1)
12. What kinds of challenges do your students typically face as they work on their
dissertations? (RQ2)
13. What about students who struggle to finish on time? What would you say are the key
factors that cause a student to struggle? (RQ2)
14. How do you know if a student is typically struggling? What are the signs? (RQ2)
15. What strategies do you use when you notice a student is struggling? (RQ2)

74

Closing Questions
16. When you think about the dissertations you’ve chaired in the last year or so, what
lessons have you learned along the way regarding advisement? Is there anything you
wish you had done differently or plan on changing? (RQ1)
17. What kinds of support, if any, is provided to you as a dissertation chair by the
university? (RQ3)
18. What type of training have you received for mentoring/advising PhD students?
If you received training, did it include research-based best practices to aid in student
dissertation completion? (RQ3)
How often is it given?
Is the training required to be a dissertation chair?
How would you describe the relationship between the student and the dissertation
chair?
19. What training support might make the advisement process go more smoothly? (RQ3)

75

Appendix B: Interview LinkedIn Advertisement

Are you a PhD dissertation chair? If so, you are invited to participate in a study to examine the
mentoring strategies, processes and techniques employed by PhD dissertation chairs to assist
their students in completing the dissertation. The study is being conducted by Charlene
Zerbinopoulos, Principal Investigator, as part of her doctoral dissertation for the Rossier School
of Education at the University of Southern California (USC). Your participation in the study is
completely voluntary and participant identities will not be known to anyone except the principal
investigator. Likewise, all information gathered from the interview will be confidential and will
only be used for the purpose of this study.
The study includes a semistructured interview conducted via Zoom, lasting approximately 60
minutes. The interviews will be recorded.
The requirements of the study are that you are a university professor who works at a research one
university in the social sciences, you hold tenured status and work advising PhD students as a
dissertation chair as a regular responsibility of your role, and you are at least an Associate
Professor in rank. If you are interested in participating in this study please contact the PI at
zerbinop@usc.edu. Please put Dissertation Chair Study in the subject line.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Increasing underrepresented minority participation in the STEM PhD programs

PDF

Faculty’s influence on underrepresented minority (URM) undergraduate retention

PDF

The impact of campus climate on community college student motivation

PDF

Enhancing a culture of research support for first-generation PhD students in social science fields

PDF

Preparing Asian American leaders in higher education: an exploration study using Bronfenbrenner's ecological model

PDF

Educators, experiences, and environment: exploring Doctor of Physical Therapy student perceived influences on professional identity formation

PDF

Closing the completion gap for African American students at California community colleges: a research study

PDF

Brick by brick: exploring the influential factors on the capacity building of instructional coaches

PDF

Experience of belonging for full-time hybrid physical therapy faculty

PDF

Underrepresentation of African Americans in master’s engineering programs

PDF

KMO factors influencing the culturally responsive implementation of PBIS: a mixed-methods study

PDF

Evaluation of mental health support and needs for emergency department providers

PDF

Reducing suspensions through implementation of schoolwide PBIS

PDF

The influence of high school bystanders of bullying: an exploratory study

PDF

Preparing teachers to advance equity through deeper learning and antiracist practices

PDF

Evaluating the effectiveness of global residence in improving resident cultural intelligence

PDF

Success can happen out of low scores! Addressing nursing shortage with SCHOOLS ACT prep: a Kellogg logic model theory of change removing systemic barriers to ACT 18 score attainment for community...

PDF

When they teach us: recruiting teacher candidates of color for the next generation of students, an evaluation study

PDF

Power-sharing in co-constructed community-school partnerships: examining values, opportunities, and barriers around community engagement in New York City school leadership teams

PDF

Best practices for applying for a P.L. 93-638 or a P.L. 100-297 grant: tribal sovereignty in action or an illusion of control?

Asset Metadata

Creator Zerbinopoulos, Charlene (author)

Core Title Big dreams lost: the influence of mentoring to reduce PhD attrition

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-12

Publication Date 09/18/2023

Defense Date 08/30/2023

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

Tag attrition,mentoring,OAI-PMH Harvest,PhD

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Malloy, Courtney (committee chair), Davis, Heather (committee member), Stowe, Kathy (committee member)

Creator Email charlenezerb@gmail.com,zerbinop@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113376974

Unique identifier UC113376974

Identifier etd-Zerbinopou-12387.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-Zerbinopou-12387

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Zerbinopoulos, Charlene

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230918-usctheses-batch-1098 (batch), 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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

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

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu