East Tennessee State University Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University Electronic Theses and Dissertations Student Works 5-2017 Dissertation Experiences of Faculty Members: Individual, Relational and Structural Factors of Success Tanika R. Mitchell East Tennessee State University Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.edu/etd Part of the Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons, Educational Leadership Commons, and the Student Counseling and Personnel Services Commons Recommended Citation Mitchell, Tanika R., "Dissertation Experiences of Faculty Members: Individual, Relational and Structural Factors of Success" (2017). Electronic Theses and Dissertations.edu/etd/3227 This Dissertation - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Works at Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University.
For more information, please contact digilib@etsu. Dissertation Experiences of Faculty Members: Individual, Relational and Structural Factors of Success __________________ A dissertation presented to the faculty of the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis East Tennessee State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership __________________ by Tanika Lankford-Mitchell May 2017 __________________ Dr. Bethany Flora, Chair Dr. Pamela Scott Dr.
Hal Knight Dr. Susan Epps Keywords: Dissertation, Doctoral Attrition, Doctoral Experience, Phenomenological ABSTRACT Dissertation Experiences of Faculty Members: Individual, Relational and Structural Factors of Success by Tanika Lankford-Mitchell This phenomenological research study explored the dissertation experiences of individuals working as faculty members across disciplines at regionally accredited four year universities. Research questions utilized the constructs of social development theory to explore dissertation experiences from an individual, relational and structural perspective. Prior scholars have used social development theory as a framework to explore the individualities of the student, the relationship with faculty advisors and mentors, and the resources provided by the department and institution when evaluating the dissertation process (Liechty, Liao, & Schull, 2009).
A purposeful, criterion sampling strategy and maximum variation sampling were employed to select a wide range of academic disciplines, classified in Biglan’s Augmented Model (Drees, 1982). The constant comparative method was used in data analysis of transcribed interviews with findings organized into the most prevalent themes. The individual experiences of dissertation success included three prevalent themes: career advancement opportunities and the development of extensive research agendas were described as motivators for participants to successfully complete the dissertation. Additionally, family and peer influence and prior knowledge were attributed as individual factors to success.
Five themes were identified regarding the relational factors leading to dissertation success: (1) dissertation chair and committee, (2) cohort associates, (3) family members, (4) technological 2 communication, and (5) guidance, feedback, and preparation. Finally, three themes related to the structural factors leading to dissertation success were identified: (1) financial aid, (2) streamlined processes and (3) institutional resources. Recommendations for future research include studies to better understand faculty experiences with job placement in academia, faculty experiences as a dissertation chair, and faculty views regarding dissertation attrition and retention. 3 DEDICATION My most significant source of inspiration to complete my dissertation came from my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
I also dedicate this work to my parents, sisters, and husband. My parents instilled in me the value of education and displayed a phenomenal work ethic that shaped my behavior immensely. My sisters served as consummate role models and a major source of encouragement throughout my collegiate years. My loving husband was a continuous source of motivation through uncertain times associated with this process.
This dissertation is also dedicated to the numerous role models, teachers, and leaders who have molded me throughout the years. While I received my foundation of education at home, I must also dedicate this work to my African American, female professors with doctoral degrees at Tuskegee University. They served as visual inspirations for me during my undergraduate studies. Because of these ladies, I believed that I could one day earn a terminal degree.
Lastly, I do not remember all of the names of people who encouraged me in my church, job, and neighborhood, but I sincerely dedicate this dissertation to anyone who wished me well in my studies. 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I genuinely thank Dr. Bethany Flora for serving as my committee chair and mentor throughout this process. I extend additional thanks to Dr.
Pamela Scott, Dr. Hal Knight, and Dr. Susan Epps for agreeing to serve on my committee. Although the journey was challenging, I appreciate the time and effort my entire committee put into guiding me through this process.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT .12 Statement of the Problem .16 Purpose of Study .18 Limitations and Delimitations.19 Definitions of Terms .20 Overview of the Study .28 Doctoral Program Format ….28 Traditional Doctoral Program…… .29 Nontraditional Doctoral Program .29 Types of Doctorates…….29 6 Types of Dissertations.31 Manuscript Option Dissertation .35 Factors that Influence Doctoral Completion .43 Barriers to Dissertation Success .48 Skill and Preparation Barriers .51 Social Development Theory .65 Tide Together Mentoring Program .67 Grant Writing Institute .68 PhD Completion Project .68 Mellon-Wisconsin Dissertation Writing .69 Doctoral Community Network (DC) .70 7 The Journal Club….73 Purpose Statement and Research Questions .73 Design of Study……. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF DATA.82 Family and Peer Influence .88 Dissertation Chair and Committee .93 Guidance, Feedback, and Preparation .97 Streamlined Completion Process. DISCUSSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS .101 Discussions and Implications .101 Implications for Doctoral Students .102 Trust the Process .104 Reap the Rewards ………….106 Implications for Faculty Members .109 Implications for Institutions .111 Campus Wide Initiatives .115 Recommendations for Future Research .116 Faculty Experiences as Dissertation Chair .116 Faculty Thoughts on Dissertation .132 Appendix A: Participation Recruitment Email .132 Appendix B: Interview Questions .133 Appendix C: Consent for Voluntary Participation .135 Appendix D: IRB Approval Letter …….140 10 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Types of Doctorates.
Augmented Biglan Classifications ………. Participants’ Demographic Data ………. Matrix of Findings………. Dichotomy of Adjectives Regarding Dissertation.
Favorable Institutional Resources .99 11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION European universities offered the first doctoral degrees in the 1600s (Archbald, 2011; McAdams & Robertson, 2012). American universities incorporated the European model of doctoral studies and began awarding doctorates during the 19th century (West, Gokalp, Peña, Fischer, & Gupton, 2011). Approximately 40,000 doctoral students currently graduate annually in the United States; however many students drop out before completion (Cockrell & Shelley, 2011). The Council of Graduate Schools launched The PhD Completion Project that highlights a 50% attrition rate among students enrolled in doctoral programs in the United States.
Attrition rates reflect elevated levels of attrition among minorities and women while varying attrition rates are reported among doctoral disciplines (Sowell, 2010). The ten year completion rates by ethnicity are as follows: African Americans (47%), Asian Americans (50%), Hispanics Americans (51%), and Whites (55%). The ten year completion rates for different disciplinary areas are as follows: Engineering (64%), Life Sciences (63%), Social Sciences (56%), and Humanities (49%) (Sowell, 2010). Existing research concerning the attrition rates of doctoral students typically focuses on lack of financial assistance, individual variables, or unanticipated life trials.
Limited research focuses on campus initiatives that positively impact the dissertation process, the phase with the highest attrition resulting in students remaining in the All But Dissertation (ABD) phase (Varney, 2010). In order to address the attrition rate associated with the dissertation stage of doctoral studies, continued research is warranted to highlight methods to assist doctoral students with the dissertation process (Gearity & Mertz, 2012; Liechty et al. Because many universities provide limited resources for dissertation support and 12 progression, more research regarding the dynamics of dissertation completion from the perspective of the doctoral graduate is needed (Gearity & Mertz, 2012). The Council of Graduate Schools completion report detailed the need for interventions and strategies to assist with the completion of the doctoral degree (Sowell, 2010).
Interventions to decrease doctoral attrition are essential to assist with the increased labor market demand for knowledge and information based jobs of the 21st century. Doctoral graduates with analytical skills and applied research abilities are highly sought after in the job market. According to current job market statistics, 2.6 million existing and replacement jobs will be available between 2010 and 2020 with 20% requiring the doctoral degree. In response to the need for skilled workers with doctoral degrees, additional methods to assist doctoral candidates with degree completion are warranted (Cross, 2014).
Furthermore, rapid growth of the student populations at universities will benefit from the production of additional qualified faculty members (Bergquist, Robertson, & Gillespie, 2010). Increased retirement of faculty members and heightened requests for graduate level research to assist with societal dilemmas are major reasons to address doctoral attrition. Faculty members are also in high demand to contribute to existing literature regarding the unique challenges of aspiring colleagues enrolled in doctoral programs (Bergquist et al, 2010). The role of faculty members concerning the doctoral process can be described as follows: classroom instructor, dissertation advisor, assistantship supervisor, research chair, and program mentor.
As a result faculty members are often regarded as gateway personnel for the doctoral student’s successful completion of graduate studies. A researcher expresses the need for increased input from faculty pertaining to doctoral completion among various disciplines and different institutions (Gardner, 2010). Faculty members have a responsibility to support and prepare future 13 faculty members in their respective disciplines. Each discipline distinctively legitimates and defines research methods, research questions, the relationship between research and teaching, and work association between scholars (Austin, 2002; Bergquist et al, 2010).
Gardner (2009) describes disciplines as follows: Disciplines are cultural phenomena; they are embodied in collections of like-minded people, each with their own codes of conduct, set of values, and distinctive intellectual tasks. These cultures within disciplines, therefore, greatly influence the faculty and, consequently, the doctoral students within the departments. 387) Faculty members must pay increased attention to assisting students with the methods and norms of scholarly communication and scholarship required for doctoral completion respective to each discipline ((Bergquist et al, 2010; Boote & Beile, 2005). Structural and programmatic completion related to the dissertation process are specific to each discipline category (Gardner, 2010).
Biglan (1973) developed one of the most prevalent academic disciplinary classification systems to date. Biglan (1973) analyzed faculty member’s perspectives regarding course of study among various disciplines, and he developed the following dimensions: hard-pure, hard-applied, soft-pure, and soft-applied disciplines. “The dimensions involve the degree to which a paradigm exists in the field, the degree of concern with application of the disciplinary knowledge, and whether or not the discipline is concerned with life systems” (Mukhtar, 2012, p. Faculty members within the same department are typically homogenous as it relates to resemblances in disciplinary practices (Mukhtar, 2012).
Biglan (1973) analyzed faculty members’ perceptions on discipline specific subject matter in order to develop his classification system of academic 14 disciplines. Biglan’s (1973) conceived the terminology regarding distinction between fields of study. Mukhtar (2012) delineates hard versus soft and applied versus pure disciplines as follows: Hard disciplines are those in which there is a high degree of paradigmatic consensus: for example chemistry, where the numbers of elements and stable chemical processes, as well as methods of investigating their properties, are commonly agreed. Soft disciplines are those whose paradigms are more nebulous; for example philosophy, where the foundations of philosophical systems are multiple.
Pure fields are those in which there is little concern for practical application. For example, in English literature, a pure discipline that has little applied focus, is distinguished from engineering, an applied one, which is precisely about practical application of scientific concepts. 30) Drees (1982) described the nonlife versus life dichotomy as less influential when compared to soft versus hard and applied versus pure dichotomies. Drees (1982) further described that the life versus nonlife dichotomy is based solely on the separation of nonlife and life systems.
The Biglan model is an empirically validated measure to scrutinize the differences among doctoral disciplines (Creswell & Bean, 1981).
