Advising Doctoral Students in Education Programs

Data Collection

We reviewed the web sites of the 12 sample institutions to identify the documents for the study. We aimed to analyze every institutional document available on the Internet that provided information about doctoral advising in the two education programs of interest. We chose not to contact institutions for additional information, because we wanted to base our study only on documents readily accessible to all graduate students and their faculty advisors. We looked only at documents created by either faculty members or administrators at the sample universities and excluded resources referenced on or linked to web sites created by outside entities (e.g., guides about mentoring that were created by other educational organizations).

The specific documents that we collected from within the selected programs included departmental bylaws or other departmental documents outlining faculty or graduate student expectations (n = 14); college-level graduate student handbooks (n = 6); university-level graduate faculty handbooks (n = 4); and university-level graduate student handbooks (n = 10). The final data set consisted of 52 single-spaced, printed pages of text referencing the topic of interest drawn from 1,600 pages of handbooks and bylaws accessed from 61 different web sites. From the 52 pages of text, we analyzed 451 individual statements (i.e., a couple of sentences or one short paragraph focused on one relevant topic of interest).

Data Analysis

In the first step of the analysis process, we independently reviewed the data and recorded observations about it. After discussing the observations, we followed Weber's (1990) guidance for examining qualitative content by using an inductive analysis of the data. We developed an initial scheme with the following codes: selection of faculty advisor, process of changing advisors, written expectations of doctoral students, written expectations of academic advisors, and faculty accountability for advising.

After we met as a group to discuss the first round of coding, we realized that we needed to look more deeply into the data. To that end, we utilized the literature related to the interpersonal and instructional components of doctoral advising (e.g., Schlosser et al., 2003) to create a second coding scheme for analyzing the data. That second coding scheme included eight individual codes based on concepts related to either interpersonal or instructional components of advising. For instance, the phrase faculty responsibility for regular meetings with students describes one of the codes related to the interpersonal components of advising.

After the second round of data analysis, we looked for themes that emerged from an overall analysis of the coded data. During this process, we employed several techniques. First, we used the constant comparative method (as per Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to compare each new code with the text assigned to it. We also used a word-based technique to identify emergent themes (as per D'Andrade, 1995) by analyzing salient word repetitions (e.g., mentor and advisor). In the final stages of identifying emergent themes, we searched for information that we expected to find in the data but seemed to be missing from it. According to Ryan and Bernard (2003), much can be learned from a text, including assumptions of the writers, by the information not included in the write-up. With the use of the above techniques, we identified five overarching themes from the analysis.

Trustworthiness

We used several important strategies to increase the trustworthiness of this study. First, we analyzed the data until we reached the point at which no new themes emerged; Strauss and Corbin (1990) referred to this as “theoretical saturation” (p. 188). By setting the stopping point, we were less likely “to move beyond the face value of the content in the narrative,” and thus engage in “premature closure” (Wilson & Hutchinson, 1990, p. 123).

Second, we enhanced the credibility of the study by using analyst triangulation, which involves having two or more people independently analyze the same qualitative data and compare their findings (Patton, 2002). With more than one analyst on the research team, we gained multiple perspectives and opportunities to challenge individual biases. We also increased trustworthiness of the study by establishing an audit trail; that is, we documented all research decisions and activities throughout the course of the project (as per Whitt, 1991).

Constraints in Selecting and Changing Advisors

One theme that emerged from the study focuses on the opportunity (or lack thereof) for doctoral students to select their own advisor and to change advisors. Documents from the majority of institutions (9 of 12) reflect a process by which advisors are assigned to doctoral students based upon student matriculation into selected education programs. This process is exemplified in the following statement in the Doctoral Degree K-12 Educational Administration Student/Faculty Handbook at Michigan State University: “Upon admission to the doctoral program, students are assigned an initial faculty advisor” (2013, p. 8). Although the documents seem to suggest that none of the sample institutions offer a process by which new doctoral students select their advisor upon matriculation, documents from three of the institutions suggest that advisors are either assigned or selected. For instance, the Standards & Procedures for Graduate Study at UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles [UCLA], 2015) document contains the following information:

At matriculation, a graduate student usually selects, or is assigned, a faculty adviser who assists the student in program planning and completing degree requirements. Sometimes this role is temporarily assumed by a faculty adviser assigned to the program as a whole. When a student's master's or doctoral committee is established, the chair of the committee assumes the adviser's role. (p. 4)

Most of the documents in the study did, however, contain language about a doctoral student's option to change advisors during the course of his or her graduate program. Interestingly, such statements often featured cautionary language, such as the following statement in the University of Michigan (2015b) How to Get the Mentoring You Want: A Guide for Graduate Students document: “Seek the advice of a trusted faculty member and other professional staff to determine whether it is in fact desirable to change your advisor” (p. 17). Moreover, in most of the documents, the process outlined for changing advisors was either not mentioned or explained in very vague language. For instance, according to the Graduate School Bulletin from Marquette University (2013), “Students who want to change advisers should check with their department for additional information and instructions” (p. 30). The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (2015a) College of Education Graduate Handbook explains, “A change of advisers is handled within the student's department” (¶2). The cautionary and vague terms in these documents communicate the message that doctoral students must seriously consider the decision to change advisors and need to be self-directed in determining the process.

The Assumed Reason for Changing Advisors

Another theme in the study highlights an assumption made about the reason doctoral students might desire a change of advisors. Although they reflected existing processes for doctoral students to change advisors, documents from the institutions in this study communicated primarily one valid reason for doing so: incongruence of research interests. For instance, the University of Michigan (2015a) Doctor of Philosophy in Higher Education With a Concentration in Public Policy in Postsecondary Education Requirements contained the following statement:

As a student's interests are honed with gained knowledge and experience, a change of advisor may be in the student's best academic interest. Faculty members work closely together in an annual academic review of student progress to ensure each student's needs are being met and that all students are achieving progress toward degree. (¶2)

Similarly, the UCLA (1993) Policies and Recommendations to Improve Time-to-Degree in UCLA's Graduate Degree Programs contains the following statement:

Throughout his or her entire graduate program, every graduate student shall have a faculty adviser (or faculty advisory committee) whose interests are as similar as possible to those of the student. . . . As the student's interests develop, he or she must be able to change advisers easily. (pp. 1-2)

Interestingly, none of the documents found in our study communicate the possibility that interpersonal conflicts unrelated to research interests might motivate doctoral students to change advisors. Although the following statement from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (2015c) Graduate Student Appeals recognizes the possibility of interpersonal conflicts between doctoral students and faculty other than their advisors, it implies that the relationships between doctoral students and their advisors are positive:

Students who have a grievance should use informal resolution before initiating a formal grievance. Students in Education are encouraged to discuss the issue with the faculty or staff member with whom the problem has arisen. If a satisfactory solution is not forthcoming, the student should discuss the issue with his or her adviser. (¶8)

Although a grievance process exists at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the potential reasons for a grievance are not described. Furthermore, and most relevant to this study, the assumption inherent in the featured written statement suggests that such a grievance may relate to a faculty member other than the student's advisor. The students are not given any guidance about ways to resolve conflicts with their own advisors.

Instruction Valued Over Relationship

An additional theme that emerged from the data reveals a stronger emphasis on the instructional components of advising than on the interpersonal aspects of advising (Schlosser et al., 2013). To be specific, we found 247 statements about the instructional components of advising, but of the 21 statements of interpersonal components of advising, 14 came from one institution (University of Michigan).

An example of a statement focused on the instructional components of academic advising can be found in The Ohio State University (2010) School of Educational Policy and Leadership Graduate Studies Handbook:

If the student and the student's advisor determine that an alternate multicultural or foundation course would better meet the needs of the student's program, a petition may be submitted to the Graduate Studies Committee to allow an alternate course on the plan of study. The petition should include a letter from the student explaining the choice of an alternate course and a letter of support from the student's advisor explaining how that course meets the criteria for multicultural courses as set forth by the Graduate Studies Committee, and a copy of the course syllabus. (p. 32)

Another instructional component, the implementation of the preliminary examination, is discussed in a statement found within the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (2015b) Graduate College Handbook:

The chair of the preliminary examination committee must be a member of the Graduate Faculty. The committee chair is responsible for convening the committee, conducting the examination, and submitting the Preliminary Exam Result form to the unit in which the student is enrolled and to the Graduate College. (¶18)

In contrast, an example of such a statement focused on an interpersonal component of advising is as follows: “Graduate students and faculty members share the responsibility for maintaining professional relationships based on mutual trust and civility” (Michigan State University, 2014, p. 4). The Pennsylvania State University (2014) University Bulletin provides another example: “Continuing communication among the student, the committee chair, the dissertation/performance adviser, and the members of the committee is strongly recommended, to preclude misunderstandings and to develop a collegial relationship between the candidate and the committee” (¶33). In spite of the aforementioned examples, a paucity of statements characterized our findings on the interpersonal components of advising in the documents reviewed for this study.

Confusion Between Advising and Mentoring

Another theme that emerged from the data reflects the inconsistency with which key terminology was used throughout the documents. In particular, the wording did not effectively distinguish between advising or advisor and mentoring or mentor. Both forms of each term were used in various places within the documents but without clear differentiation; in some cases, both terms appeared in the same sentence:

All requests for conditional admission of an applicant will be forwarded to the Graduate Studies Committee with letters of support from the prospective advisor and the section chair. . . . The letters should also indicate that there is significant support within the section for the student's admission and that the assigned faculty advisor is willing to mentor the student over and above normal advising responsibilities. (Ohio State University, 2010, p. 8)

Similarly, the following statement can be found in the UCLA Graduate Student Academic Rights and Responsibilities (2003) document: “We will communicate regularly with faculty mentors and advisers, especially in matters related to research and progress within the graduate program” (p. 2).

In other cases, such as in the North Carolina State University (2015) Department of Leadership, Policy and Adult and Higher Education Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Standards and Procedures document, the term mentoring seems to describe the instructional components of advising:

Teaching and mentoring graduate students refers to developing innovative instructional materials or new courses, supporting and directing graduate students to successful completion of advanced degrees serving as the chair or member on thesis or dissertation committees, and working collaboratively with graduate students on research, teaching, or community-based projects. (¶10)

The term advisor (adviser) was used as a noun 219 times in the documents, and the term mentor was used as a noun 14 times. Moreover, the terms advise or advising used as a verb appeared 39 times. The verbs mentor or mentoring appeared 8 times within the documents from 9 of the institutions, but they appeared 53 times within the documents for the following institutions: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Florida State University, University of Michigan.

More Accountability for Students Than for Faculty Advisors

A different theme that emerged in this study focuses on the issue of accountability in doctoral advising. The documents we analyzed emphasized the importance of holding doctoral students accountable for making satisfactory progress toward their degrees, but they provide minimal accountability measures for specific faculty attitudes and behaviors that reflect effective advising as described in the literature (e.g., Barnes, Williams, & Archer, 2010).

A number of the institutional documents contain information for both advisors and doctoral students about expectations for students' continued progress toward their degrees. For instance, the University of Michigan (2015c) Rackham Graduate School Quick Tips for Promising Practices: Annual Review document contains the following statement: “Review student progress one time per year. Annually assess student progress, set goals and identify milestones. Require students to prepare progress reports in advance” (¶1-3). We found another example on the University of Georgia Department of Lifelong Education, Administration, and Policy (2015) web site:

Department of Lifelong Education, Administration, and Policy graduate students routinely meet with their major professor(s) or other assigned advisors, including at least once per semester to discuss progress toward their degrees and their registration needs for the following semester. All graduate students must meet standards for satisfactory work and timely progress toward a degree, as specified in individual degree and program information by the department and by the Graduate School.

The University of Missouri (2016) Graduate Studies Annual Review of Graduate Student Progress contains this statement: “The Graduate School requires all master's, education specialist and doctoral students to submit an annual report of academic progress” (¶1).

Despite the institutional documents that featured statements about accountability for doctoral students' progress toward degree completion, few mentioned the importance of the following with or for advisees: regular meetings with advisees (more than once a semester); professional development, mentoring, or career guidance; development of a positive relationship; healthy conflict resolution; or program guidance (Schlosser et al., 2003). The performance indicators for advisors found within departmental bylaws did not explain the advising behaviors expected of the faculty:

Performance Indicators for Promotion from Assistant to Associate: A record of effective and sustained advisement of undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral students, and student organizations, as appropriate to one's department, position and standing. (University of Missouri, 2013, p. 5)

Documents describing reviews of faculty advising tend to reveal reactive rather than proactive practice, and they advance the viewpoint that audits are deemed necessary only at the discretion of program leadership:

The head of a graduate program may also initiate a review at any appropriate time. Reviews may be appropriate when there are allegations against a graduate faculty member of incompetence or negligence with respect to graduate faculty duties, including the teaching, supervising, and mentoring of graduate students. (Purdue University, 2011, p. 4)

More often than not, expectations related to faculty advising of doctoral students are stated in vague terms without any clear measurable outcomes. For instance, the Policies and Recommendations to Improve Time-to-Degree in UCLA's Graduate Degree Programs explains:

All those involved in personnel actions should look favorably on evidence that a faculty member has been engaged and effective as an adviser and mentor of graduate students and/or as a provider of apprenticeship opportunities. Such faculty work should contribute to students' timely acquisition of the knowledge and skills valued in their degree program and is worthy of reward. (UCLA, 1993, pp. 3-4)

As a result of broad generalized guidance, few external incentives are offered as motivators for faculty members to engage in behaviors characteristic of effective advising (Barnes et al., 2010).