DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR THE STUDY OF HIGHER
EDUCATION DISSERTATION OF THE YEAR AWARD WINNING
DISSERTATIONS AND RECIPIENTS, 1979 – 2004
Monica S. Powell, A.B., M.A.
Dissertation Prepared for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS
December 2006
APPROVED:
Ron W. Newsom, Major Professor
John S. Gossett, Minor Professor
Patsy Fulton-Calkins, Committee Member
Jan Holden, Interim Chair of the Department of
Counseling, Development, and Higher
Education
M. Jean Keller, Dean of the College of Education
Sandra L. Terrell, Dean of the Robert B. Toulouse
School of Graduate Studies
UMI Number: 3254218
UMI Microform 3254218
Copyright 2007 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
Powell, Monica S. Descriptive Analysis of the Association for the Study of Higher
Education Dissertation of the Year Award Winning Dissertation and Recipients, 1979 – 2004.
Doctor of Philosophy (Higher Education), December 2006, 173 pp., 16 tables, 116 references.
This mixed-methodology study examined a set of award winning dissertations to
determine what factors may have led to their receiving recognition by the Association for the
Study of Higher Education (ASHE). The study addressed seven specific research questions
which were answered via two different research designs: 1) a survey administered to the 27
recipients of the dissertation award, and 2) through the qualitative assessment of a sample of the
winning dissertations.
The quantitative survey was distributed to recipients of the Association for the Study of
Higher Education Dissertation of the Year award from 1979 through 2004. The survey collected
specific information on the personal attributes and characteristics of the award recipients,
descriptive information about the award winning dissertations, information concerning the
quality of the winner’s doctoral experiences, the quality of their relationship with their
dissertations advisors and the progression of their careers after winning the award. The
qualitative assessment involved applying a set of evaluative questions provided by Gall, Gall and
Borg to describe a sample of the award winning documents.
The results indicated that recipients of the ASHE award were not representative of
education doctoral students as indicated by 2004 data. The results of the study also indicated
that, as a group, these dissertations winners were full-time doctoral students, likely recipients of
some form of financial assistance (assistantship and fellowships) and were able to complete their
dissertations and degrees in substantially less time than typical education doctoral students. The
findings also suggest that Gall, Gall and Borg’s procedure for evaluating educational research
can be used to assess doctoral dissertations.
Copyright 2006
by
Monica S. Powell
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Completing a doctorate degree is one of the most challenging endeavors in one’s lifetime.
For me, this journey would not have reached fruition without the help of many wonderful people.
First, I would like to thank the faculty who assisted me throughout the dissertation process. My
committee, led by Dr. Ron Newsom provided me with tremendous guidance, patience and
feedback. Dr. Newsom’s commitment to mentoring new scholars is unrivaled and the completion
of this degree and dissertation would not have occurred without his gracious commitment of time
and energy. My minor professor, Dr. John Gossett was instrumental in encouraging my
professorial development and he inspired me with every lecture, assignment and discussion. Dr.
Fulton-Calkins, the final member of my committee, supplied me personal resolve and conviction
that helped me to complete this dissertation. A special thanks to Dr. Kyle Roberts, whose
patience and incredible teaching ability would have left me void of any statistical knowledge.
I would also like to thank all of my professional colleagues and friends that encouraged
and supported my efforts. My classmates at the University of North Texas (especially Heather
McGowan Viles, Adrienne Triennes, Lillian Niwagaba and Amir Moosavi), my dear friends
Laura Brumley and John Criswell, and my parents who were all a constant source of
encouragement and support. I would also like to extend a very special thank you to Vicki
Cartwright and Gena Taylor for their unending assistance with the construction of this document.
As is the case for all doctoral students, my family members have made tremendous
sacrifices for the completion of this degree. My daughters were a constant source of inspiration
and, my son cheered me every step of the way. My husband, Gary’s support is unequaled. I am
eternally grateful for his love, devotion and sincere support.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.........................................................................................................iii
LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................................... vi
Chapter
1.
BACKGROUND .................................................................................................. 1
Overview
Evolution of the Doctorate Degree
Problem of the Study
Problem Statement
Significance of the Study
Purpose of the Study
Research Questions
2.
SYNTHESIS OF RELATED LITERATURE .................................................... 11
Introduction
Nature of the Education Doctorate
Dissertation Completion and Composition
Assessment and Evaluation of Scholarship
Literature Review Conclusion and Rationale for Dissertation
3.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY........................................................................ 56
Purpose of the Study
Limitations
Delimitations
Procedures for Data Collection
Study Instruments
Study Population
Sampling Method
Procedures for Data Analysis
Reporting the Data
iv
4.
RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH ...................................................................... 67
Introduction
Research Question 1
Research Question 2
Research Question 3
Research Question 4
Research Question 5
Research Question 6
Research Question 7
5.
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION.................................................................... 124
Introduction
Discussion of Research Question 1
Discussion of Research Question 2
Discussion of Research Question 3
Discussion of Research Questions 4 and 5
Discussion of Research Question 6
Discussion of Research Question 7
Additional Conclusions
Recommendations for Further Research
Appendices
A.
RECIPIENT QUESTIONNAIRE..................................................................... 139
B.
DISSERTATION QUESTIONNAIRE............................................................. 150
C.
RECIPIENT COVER LETTER TO ACCOMPANY SURVEY...................... 154
D.
ASHE DISSERTATION AWARD WINNERS ............................................... 156
E.
ASHE DISSERTATION WORKSHEET......................................................... 160
F.
ASHE DISSERTATION CRITERIA ............................................................... 163
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 166
v
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1.
Gender by Ethnicity Crosstabulation .............................................................................. 68
2.
Undergraduate Field of Study......................................................................................... 70
3.
Master’s Degree Type..................................................................................................... 71
4.
Master’s Level Institutions ............................................................................................. 72
5.
Master’s Degree Area of Study....................................................................................... 73
6.
Doctoral Degree Institutions ........................................................................................... 74
7.
Doctoral Degree Labels .................................................................................................. 75
8.
Age Dissertation Completed ........................................................................................... 76
9.
Doctoral Student Status................................................................................................... 76
10.
Last Title in Academia.................................................................................................... 81
11.
Journal Articles Published .............................................................................................. 82
12.
Conference Presentations................................................................................................ 83
13.
Dissertation Length......................................................................................................... 84
14.
Dissertation Length Crosstabulation with Research Method.......................................... 84
15.
Time to Complete Dissertation ....................................................................................... 86
16.
Time to Complete Doctoral Program.............................................................................. 86
vi
CHAPTER 1
BACKGROUND
Overview
This study examined the written doctoral dissertation, a requirement for completion of a
doctoral degree in America. For accredited institutions, doctoral students are required to take
courses, pass written and oral qualifying exams and demonstrate their ability to generate new
knowledge through the completion of a dissertation. The dissertation is the apex of the doctoral
degree process and little is known about why some students succeed in producing a quality
dissertation while others fail to complete the task (Golde, 2005). This study is devoted to
1.
Understanding and describing a specific set of award-winning dissertations and their authors
2.
Understanding what factors contributed to the completion and development of a prized and
publicly-acclaimed dissertation
3.
Understanding the post-doctoral career path for a specific set of dissertation award winners
4.
Understanding what constitutes a high-quality dissertation
Prior to developing a position on the aforementioned issues, it is important to begin this
investigative process by exploring and understanding the following:
• The development and purpose of the American dissertation as a requirement for the doctoral
degree
• Previous research revealing the nature of the education doctorate and factors affecting
doctoral attrition
• Previous studies devoted to understanding the preparation and composition of dissertations
• The evaluation of dissertations and academic scholarship
This investigative process will provide a framework for describing and evaluating the “Bobby
Wright Dissertation of the Year” award winners by the Association for the Study of Higher
Education (ASHE) from 1979 through 2004.
1
Evolution of the Doctorate Degree
The original concept for the American doctoral degree and dissertation was borrowed
from Germany (Malone, 1981, p. 82) where “the idea of research and the extension of the
boundaries of knowledge prevailed in the minds of German scholars and instructors” (Malone,
1981, p. 83). Prior to 1861, Americans seeking a doctoral degree went to Germany to receive
advanced instruction. The first American doctorate or doctor of philosophy (PhD) degree was
awarded by Yale University to James Morris Whiton, “whose dissertation in Latin on the
proverb ‘Brevis Vita, Ars Longa’ was accepted in 1861. Handwritten, it was six pages long”
(ProQuest Website, 2006). The Latin title translated means Life is Short, Art is Long. At the
time that Whiton graduated from Yale, the PhD program required “one year of study on campus,
an examination, and a dissertation based on original research” (ProQuest Website, 2006).
Malone argues that the PhD degree was designed to differ from the traditional undergraduate
training of the 1800s and was “perceived to be a research degree” and the dissertation was to be
the focal point of the entire degree program.
The establishment of the doctoral degree was, somewhat a reaction to what Frederic
Rudolph described as the “university movement” which brought forth an opportunity for higher
education institutions to evolve into broader, more diverse institutions offering different types of
curricular programs and different levels of academic accomplishment. “In this day of
unparalleled activity in college life, the institution which is not steadily advancing is certainly
falling behind” (Rudolph, 1990, p. 329) and Rudolph suggests that higher education in America
experienced tremendous expansion as it devoted itself to new and expanding student markets.
The most important expansion was the creation of the doctorate of philosophy degree. By the
end of the 20th century, a dozen or so American institutions were offering PhD degrees. The first
PhD in education was awarded in 1893 by Teachers College at Columbia University, and the
2
first EdD (doctor of education) degree was awarded by Harvard University in 1920 (Nelson &
Coorough, 1994, p. 158).
Even though the American doctorate degree was widely influenced by the German
model, the American degree took on a shape of it own deriving meaning from academics who
debated the attributes and rewards of pursuing a PhD. The establishment of the PhD replaced
what Frederick Rudolph called the old-time professor. “. . . the PhD - - the label of academic
respectability, the mark of professional competence, the assurance of a certain standard sameness
of training, experience, and exposure to the ideals, the rules, the habits of scientific Germanic
scholarship” (Rudolph, 1990, p. 395).
The written doctoral dissertation is defined by some to be an academic rite of passage or
a scholarly hurdle to demonstrate one’s ability to contribute scholastically to a profession. Some
argue that the only real purpose of the dissertation is to maintain high standards for the doctoral
degree seekers and to give faculty the assurance that students are academically respectable
(Rudolph, 1990, p. 395). The requirement for students to successfully complete a dissertation is
the academy’s way of allowing only the most tenacious and highly committed to reach their final
destination. One professor of that era stated it this way, “scattered facts are to be brought
together, conflicting evidence is to be sifted down to a residuum of truth, and results are to be
reported in the seminary and freshly combined in a scholarly monograph, which shall be a real
contribution to science” (Storr, 1973, p. 51). The end contribution would become known as the
doctoral dissertation and the finished product was destined to be shared.
The printed dissertation was not a by-product of education, to justify a special reward if
the merits of a particular work warranted its being put into type. To publish was the
culmination of the whole process for which the PhD stood: The truth must not only be
discovered but also be made known. (Storr, 1973, p. 52)
3
With the mandate to publish dissertations, it was not long before the more affluent universities
added fully functional university presses. These presses were “designed to keep the wheels of
research well oiled. An office at Johns Hopkins had been charged with publishing
responsibilities as early as 1878, but with the requirement adopted in 1888 that all doctoral
dissertations be published, the publication function of the university was notably increased”
(Rudolph, 1990, p. 407).
As published dissertations proliferated, debate began as early as 1908 about how to
measure the quality of a dissertation. At an AAU meeting, one Princeton professor stated
It [doctoral dissertation] too often exhibits merely the patiently wrought results of a large
quantity of mediocre work… It is too often written under the spur of seeking to find
something original. This is apt to result in finding something either unimportant or
fictitious. . . .Too many theses exhibit merely or mainly power to arrange, classify, and
tabulate; too few dissertations show the power to discover, appropriate, and use only
what is valuable, and to develop a given subject analytically and constructively. . . . . In
conclusion, I feel that the question of the doctor’s dissertation is a question of quality –
the quality of a man’s general liberal education – the quality of his subsequent graduate
work, and above all his own personal quality as a man of bright, deep, sensible, definite
intellectual character. (Storr, 1973, p. 55)
The quality of a dissertation is still debated 145 years after the Princeton professor
expressed his concerns. What are the qualities of a good dissertation? What constitutes original
research? How do academics measure the results of research done by doctoral students today?
These queries are the focus of this research study; the questions that shape the need for inquiry
into what describe and define an award winning dissertation in higher education.
The Association of American Universities defines a PhD education as “a research degree,
signifying that the recipient has acquired the capacity to make independent contributions to
knowledge through original research and scholarship” (AAU, 1998, p. 9). Twenty-first century
PhD programs are considered rigorous, challenging and lengthy. “The initial years of a PhD
program typically involve advanced coursework, during which students begin to identify their
4
areas of particular interest. Coursework gives way to more apprenticeship activities in research
and teaching, working with one or more faculty mentors” (AAU, 1998, p. 9). The coursework
and overall experience should produce PhDs that can demonstrate a specific set of competencies
including:
• Disciplinary knowledge – what is known, plus creative and adventurous ways of
discovering new knowledge, the foundation of the PhD
• Commitment to an informed career choice based on exposure to a broad array of
opportunities and paths
• Teaching competency, broadly considered – in one-to-one interactions in the
classroom; preparedness to be a leader, a faculty member, a project manager, a
motivator and an evaluator of others’ learning in the government, nonprofit, corporate,
or academic sectors
• Understanding the diversity of present and future students and present and future
workforces
• Understanding of the mentoring process necessary to provide leadership for future
generations in either academia or the workplace
• Ability and preparedness to connect one’s work to that of others within and across
disciplines, within and across institutions, and within and across private and public
sectors outside the university
• Global perspective – the importance of doctoral work in relation to a global economy,
sensitivity to cultural differences
• Ability to see oneself as a scholar-citizen who will connect his or her expertise to the
needs of society
• Ability to communicate and work in teams and explain work to public audiences and
to those who set policies
• Understanding of ethical conduct as researchers, teachers, and professionals, including
issues of intellectual property. (Nyquist, 2002, p. 19)
5
Problem of the Study
The Council of Graduate Schools reports that over 1.5 million people were enrolled in
graduate programs in America in 2004 with 44,000 designated as doctoral students. Of the 1.5
million, nearly 300,000 were enrolled in graduate programs in education with 74% female and
26% male. Sixty-one percent of the graduate students in education were listed as part-time
students. Both the fields of education and business enrolled the greatest numbers of graduate
students in America. Of the five ethnic groups (African American, American Indian, Asian,
Hispanic/Latino and Caucasian), the fields of education and business reflect the greatest
concentrations of minority students.
Seventy-one percent of the total submitted applications for enrollment in education
graduate programs in 2003-2004 were accepted; by far the highest number of accepted
applications, across ten disciplines. The next largest number of accepted applications was in the
field of public administration with 63%. The Council of Graduate Schools also reported that
5,923 doctoral degrees in education that were awarded in 2004, 34% were awarded to men and
69% awarded to women. The 5,923 doctoral education graduates represent 14% of the total
doctorates awarded in American in 2004. From 1986 to 2004, graduate enrollment in graduate
programs in education has increased 2%. Enrollment by ethnic groups has increased in a similar
fashion to other graduate disciplines, noting that enrollment by Caucasians represents the
smallest increase for all graduate programs (Brown, 2005).
The Council of Graduate Schools reported that nearly 6000 students were enrolled in
doctoral education programs in 2004. The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that of the
total number of students who enroll in doctoral study, between 40-50% do not complete the
degree (Smallwood, 2004) and often cease work on the PhD after completing the coursework
and prior to completing the required dissertation (Leatherman, 2000, p. A-18). Therefore, one
6
can assume that only half of 6,000 enrolled in 2004 will complete the requirement for the
doctoral degree in education.
Given that a substantial number of students withdraw from their doctoral program at the
time when only the dissertation remains, suggests that students are frustrated, intimidated and
disabled by their final research assignment. Research studies detailed in the next chapter expose
and describe numerous factors that interfere with the completion of the dissertation and doctoral
degree. These factors have been shown to positively and negatively impact a student’s ability to
complete the process and earn the degree.
The literature review chapter also demonstrates that academics have yet to produce a
standard instrument or process for evaluating dissertations. Currently the quality is determined
through a subjective process that involves the use of professional judgment (expertise-based)
criteria. Therefore judgment of dissertations is currently left to faculty committees who approve
dissertations and to academic associations that select single dissertations as annual award
winners.
The primary association within the field of higher education that has assumed the
responsibility for naming the Dissertation of the Year is the Association for the Study of Higher
Education (ASHE). ASHE’s membership list contains the names of leading higher education
academics and practitioners that represent hundreds of universities and colleges in America. In
the late 1970s, ASHE instituted a Dissertation of the Year Award that was later named the
Bobby Wright Dissertation of the Year Award. Each year, ASHE calls for nominations for the
Dissertation of the Year award from within their association membership. Nominations are
made by regular members as well as members of the association’s dissertation committee. Once
nominations have been received, the dissertation committee completes a dissertation worksheet
7
(Appendix E) for each nominated document. The committee meets to discuss the nominations
and to develop a finalist list containing only a few dissertations. The dissertations are read in full
by the committee and on some occasions, authors are invited to meet with the committee. The
award winning dissertation is then selected by the committee and presented at the annual
conference each fall. On a few occasions, two award winners have been named for the same
year.
Problem Statement
Opinions diverge as to what constitutes a quality dissertation and what impacts a doctoral
student’s ability to complete and produce an award winning dissertation. Recognizing and
understanding what factors contributed to the development of an acclaimed set of dissertations
could potentially: (1) enlighten doctoral students as they move through the dissertation
completion process, and (2) help faculty to create productive academic environments that could
reduce attrition rates and improve the overall quality of doctoral dissertations in higher
education. As a result of identifying this particular problem, to what extent is it possible for
scholars to identify quality dissertations? Using dissertations recognized as award winners by
the Association for the Study of Higher Education, this first phase of the study will
1.
Produce descriptive data about the ASHE award-winning dissertations
2.
Produce descriptive data concerning both the demographic attributes and the doctoral
experiences of the award-winning authors and
3.
Descriptive data revealing the career path and scholarly contributions of the award-winning
authors
The second part of this study will utilize a series of questions by Gall, Gall and Borg
(2003) to describe a sample of the winning dissertations. This qualitative process will focus on
dissertations that have been determined to use either a quantitative or qualitative research
methodology.
8
Significance of the Study
As demonstrated by the literature review in chapter two, doctoral attrition is a significant
problem for universities and colleges, and the dissertation completion process appears to be a
significant stumbling block for many students. The result of studying winning dissertations may
help faculty to direct dissertations more effectively. For doctoral students, demystifying and
describing a quality dissertation can help to eliminate and reduce frustration associated with the
arduous, lengthy and critically important academic requirement for receiving the doctoral degree.
No one knows for sure how many doctoral students withdraw during the dissertation
process, but it can be safely assumed many who withdraw do so because they are overwhelmed
by the experience. To define what constitutes a quality dissertation should have a measurable
and positive influence on dissertation completion rates. The end result of this analysis should
enlighten faculty who teach research methods courses, faculty who direct dissertations, faculty
who advise doctoral students and doctoral students themselves.
Purpose of the Study
This study will serve numerous purposes including the following:
1.
To describe more succinctly the personal and demographic attributes of dissertation authors
that were selected to receive the ASHE Bobby Wright Dissertation of the Year Award from
1979 through 2004
2.
To describe what factors recipients said positively and negatively influenced the completion
of their winning dissertation
3.
To describe what factors recipients said positively and negatively influenced their doctoral
experience
4.
To describe the career progression of recipients of the ASHE Bobby Wright Dissertation of
the Year Award from 1979 through 2004
5.
To describe the scholarly contributions of recipients of the ASHE Bobby Wright
Dissertation of the Year Award from 1979 – 2004
6.
To determine what factors describe the award winning dissertations
9
7.
To describe a sample of the award winning dissertations using Gall, Gall and Borg’s (2003)
criteria for evaluating educational research
Research Questions
Seven questions guided the study and focused on both the dissertation recipients and the
winning dissertations. The first six questions were directed toward the recipients of the ASHE
dissertation award with the final question focused on the quality of a sample of the award
winning dissertations.
1.
What attributes and demographic factors describe past winners of the ASHE Dissertation of
the Year from 1979 through 2004?
2.
What factors had the greatest positive or negative impact on the dissertation completion
process for the ASHE Dissertation of the Year recipients?
3.
What factors had the greatest positive or negative impact on the quality of the doctoral
experiences for winners of the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE)
dissertation award?
4.
What factors describe the career progression of past winners of the ASHE Dissertation of
the Year Award?
5.
What scholarly contributions have past winners of the ASHE Dissertation of the Year
Award made to the study of higher education?
6.
What factors describe dissertations that were chosen as Dissertation of the Year by ASHE
from 1979 through 2004?
7.
Using Gall, Gall and Borg’s (2003) criteria for evaluating educational research, how would
a researcher describe a sample of the ASHE award winning dissertations?
10
CHAPTER 2
SYNTHESIS OF RELATED LITERATURE
Introduction
The doctoral dissertation is the final and most compelling requirement for completion of
the American doctoral degree. “In theory, the graduates of doctoral programs are responsible for
the thinking and the research that underlie the philosophies and theories of education, the
foundations for the policies, structures, and programs of education” (D’Andrea, 2002, p. 42).
This study examined a set of acclaimed dissertations and their authors to determine which factors
contributed to their receiving recognition by the Association for the Study of Higher Education
(ASHE). Prior to studying the phenonmena proposed by this dissertation, is was necessary to
review the following categories of prior research to provide the proper framework and rationale
for the overall study:
1.
Studies focused on the nature of the education doctorate
2.
Studies related to factors that impact doctoral attrition and persistence rates
3.
Studies exposing factors associated with the composition and completion of a doctoral
dissertation
4.
Studies describing how academic scholarship is assessed and evaluated
Nature of the Education Doctorate
Colleges of education continue to play a critical role in development of higher education
in America. In 2002, colleges of education or schools of education awarded the largest number
of masters and doctoral degrees and ranked third in conferring undergraduate degrees (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2002). Nearly 6000 doctoral degrees were awarded in 2004 by
250 colleges of education (out of 3500 institutions of higher education (Brown, 2005). Colleges
of education offer a wide variety of doctoral specializations within the field including
administrative leadership, educational leadership, educational policy, educational psychology,
11
elementary and secondary education, higher education administration, vocational and technical
education and community college leadership.
Doctoral students in education select one of two tracks, track one for scholarly
preparation (doctor of Philosophy or PhD) and track two for practitioners (doctor of Education or
EdD). The Rackham Graduate School at the University of Michigan describes their PhD as a
degree where the “emphasis is primarily on research requiring intensive research training and
specialization” (University of Michigan Website, 2006). Vanderbilt University Peabody College
of Education describes their EdD program as one that “enables practicing professionals to gain a
greater understanding of human learning; educational institutions; interaction of the larger
society with education, financial and governmental arrangements; and means by which research
can be conducted and successfully applied” (Vanderbilt Website, 2006).
The PhD and EdD doctoral degrees share numerous similarities. They both require
coursework, qualifying exams and dissertations. Despite the similarities, however, “The EdD
program was conceived of as ‘equal in rigor but different in substance’ from the PhD (Mayhew
& Ford, 1974, p. 163). In actual practice, the distinction in program and type of dissertation has
not always been clear” (Nelson & Coorough, 1994, p. 159).
The PhD degree is typically described as containing the following elements:
• Intensive coursework focused on building a research skill set
• Dissertation research focused on a specific and narrow subject that is often an area of
specialization for the student
• Coursework completed over several years and includes participation in seminars and
conferences
• Study generally conducted through books and journal articles
• Competencies built across numerous disciplines (Weidman, Twale & Stein, 2001;
Haworth & Bair, 2000)
12
The EdD degree is typically described as:
• A program focused on skill development accomplished through a very structured
curriculum with few curricular choices
• Limited faculty interaction with students
• More one directional faculty involvement that is perceived of as more authoritative
• Part-time attendance, often at nights and on weekends
• A program with limited financial assistance and virtually no assistantships or
fellowships
• cohort-based classes (Weidman, Twale & Stein, 2001; Haworth & Bair, 2000)
Both degrees typically require the same number of doctoral courses as well as the completion of
a dissertation. The completion of additional research or statistical courses required for the PhD
differentiates the degree from the EdD.
The PhD is also distinguished from the EdD by the emphasis placed on continued
research contributions to the discipline. PhD students are practically programmed to believe that
“(1) research activity is more important than teaching; (2) to be a good teacher, one must be at
least an adequate researcher, and (3) research is the life blood of knowledge” (Petress, 1993, p.
321). The dissertation, while required by both the PhD and the EdD degree, is mostly an effort
to acculturate doctoral students “into a research mentality. Academic researchers form a subculture; they share common values, a language all their own that often differs from university
and college teaching faculty whose sole or chief function is teaching” (Petress, 1993, p.321).
Current State of Doctoral Programs in Education
The Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate and the Annual Survey of Earned Doctorates
provide a comprehensive view of the current status of doctoral education in America. Both
13
reveal important demographic trends as well as 21st century challenges for the study of education
at the doctoral level.
1.
Education doctoral programs have become more feminized. In 2004, 66% of the earned
doctorates in education were awarded to women compared to 20% in 1974 (Hoffer, et. al,
2004).
2.
Doctoral programs in education have become more racially diverse. The largest presence of
U.S. minorities earning doctoral degrees in 2004 was in the field of education where black
females received a majority of the minority doctorates (Hoffer, et. al, 2004).
3.
Doctoral degrees in education take longer to complete than in other fields. The median time
to complete a doctoral degree is 8.0 years, with education doctoral recipients taking on
average 12.3 years (Hoffer, et. al, 2004).
4.
Doctoral degree recipients in education in 2004 were on average 43.8 years of age; with the
national average for doctoral degrees being 33.3 years of age. Doctoral students in
education wait, on average, over a decade before returning to pursue a doctoral degree. In
other disciplines, the average wait time in between the baccalaureate and doctoral degree is
only two years (Hoffer, et. al, 2004). With the national average for education doctoral
students being 43.8 years of age, it can be assumed that these students are returning to
graduate school because of their dedication to the field and their desire to improve
themselves. The increase in the number of years of practical experience, however, may
result in students bringing a contrary set of attitudes to the doctoral experience that may be
in direct conflict with the epistemological research perspectives of the faculty (Neumann,
Pallas, et al. 1999, p. 260).
5.
Doctoral students in education traditionally lack an undergraduate degree in education
resulting in a deficiency of core knowledge. This deficiency may impact the whole of the
doctoral experience from coursework to dissertation (Richardson, 2003, p. 3).
6.
Doctoral students use their own financial resources to fund their doctoral studies. Over 70%
of doctoral students use their own financial resources to pay for doctoral studies, as
indicated by a 2004 study reflecting that only 27% partially funded their education via
assistantships and/or fellowships (Hoffer, et. al, 2004). Given that most education
doctorates do not incur debt to attend school, it can be understood that most pursue the
degree on a part-time basis and continue to be fully employed.
7.
Despite the increases in the number of women and minorities enrolled in doctoral education
programs, the ethnicity and gender gap of the faculty composition has remained constant
over the last several decades (Neumann, Pallas et al.1999, pp. 257-259, 260). Neumann and
Pallas (1999) assert that this inequity has often times resulted in culture and attitudinal
difficulties encountered by females and minorities.
14
21st Century Challenges for Doctoral Programs
The field of education suffers from a substantial lack of documentation on the doctoral
experience and this void is further exacerbated by the nuances that the field of education
possesses relative to other academic disciplines (Richardson, 2003, p. 4). The Carnegie project
revealed four critical issues which must be addressed to improve the doctoral experience in
education:
• Debate surrounding the need to balance the practice of education and research in
colleges of education
• Ongoing battle concerning the need for both the PhD and EdD degrees in education
• Need for a standardized core curriculum in doctoral education which can potentially
improve the quality of research in education doctoral programs
• Perceived reputation issues associated with colleges of education (Richardson, 2003,
pp. 4-8)
Education, as a field has yet to develop a balance between the practical and research
aspects of education. Researchers have argued for the elimination of the research-based
doctorate (PhD) in favor of the more practitioner-based approach as found in the EdD degree
(Brown, 1990). Cremin (1978) suggested through his lectures that the research and dissertation
requirements in the doctoral programs should be significantly reduced (Cremin, 1978). Recently
authors have indicated that education schools have failed to generate pro-active mission
statements that might result in increased campus reputations. These authors have also advocated
the expansion of EdD programs over PhD programs insisting that graduate schools of education
need to focus on improving the role of the practitioner, as opposed to developing scholars
(Clifford & Guthrie, 1988). In 1995, the Holmes Report supported Guthrie and Cremin and
purported that graduate programs in education should emphasis a pragmatic curriculum
preparing educators, in practice, to be more effective and successful. The journals are filled with
15
articles and studies advocating that one of the two terminal education degrees should be
eliminated and if not eliminated, the PhD should be distinguished from the EdD. “The literature
is rife with studies comparing the PhD and EdD and arguing for elimination of one or increased
distinction between the two (Brown & Slater 1960, Brown 1966; Anderson 1983; Dil &
Morrison 1985; Carpenter 1987; Clifford & Guthrie 1988; Brown 1990; Osguthorpe & Wong
1993; Deering 1998; Richardson 2003).
In 2005, Arthur Levine, president of the Columbia University Teachers College remarked
in response to his biting report entitled Educating School Leaders that universities and colleges
need to overhaul their education schools and one primary reform should include the elimination
of the EdD degree (Levine, 2005). Levine argues that education schools are used to generate
revenue to support other higher priority university programs and these actions allow education
schools to suffer from weak admission’s standards, poor faculties and the awarding of unsuitable
and useless degrees (Jacobson, 2005).
Authors who support the PhD in education argue that doctoral programs in education
should focus exclusively on developing researchers: those with critical reasoning skills, those
with ability to challenge assumptions and those with strong empirical research skills (Richardson
2003, p. 11). Shulman (1999) argues that as long as education doctoral programs lack a standard
process for developing scholars, the reputation of these degrees will be compromised and the
perceived value of graduate degrees in education will be questioned.
One measure of the true distinction between the PhD and the EdD is apparent in a review
of the dissertation research methodologies of PhD versus EdD degree holders. Nelson and
Coorough (1994) found that while minor differences exist, the majority of dissertations for both
PhDs and EdDs were descriptive research assessments. More EdD dissertation authors tended to
16
use simple frequencies and percentages as their primary type of statistical analysis. The most
prevalent statistical model used across both sets of dissertations was the ANOVA. Nelson and
Coorough (1994) also found that a higher percentage of PhD dissertations used multivariate
statistics. These findings indicate that programmatic differences in the EdD and PhD are
reflected in the final dissertations of degree holders, but that those differences are minimal
(Nelson & Coorough, 1994, p. 5).
The dissertation research methodologies of doctoral students should be comparable to the
published research of higher education scholars. Hutchinson and Lovell (2004) reviewed five
leading higher education journals and concluded readers of the published articles would require a
basic knowledge of intermediate-level statistics to adequately understand the published reports.
However, they did; acknowledge that a significant number of articles were beginning to appear
that required knowledge of multivariate procedures, which is a reflection on the increase in the
number of PhDs over EdDs being awarded in higher education (Hutchinson & Lovell, 2004, p.
396).
The competition and confusion associated with two terminal degrees (PhD and EdD) has
resulted in a public relations nightmare for educators. Many of the reputation-related issues
revolve around awarding PhDs to students who have no intention of becoming scholars and who
will continue to pursue administrative jobs after the degree. Toma argues that by allowing
administrators to earn a PhD “we are offering a diminished degree” (Toma, 2002, p. 7). Toma
(2002) suggests that “by differentiating between the EdD and the PhD that as a scholarly
community we can have it all, serving both the profession and having enhanced credibility
within academe” (Toma, 2002, p. 16).
17
Changes made to the two terminal degrees in education should focus around creating a
truly professional doctorate, leaving the PhD to those interested in pursuing scholarly pursuits
and creating a specialized doctorate that utilizes non-traditional formats that are easily embraced
by non-traditional, fully employed doctoral students who need to attend evening classes (Toma,
2002, p. 16). Under Toma’s proposal, the traditional dissertation required by EdD programs,
could be modified into a portfolio experience combining a requirement to write shorter articles
for practitioner journals with more project-based instruction and case-oriented pedagogy. He
also argues that other challenges face those institutions that attempt to distinguish between the
two terminal degrees including:
• Core sequencing – currently EdD students take the same courses as PhD students
• Teaching research methods – currently students are able to reach the research or
dissertation phase of the doctoral program without taking necessary methodological
coursework
• Coursework beyond the education school – most programs do not insist on students
taking courses outside the education school. This void results in students missing key
inter-disciplinary connections between education coursework and other doctoral
disciplines
• Lack of standard competencies expected in doctoral students and faculty – graduate
schools in education have not adopted a set of established competencies for doctoral
students or faculty and do not know how to address inadequacies in either population
• Differences in dissertation outcomes – in theory education schools believe that EdD
dissertations should be shorter and more pragmatically oriented, while PhD
dissertations evolve the creation of original research (Toma, 2002, pp. 18-20)
Education curriculum is composed of a variety of academic disciplines resulting in an
inter-disciplinary approach to curriculum design and instruction. The multi-disciplinary nature
has created other challenges including those who argue that doctoral programs in education do
not have a clear definition of what constitutes core education. Higher education literature is
filled with articles debating whether education is a field of study or an academic discipline.
18
Richardson (2003) says that there are three specific schools of thought regarding this debate: (1)
those that believe that education “borrows from and combines with other more traditional
disciplines and often focuses on practice” and because of that focus it should not be called a
discipline; (2) the second school believes that education is an “inter-discipline” with its own
unique “set of problems, questions, knowledge bases, and approaches to inquiry;” and (3) the
third school of thought that believes education meets the criteria to be identified as an academic
discipline of its own (Richardson, 2003). The three contradictory schools of thought create
significant problems for faculty, doctoral students as well as those who hire education doctoral
graduates. Higher education, as a separate body of knowledge, needs to develop a distinct body
of core knowledge that can be help define the core curriculm in doctoral programs, can help
faculty determine specific learning objectives and outcomes where performance can be better
measured, can result in a more definitive list of program qualifications resulting in better
admissions standards and can result in higher education becoming more respected and revered by
other more mature disciplines.
Richardson (2003) has suggested that a PhD degree candidate must become “a steward of
the education discipline . . . someone who has responsibility toward both the field of study and
the enterprise of education. PhD students who are to become stewards of the field will need to
develop expertise in normative, epistemic, and rhetorical analysis, research, and representation”
(Richardson, 2003, p. 7). Richardson (2003) elaborates on one pedagogical approach to
developing such students. She says that Miskel (1996) introduces a “crucial elements table”
developed by David Cohen and Deborah Ball that “outlines the outcomes of learning the practice
of research, the knowledge and skills students develop in their PhD programs, and the habits of
mind that the students need to develop” (Richardson, 2003, p. 7) to become real stewards of the
19
education discipline. Their table outlines a set learning outcomes related to the theory and
practice of research. Beside each learning outcome, Ball and Cohen (Miskel, 1996) have
determined specific competencies and mental requisites. The primary learning outcomes from
Ball and Cohen (Miskel, 1996) are as follows:
• Have substantive knowledge of the field
• Think theoretically and critically
• Frame fruitful research problems
• See research as socially situated
• Design research (i.e. join researchable problems to appropriate methods of inquiry)
• Collect and analyze data
• Communicate with various audiences about research (Richardson, 2003, pp. 11-13)
The critical elements table establishes specific learning outcomes, but does little to
formalize and standardize the process for developing academic scholars. Richardson (2003)
states succinctly that those faculty who have responsibility for mentoring and advising doctoral
students, have a mammoth task before them. She comments that developing superior researchers
will require “goal-setting, analysis, assessment, and constant vigilance of the part of a PhD
faculty [who] develop PhD graduates who are able both to conduct important, high-quality,
useful research on educational practice and issues and provide guidance in improving the
education enterprise” (Richardson, 2003, p. 10).
The first element listed in the table highlights another challenge for the study of
education – the argument surrounding what constitutes a core body of knowledge. Schoenfeld
(1999) argues that the tension between research and practice has resulted in a debate about what
constitutes core knowledge within the study of education. The inter-disciplinary nature of
20
education further complicates this issue with important core knowledge coming from multiple
academic areas such as psychology, history, sociology and even business marketing and
management. Another issue revolves around what methodological approach is best for the
education doctoral student – should the student mimic the scientific approach to research or
should they focus on a more holistic qualitative approach. These didactic issues have
contributed to a very fragmented doctoral experience for students pursuing advanced degrees in
education and complicating the development of scholars.
Doctoral programs in education are challenged by many internal issues associated with
curriculum and instruction, but the situation is exacerbated by the problems unique to the
education colleges in America. Overall, colleges of education are not well respected on campus
(Judge 1982; Clifford & Guthrie 1988; Labaree 1998; Lagemann 2000). The education college
is challenged because they experience direct competition with other professional schools (i.e.
law, business, medicine) where graduates are more highly sought and paid. These graduates tend
to be evaluated, as other social science programs, using criteria that were developed specifically
for their disciplines (Judge, 1982). Clifford and Guthrie (1988) state that education schools
suffer from four unique issues other colleges on campus seem to avoid. These issues include:
(1) intellectual frustration associated with being a critical contributor to the development of
society, but low societal status for graduates, (2) non-competitive or limited technological
knowledge – failing to use improvements in technology to improve educational practice, (3)
education as a profession remains labor intensive and highly feminized. This combination of
issues keeps education schools from being on the leading edge and lacking social power and
finally (4) less definitive and distinctive missions cause education schools to appear less strategic
and goal-driven (Clifford and Guthrie, 1988, p. 329).
21
The lack of one over-riding professional organization that can consolidate information
and serve as a depository for research and direct national initiatives has handicapped the field of
education (Brown, 1990). Brown implies that the absence of a single professional society
appears to be the primary reason why a comprehensive study of doctoral programs in education
does not exist.
All of the aforementioned trends and issues complicate graduate study in education and
impact many aspects of the doctoral experience including curriculum development, course
offerings and course requirements. Student demographics alone have impacted course offering,
schedules and even the quality of faculty who teach in the evening. Together these factors
impact the entire doctoral experience influencing a student’s ability to become a dedicated
scholar. Researchers have stated that surviving the doctoral experience requires a unique set of
student characteristic including: the ability to be street-smart, the ability to determine the “rules”
and follow them accordingly, the ability to adapt to an ill-defined academic learning environment
along with the ability to adjust to all sorts of external and internal demands (Kerlin, 1995, p. 4).
Kerlin (1995) also notes that the one rule that doctoral student seems to struggle with the
most is
exact purpose of the dissertation . . . I would add that the process of completing the
doctoral dissertation is perhaps as challenging, and unpredictable, as a first trip up a tall
mountain. Often the terrain is rugged and dangerous, and the climate is unpredictable.
Students count on faculty advisors to lead them at least part of the way up, but not every
attempt is successful. (Kerlin, 1995, p. 4-5)
Despite the numerous issues associated with education schools and the education doctorate
specifically, numerous initiatives are underway to improve the current status of education
doctorates. The University of Washington’s project entitled Re-envisioning the PhD has
determined that
22
Current graduate education does not adequately match the needs and demands of the
changing academy and broader society; there is a lack of systematic, developmentally
appropriate supervision for many who are seeking careers that require or benefit from the
attainment of a PhD; and there exists a growing concern about the high level of attrition
among doctoral students. (Nyquist & Wulff, 2000)
The project team has developed eight recommendations to improve the current quality of
doctoral programs in education including:
• Provide explicit expectations for doctoral students
• Provide adequate mentoring
• Provide exposure to wide variety of career options
• Prepare students to teach in a variety of settings using a range of pedagogies based on
research in teaching and learning
•
Recruit women and students of color to diversify the American intellect
• Produce scholar-citizens who see their special training connected more closely to the
needs of society and the global community
• Balance the deep learning of the disciplinary doctorate with the variety of
interdisciplinary challenges
• Create partnerships with all involved in doctoral education (Nyquist & Wulff, 2000)
These recommendations are being discussed in colleges of education. Students are embracing
the opportunity to study every aspect of the doctoral process and contribute to a broader and
more meaningful understanding of the nature of the America education doctorate.
Doctoral Attrition and Persistence
Higher education literature, in general, is satiated with research studies devoted to
understanding attrition and suggestions to improve persistence rates for undergraduate students,
but little is really known about attrition at the doctoral level. Golde (2005), notable for her
research contributions on the topic of doctoral attrition, asserts that there are three important
reasons to study and understand doctoral attrition including:
23
• Generally speaking little is known or understood about doctoral attrition and
understanding more specifically why students leave is an essential step in improving
doctoral education.
• Given that attrition rates for doctoral programs have consistently been high; those
statistics should signal underlying problems and issues with the department, university
and even the discipline.
• Attrition is an expensive proposition - controlling attrition reduces economic and
psychological waste for students, departments and even institutions. (Golde, 2005, pp.
669-670)
Noted scholars have proposed theories and models to explain all aspects of attrition and
persistence. Renowned theorist, Alexander Astin developed a comprehensive and widely
accepted model called the theory of involvement to explain what factors are most likely to
reduce attrition. Astin suggests that five basic postulates improve student involvement resulting
in lower attrition. Astin’s postulates are as follows:
1. Involvement requires the investment of psychological and physical energy in objects.
2. Involvement is a continuous concept; different students will invest varying amounts
of energy in different objects.
3. Involvement has both quantitative and qualitative features.
4. The amount of learning or development is directly proportional to the quality and
quantity of involvement.
5. Educational effectiveness of any policy or practice is related to its capacity to induce
student involvement. Astin, 1985a, pp. 135-136 from (Pascerella & Terenzini, 1991,
p. 50)
Tinto’s longitudinal theory of departure/attrition expanded Astin’s model to include the
student’s goals and level of commitment as factors influencing attrition. Tinto emphasized in his
model, however, that as a student moves through their college years, their goals and
commitments change depending upon how well they integrated into and became socialized by,
the higher education institution (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, p.53).
24
Pascarella assessed growth by isolating variables that he believed influenced a student’s
ability to grow. His model theorized “that growth is a function of the direct and indirect effects
of five major sets of variables” with two sets coming from the “students’ background and precollege characteristics and the other three from structural and organizational features of the
higher education institution” (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, p. 53).
Building on Astin, Tinto and Pascarella’s theories, Weidman’s undergraduate
socialization model delineated many similar features, but gave special attention “to noncognitive changes, such as those involving career choices, lifestyle preferences, values and
aspirations” (Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991, p. 55). Each of these models or theories illustrate
that socialization and integration play an essential role in determining the persistence rates of
students. While none of these theories were designed specifically for the doctoral student, it can
be assumed that socialization and integration theory are transferable to the attrition or persistence
rates of doctoral students.
From a theoretical perspective, two compatible sociological theories can explain attrition
at the doctoral level: organizational socialization theory and integration theory. Organizational
socialization is defined by Tierney (1997) as the process that “pertains to the successful
understanding and incorporation of those activities by the new members of the organization”
(Tierney, 1997, p. 3). Integration theory has been described by Tinto (1993) as the simultaneous
integration of students into two parallel systems: the academic system and the social system. To
succeed in doctoral programs, students must understand the academic organization and become
socialized within the discipline and department. Simultaneously, the student must integrate into
the academic and social infrastructure of the program and adjust to internal and external factors
that impact their ability to succeed. Lovitts (2000) contends that
25
Academic integration develops through formal interactions between and among graduate
students and faculty as they work together on common tasks to achieve the primary goals
of graduate education: intellectual and professional development. Social integration
develops through informal, casual interactions between and among graduate students and
faculty outside the classroom.(Lovitts, 2000, p. 2-3)
Katz (1997), Tinto (1988) and Berkenkotter, Huckin and Ackerman (1991) all stress that the
doctoral process is riddled with pitfalls and traps. A doctoral student’s ability to fully integrate
into the doctoral education process determines whether or not they will be successful or become
a victim of attrition.
Tinto (1993) proposed a three stage sociological model based on his undergraduate model
to explain doctoral attrition. This study focused on the integration process which occurs during
three distinct stages of doctoral study: including transitioning into the graduate community,
obtaining candidacy through achieving competence within the discipline and developing the
ability to be an active and productive researcher. Tinto (1993) elaborated on his doctoral model
and established specific characteristics for each stage:
Stage I: The period of transition and adjustment to doctoral study
§
Usually the period during the first year of study
§
This phase of doctoral retention is created by social and academic interactions within
the university settings; these interactions are both formal and informal in nature.
§
The enrollment classification of the doctoral student as part-time or full-time directly
impacts the level of student involvement in the academic and social infrastructure of
the university.
§
This stage is exemplified by the student developing normative behavior of the
department.
Stage II: Student achieves competency and attains candidacy
§
The student develops a recognized set of proficiencies that are required for doctoral
level research.
§
Academic and social integration become less distinct.
26
§
Faculty form perceptions about student competence from interactions outside the
classroom as well as inside the classroom.
Stage III: Candidacy to final defense of dissertation
§
This phase demonstrates the abilities of the candidate and well as the ability of the
mentor to work productively.
§
Involvement with faculty becomes limited to just the primary advisor and the
committee that oversee the dissertation.
§
Persistence during this phase could be highly dependent upon the individual involved
and the impact of the faculty mentor on the process.
§
Experiences that occur during this stage are more likely to play a major role in the
completion of the degree.
§
External organizations and professional associates become more important. (Tinto,
1993)
Tinto’s stages were somewhat affirmed in research conducted by Weidman and Stein
(2003) where their finding showed that socialization of doctoral students is directly related to
how a doctoral student perceives faculty involvement and faculty encouragement as they move
through the stages of doctoral study. According to Weidman and Stein, a doctoral student’s
scholarly development (via socialization) can be encouraged in three ways:
1. By insuring that faculty understand that the ‘ultimate goal of the department is to
prepare scholars’ and create an atmosphere that promotes collegial relationships and
encourages doctoral students to participate in scholarly work
2. By creating situations where doctoral students are both presenters and contributors to
research discussions
3. By insuring that faculty understand that they have the primary task for socializing
doctoral students into the scholar role (Weidman & Stein, 2003, p. 653-654)
Attrition rates for doctoral students in America are staggering. The Chronicle of Higher
Education reports that over 50% of those who enroll in doctoral education do not earn the
degree. Three recent publications provide varying points of view on the doctoral attrition
process. Weidman, Twale and Stein (2001) furnish a comprehensive explanation of prior
27
research on doctoral attrition. They conclude that students move through three distinct processes
of doctoral socialization including what they call knowledge acquisition, investment and
involvement. These authors argue that if the doctoral student successfully masters each process
they develop the academic identity needed to survive the doctoral experience. Lovitts (2001)
argues that doctoral attrition is related to four particular problems: failure of doctoral students to
get quality information about the nature of being in a doctoral program and to understand how to
navigate through the academic system, doctoral student isolation, disappointment with the
learning environment and unsuccessful advisor or mentor relationships. Hinchey and Kimmel
(2000) in their study do not examine the causes of doctoral attrition, but why doctoral students
tolerate the problems associated with doctoral study.
Weidman, Twale and Stein (2001), Lovitts (2001) and Hinchey and Kimmel (2000)
provide educators with unique perspectives on the topic of doctoral attrition and provide a
comprehensive review of the prior literature including references to key studies conducted by
Golde (1998), Tluczek (1995), Hansen (1992), Nerad and Cherny (1993) and Jacks, et al. (1983).
Golde (1998) defines three specific phases of attrition relative to doctoral programs: onethird of those that leave during the first year, the second third leave before candidacy and the last
third leave post-candidacy (Golde, 1998, p. 55). Golde asserts that it is easy to blame the
students if they chose to withdraw during the first year, but efforts should be made to understand
and explain the role the discipline and the program play in exacerbating doctoral attrition during
the second and third stages. Golde also identifies several contributing factors that result in
doctoral attrition during the first year including: realization that it would take a long time under
difficult circumstances to complete the degree, realization that the student may have chosen the
wrong field of study, awareness that the student is not a match with their advisor and that the
28
practice of the discipline chosen does not meet their preliminary expectations. Jacks (1983)
identified several unique factors that contribute to doctoral attrition:
1. Financial difficulties
2. Poor or weak relationships with advisor or committee members
3. Substantive problems with the dissertation research process
4. Personal, emotional or psychological problems
5. Interference of paid work while working on dissertation
6. Family demands
7. Lack of peer support
8. Loss of interest in completing the PhD program (Jacks, et al, 1983, p. 74-81)
Of the eight factors listed above, Jacks (1983) found that the two primary reasons mentioned by
students who fail to complete their PhD programs were financial problems or problems related to
poor working relationships with their faculty advisor and committee.
In 1992, Hanson studied current literature on students who completed the coursework,
but failed to complete the dissertation requirement. Hanson found the following factors
contributed to failure to complete the doctoral degree:
1. Health problems
2. Perfectionism, procrastination, compulsiveness
3. Role conflict, family obligations
4. Inability to deal with independent learning situations
5. Lack of focus in choosing a research topic, too casual ideas about research
interpretation of data, developing appropriate methodology
6. Leaving the university, discontinuity of attendance, off-campus dissertation
7. Inaccessibility of advisor (Hanson, 1992)
29
Nerad and Cerny (1993) in their degree completion study at Berkeley determined that low
completion and increased time in completing the doctoral degree were connected to six specific
patterns of behavior:
1. Exhibiting perfectionist behavior in completing the masters thesis
2. Devoting an excessive amount of time to preparing for qualifying exams which
isolated the student from the whole of the doctoral experience
3. Devoting an inordinate amount of time to identifying a dissertation topic, developing
a proposal and achieving clarity about the entire dissertation process
4. Inability to transition between course attending student and self-disciplined research
producing student
5. Viewing the doctoral milestones as separate and unique hurdles and not as precursors
to writing a dissertation
6. Believe that they lacked support from both the department and the faculty throughout
the doctoral experience (Nerad & Curry, 1993)
The Berkeley degree completion study also found a series of institutional and field-specific
factors that determine attrition and time to degree completion. Clearly programs that emphasize
and provide mentoring relationships, teamwork opportunities, frequent and predictable
evaluation, various types of support including financial were more likely to see its students
graduate, as well as complete degree requirements within a shorter time frame.
Tluczek (1995) studied the differences between successful doctoral graduates (SDG) and
those students who were classified as all-but-dissertation or ABD. Tluczek determined that
SDGs
• Completed the degree in less than one-half the time required by ABDs
• Believed that future career success required the completion of the degree while ABD
did not emphasize the connection between future career options and completion of the
degree
30
• Were five times more likely to have determined the topic of their dissertation prior to
completing the required research courses
• Were less likely to change their dissertation topic while nearly half of all ABDs would
change their topic while working on the degree (Tluczek, 1995)
The ABDs surveyed by Tluczek (1995) exhibited the following: (1) a greater lack of
motivation or self-discipline, (2) more demands associated with outside employment, (3) a
weakness in their research skill set, (4) poor relationships with their advisors or chairperson, (5)
problems associated with picking a dissertation topic, and (6) a lack of structure relative to the
dissertation process. Tluczek’s research goal was to provide doctoral students and institutions
with a series of recommendations to reduce attrition and the number of students who were
classified, long-term or permanently, as ABD students.
In reviewing literature related to both high doctoral attrition rates and extended degree
completion rates, researchers have identified critical institutional and student factors that have
consistently contributed to the problem. Higher education literature has devoted substantial
attention to three factors which deserve greater attention within this literature review. Those
factors include mentoring/advising concerns, academic issues and personal support factors.
Mentoring and Advising Concerns
Acquisition, investment and involvement are three primary phases that Weidman, Thale
and Stein (2001) have indicated are essential for successful doctoral students. Mentoring plays
an important role in each of these three phases and problems associated with mentoring has been
determined to be one of the most significant reasons why students fail to complete the degree.
Weidman and Stein (2003) state that “a central purpose of post baccalaureate education,
particularly at the doctoral level, is the socialization of individuals into the cognitive and
affective dimensions of social roles related to the practice of learned occupations” (Weidman &
31
Stein, 2003, p. 642). These scholars argue that the primary socialization process for doctoral
students “resides in the graduate program under the academic control of faculty with the
institutional culture” (Weidman & Stein, p. 643). If this argument is true, then doctoral advising
and mentoring need to be focal points in doctoral attrition studies.
The quality of the relationships between students and their faculty advisor significantly
impacts the doctoral experience. Hartnett (1976) has shown that positive relationships between
faculty and students results in greater integration into the academic department. Gerholm (1990)
and Weiss (1981), both determined positive mentorship between faculty and doctoral students
results in greater socialization into the academy, while Girves and Wemmerus (1988), Long
(1987) and Lovitts (2001) together have shown that successful mentoring relationships
encourage a more timely completion of the degree. Golde (1998), Jacks, Chubin, Porter and
Connolly (1983) and Lovitts (2001) have also shown that poor advising and mentoring
relationships are found to be a central reasons why students leave doctoral study.
Bair, Haworth and Sandfort (2004) describe the faculty advising role as a shared
responsibility between all faculty within a given department. According to their 2004 study, four
major themes or categories emerge regarding this shared task including an obligation to share in
the development of scholarly activity and research productivity; the responsibility to advise and
mentor students, even those not directly assigned to a faculty member; participation in the
selection and retention of students; and a responsibility to help define and shape the culture of
the program.
Petress (2000) asserts that “advising is a reciprocal activity; it takes both an advisor and
advisee working together as a team for the activity to fully succeed” (p. 598). Successful
advisors, according to Petress, display seven characteristics including:
32
1. Frequency of advisor/advisee interaction
2. Being prepared for advising sessions
3. Being armed with accurate information
4. Willingness to make relevant disclosure to advisors
5. Advising timeliness
6. Follow-through by advisee and advisor
7. Being willing and able to ask quality questions in advising sessions (Petress, 2000, p,
598)
While researchers have sought information relative to the mentoring experience of
doctoral students, most of the research has been gender specific. Current statistics indicate that
more females are graduating from doctoral programs and that the relationship between female
students and their advisors is critical and must be further explored. Heinrich (1995) studied
female doctoral students and their relationships with their mentors or advisors finding that
women yearn for productive, non-threatening relationships with advisors and when placed in an
ineffective female advisor relationship, they tend to sit silently.
Educators have long debated which qualities describe a good faculty mentor. Long
(1987) determined that supportiveness was essential for successful doctoral students; Gerholm
(1990), Girves and Wemmerus (1988), Hartnett (1976) and Weiss (1981) demonstrated through
their research that elevated levels of interaction between faculty advisors and students
contributed to positive doctoral experiences; Heiss (1970), Lovitts (2001) and Rudd (1986)
together affirmed through their studies that quality advising helped students to complete their
doctoral study in a timelier manner; Hartnett (1976) and Heiss, (1970) found that providing
students with regular and timely evaluations, students are more likely to be successful. Girves
33
and Wemmerus (1988) purported that doctoral students were more productive when they were
treated as junior colleagues.
Zhao, Golde and McCormick (2005) report that “There are pronounced disciplinary
differences in the way doctoral students approach the choice of an advisor, and also in the way
the advising relationship is conducted” (p. 13). Advisor choice and behavior do correlate to
successful advising relationships. These researchers argue for continued progress in the area of
developing quality, student-to-faculty and faculty-to-student relationships, to improve the
attrition rates in doctoral programs.
While the literature is rife with studies describing the benefit of positive mentoring or
advising, the impact on the faculty member must not be discounted. Busch (1985) has shown
that mentoring doctoral students can be beneficial and rewarding especially as the student thrives
and grows within the academic discipline, but Merriam (1983) has shown that faculty-doctoral
mentoring relationships can be exasperating and exploitive. Smith (1995) indicates that the
further study is needed to determine the impact of gender, type of mentoring experiences and
level of mentoring have on time to completion data.
Academic Issues
Successful progress in any doctoral degree program is somewhat dependent upon a broad
range of academic issues including departmental practices, advising and research preparation.
Several popular reference books provide substantial assistance in the completion of a doctoral
dissertation and reveal various obstacles to degree completion. Heppner and Heppner (2004)
discuss critical factors that can impede a doctoral student in the completion of a dissertation
including lack of time, lack of space, nonsupport from partners, families and friends, lack of
organization, emotional and psychological obstacles, poor working relationships with faculty and
advisors and a lack of control over data collection and analysis.
34
Berkenkotter, Huckin and Ackerman (1991) suggest that doctoral students, in order to be
retained, must become intellectually competent within their academic discipline. Doctoral
students must be able to verbalize, read, write and use the norms established and defined by a
particular academic community. But in order for doctoral students to build the academic identity
required to complete a dissertation, they must be counseled on how various psychosocial factors
may jeopardize the completion of their dissertations. Green (1997) focused two of these factors,
student procrastination and perfectionism, and discussed how these psychosocial factors can and
do impact the completion of the dissertation. She found that if advisors used a procrastination
inventory instrument on students they advise, they could help student become more socialized
within their research community, and thus more independent and able to complete their
dissertation.
Cone and Foster (2001) provide substantial information on (1) locating and refining
dissertation topics, (2) managing time and trouble, (3) selecting chairpersons and advisors, (4)
writing the proposal, (5) reviewing the literature, and (6) completing the doctoral dissertation
process successfully. Madsen (1992) outlined every step of the dissertation process with advice
on how to publish the completed project. Each of these authors, although not scientifically
supported, are all stating that doctoral attrition can be reduced if their approach is successfully
followed.
Formal research studies have alluded to various academic issues that impact doctoral
attrition rates:
•
Jacks, Chubin, Porter and Connolly (1983) identified substantive problems associated
with the doctoral dissertation research process.
•
Hanson (1992) indicates that a student’s inability to focus on a research topic results in
greater attrition.
35
•
Nerad and Cerny (1993) and Tluczek (1995) indicate that attrition increases when a
student lacks clarity in developing and defining their research agenda.
•
Nerad and Cerny (1994) and Tluczek (1995) also found that students who are not
successful tend to have confusion regarding the dissertation completion process and do
not have reasonable expectations for the doctoral program.
•
Hanson (1992) and Tluczek (1995) both produced studies that indicated that
inadequate research knowledge result in the improper use of research methods and
statistical applications.
Tluczek’s (1995) research indicated that doctoral students benefit from dissertation research
seminars. Tluczek argues that it is unreasonable to assume that students can understand and
execute the dissertation process from coursework alone.
Personal Support Factors
Numerous personal support factors have been found to impact the doctoral completion
process. Doctoral peer support groups have been linked to reducing stress, producing greater
satisfaction in degree programs and greater involvement of new students (Bowman, Bowman &
DeLucia, 1990; de Rosenroll, Norman & Sinden, 1987 Harty, Kormanyos & Enocks, 1983;
Williams, Gallas, & Quiriconi, 1984).
Families, not unlike mentors, advisors and peers, have also been determined to be a
critical personal support factor. Bjorksten, Sutherland, Miller and Stewart (1983) have shown
that having a supportive partner can help reduce stress factors for doctoral students, but they can
also become a disability factor by placing constraints on time and devotion to the doctoral
completion process. Marshall and Jones (1990) have shown that demands associated with
childbirth and parenting young children have been problematic for doctoral students.
A student’s self perception has also been found to be challenging for doctoral students.
Low self perception impacts other dimensions of student functioning and can negatively impact
motivation, attitude, self-esteem and stress levels (Delfin & Roberts, 1980; Hurtado, 1994).
36
The nature of the doctoral process requires students to develop keen research skills.
Students are required to conduct research in an environment that does not specifically teach the
exact process. Kluever (1997) found the process of conducting research to be extraordinarily
foreign to doctoral students and without the construction of a strong research infrastructure every
aspect of the doctoral process is jeopardized. Smith (1995) found that men, more than women
are likely to receive teaching assistantships and that the absence of this type of mentoring and
research opportunity is extremely detrimental for a field of study that is highly feminized.
Maher, Ford and Thompson (2004) determined that for female doctoral students to be successful
they must have financial means (tuition and living expenses), the presence of a supportive
advisor, access to important research projects, few problems with personal health, family or
marital problems. These researchers also found that those women, who with few negative
factors in play, finished their doctorates faster than those that had many factors in play.
One factor ignored by the doctoral attrition literature that deserves attention is whether or
not high attrition rates are the result of poor admission’s decisions. Graduate faculty who are
primarily responsible for setting admissions criteria and admitting students, seem reluctant to
study what part they play in high doctoral attrition rates.
Doctoral students are required to complete coursework, residency requirements,
qualifying exams and a dissertation to be awarded either a PhD or an EdD in education. Large
percentages of doctoral students earn candidacy after completing the required coursework, but
end up not completing the dissertation process. Attrition in doctoral programs can occur at any
time and for a multitude of reasons, but the greatest number of students who become an attrition
statistic, do so after completing coursework and comprehensive exams.
37
Dissertation Composition and Completion
Many factors impact a doctoral student’s ability to complete the degree requirements and
the dissertation itself becomes an enormous obstacle for many students. New Webster’s
Dictionary defines dissertation as “a formal treatise or discourse, a written thesis by a candidate
for the Doctor’s degree” (New Webster’s Dictionary, 1991, p. 118). The Council of Graduate
Schools states that the following about dissertations:
1.
The dissertation must be an extended, coherent, written work of original research,
demonstrating a doctoral candidate's comprehensive knowledge and mastery of
methodological, historical, topical, empirical and theoretical issues relevant to the
chosen research subject. It must be a significant contribution to scholarship. It
must contain the results of extensive critical research of documentary source
materials, laboratory work, and/or field work.
2.
The doctoral dissertation should (a) reveal the student's ability to analyze,
interpret and synthesize information; (b) demonstrate the student's knowledge of
the literature relating to the project or at least acknowledge prior scholarship on
which the dissertation is built; (c) describe the methods and procedures used; (d)
present results in a sequential and logical manner; and (e) display the student's
ability to discuss fully and coherently the meaning of the results.
3.
The dissertation is the beginning of one's scholarly work, not its culmination.
Dissertation research should provide students with hands-on, directed experience
in the primary research methods of the discipline.
4.
Dissertations should prepare students for the type of research/scholarship that will
be expected of them after they receive the PhD degree. (Council of Graduate
Schools, 1990)
Baird (1997) argues that “writing a dissertation is like no other writing they have done before
and like none they will do later. The dissertation is a unique intellectual and practical enterprise”
(p. 101). Baird states that the completion of a dissertation involves several essential elements:
“an idea, a method, a committee, advice and guidance, finances, familiarity with the process and
its form, a peer group and encouragement” (Baird, 1997, p. 102). The essential elements that
Baird identified are outlined below along with his recommendations:
38
1. Students view doctoral coursework and dissertation idea generation as two separate
experiences. Faculty should repeatedly attempt to stimulate dissertation ideas as
students move through the coursework and reminding students that the coursework
should build toward the dissertation completion process.
2. Students have difficulty thinking about their required research and methods courses
as essential tools for completing their dissertations. Faculty should emphasize the
relevance of research methodology and demonstrate how that methodology can be
used to answer research questions.
3. Students do not understand the role of the dissertation committee. A student’s major
professor or advisor must insure that the student understands how the committee will
function and how the student should interact and benefit from their expertise and
guidance.
4. A tremendous amount of self-discipline is required for a doctoral student to complete
a dissertation. Those students that are not as self-disciplined need regular meetings
with their advisors and detailed tracking documents to keep them on task and on
schedule.
5. In order to complete a dissertation, students must have adequate financial, emotional
and resource-based support. Few students understand that conducting some types of
research can result in additional financial resources. Faculty must insure that students
understand what is entailed in developing a comprehensive research project. Efforts
should also be made, during the coursework phase, to introduce the student to a
abundance of educational resources, including libraries, statistical labs, tutors and
editors. Doctoral students should also understand the emotional strain associated with
conducting original research and the ups and downs associated with writing a
dissertation.
6. Completing a dissertation requires understanding and filing of a multitude of forms
and following complicated processes. Faculty and program advisors must provide
clear and concise documentation to guide the student through the dissertation process.
7. To complete a dissertation, doctoral students need to create a support group within the
program. More experienced students need to guide and mentor less experienced
students.
8. A dissertation can not be completed without encouragement. Few dissertations are
completed in less than one year and the complex nature of the dissertation process can
be very discouraging even for the most tenacious students. Faculty advisors need to
help students create a schedule of dissertation assignments that keep the student
focused on completing small tasks. (Baird, 1997, pp. 102-104)
39
Given the complexity of the dissertation process described by Baird, the completion of a PhD
requires the participation of many key players.
Katz (1997) states that the “key players are society, the university, the dissertation
advisor and the candidate” and each play a vital role in the life of a doctoral student (p. 5). Each
of these stakeholders has much to gain by the doctoral student completing the dissertation
process. Many assume that society benefits when the student creates original knowledge and the
completion of a dissertation exposes new ideas which could bring about positive social change.
Universities are also key stakeholders for doctoral students. When students complete the
dissertation and graduate, they have the potential to bring tremendous recognition to the
institution. Katz (1997) contends that it is the combination of universities and graduate programs
that create a macro-environment for the doctoral student with the dissertation advisor and student
creating a micro-environment. The successful integration of both environments determines
whether the student successfully completes the degree (Katz, 1997, p. 7).
Spillett and Moisiewicz (2004) believe that the dissertation advisor plays the most
essential role for the doctoral student as cheerleader, counselor, coach and critic. The advisor is
both a cheerleader and counselor insuring that the student has access to their advice and
experience. The advisor is responsible for encouraging the student to continue even when it
becomes arduous and the advisor must provide the student with encouragement by removing
obstacles and hurdles. The dissertation advisor’s role as coach and critic becomes more
challenging, as the advisor tries to balance their varying responsibilities (Spillett & Moisiewicz,
2004, p. 1). But the key player in the dissertation process, who obviously has the most to gain, is
the doctoral student. Personal satisfaction derived by tirelessly working on a dissertation is a
personal accomplishment that can last a lifetime.
40
Understanding the essential elements required by a dissertation, the key players involved
and the barriers to dissertation completion can help doctoral students avoid becoming an attrition
statistic. Madsen (1992) has identified five different conditions that can result in a delay to the
dissertation process:
1. Too early a departure – Students should stay on campus until their dissertations are
done. Too many students accept positions because of economic circumstances and
fail to finish the dissertation.
2. Too much enthusiasm and too little focus – The doctoral experience has a propensity
to expose doctoral students to a proliferation of research topics. Doctoral students are
generally energized by the research opportunities and fail to direct that energy toward
specific and narrow aspects of research that are suitable for dissertation topics.
3. Perfectionism – Some doctoral students are overwhelmed by mass quantities of
information and data that must be managed during the dissertation completion
process. Students, who are perfectionists, need extra encouragement to keep focused
and directed.
4. Fears of failure – Doctoral students do not understand the amount of time required to
complete the dissertation. When the process becomes laborious, energy wanes and
students become discouraged.
5. Isolation – Many doctoral students become isolated while working on their
dissertations. The research process has a tendency to capitalize on the discretionary
time that students have taking them away from family and friends. (Madsen, 1992,
pp. 5 - 14)
Katz (1997) recommends that doctoral students use a defined management system to help them
overcome the obstacles that disrupt and interfere with the dissertation process. Her management
system includes five steps: (1) preparation for research, (2) graduate program design, (3)
proposal development, (4) dissertation research, and (5) dissertation defense (Katz, 1997, pp. 1214). D’Andrea (2002) studied how faculty structure the dissertation completion process for their
students and discovered that students have “difficulty with planning and writing, working
independently, and financial and personal-relationship pressures as being the major obstacles for
doctoral students in education” (D’Andrea, 2002, p. 42). D’Andrea concluded that doctoral
41
attrition could be reduced if faculty anticipated the obstacles that cause to students to withdraw
from a doctoral program. Most doctoral programs provide dissertation timelines and checklists,
but without substantial support from all key players, the doctoral student is more likely than not,
to become derailed by the task.
It is not enough for the doctoral student to understand the dissertation completion
process. Students must also develop their own methodological or research perspective, one that
will be used to direct their dissertation efforts. Creswell and Miller (1997) assert that the
research methodology or inquiry paradigm is “gained through socialization within a field of
study” and it “provides a philosophical base or frame of reference” for doctoral students and
their dissertations (Creswell & Miller, 1997, p. 33). Doctoral students, through the degree
requirements, are exposed to coursework that develops competencies in quantitative, qualitative,
ideological and mixed methodologies. Doctoral students make three important decisions based
on the methodology that they choose for their dissertation: (1) their choice of coursework, (2)
who will serve as members of their committee and which faculty member will be asked to serve
as dissertation chair, and (3) the form and structure of their dissertation proposal and defense
(Creswell & Miller, 1997, p. 46). Doctoral students, who are inadequately trained in any of these
research methodologies, may select a methodology that does not suit their skill set, may choose
the wrong members to sit on his/her committee and may choose a dissertation adviser than can
not or who does not support his/her research paradigm. Mistakes of this sort can jeopardize, as
well as paralyze, the doctoral student as they attempt to complete their dissertation.
Lacking methodological knowledge can create an insurmountable challenge for any
doctoral student, but so can deficiencies in producing a thorough and comprehensive review of
the literature. Boote and Beile (2005) argue that “preparing students to analyze and synthesize
42
research in a field of specialization is crucial to understanding education ideas. Such preparation
is prerequisite to choosing a productive dissertation topic and appropriating fruitful methods of
data collection and analysis” (Boote & Beile, 2005, p. 3). They comment further that
educational research tends to address very complex problems – more so than any other discipline
or field of study. “We then argue that current initiatives and faculty focuses have ignored the
centrality of the literature review in research preparation, in turn weakening the quality of
education research” (Boote & Beile, 2005, p. 3).
Research journal editors and reviewers support Boote and Beile’s proposition, they
“openly lament the inadequacy of literature reviews in manuscripts submitted for journal
publication” (Boote & Beile, 2004, p. 4). Feeling ill equipped to complete the literature review
process and associated analysis, often results in many students dropping out during the
dissertation phase.
Becoming a scholar requires solitary preparation, time spent reading, researching and
writing – it is a lonely journey and profession. As professors earn tenure they also earn all the
benefits of academic freedom: the right to speak freely, to take controversial perspectives
regardless of the social implications, and to conduct their scholarly initiatives in whatever
manner they deem appropriate. Academic freedom denotes freedom from supervision and this in
turn impacts a professor’s ability to supervise others. Supervision is the primary skill needed for
professors to direct dissertations. Thus, the process of producing scholars, combined with the
solitary nature of research, results in a very lonely road for dissertation writers and those that
supervise the process.
The composition and completion of a dissertation is an arduous task for most doctoral
students. The likelihood of a doctoral student completing the process is greatly improved when
43
all contributing factors are managed appropriately. Baird (1997) argues that “. . . programs that
do not make an effort to integrate students socially and academically into the department, that are
not clear about the courses and experiences that will give students mastery of the discipline’s
methods and language, and that do not carefully monitor students’ progress will have a high
number of ABD students” (Baird, 1997, p. 101).
Assessment and Evaluation of Scholarship
Doctoral students in education are required to study the nature of education research and
understand the types of knowledge that can potentially contribute to the broad field of education.
Gall, Gall and Borg (2003) state that education research should fulfill one of four purposes: to
describe, to predict, to improve or to explain a natural or socially occurring phenomena. These
researchers also state that the most important type of knowledge generated by educational
research is explanation. “In a sense, this type of knowledge subsumes the other three
[description, prediction and improvement]. If researchers are able to explain an educational
phenomenon, it means that they can describe it, can predict its consequences, and know how to
intervene to change those consequences” (Gall, Gall & Borg, 2003, p. 6). The explanation of
natural or socially occurring phenomena can be accomplished through the application of
differing research methodologies including quantitative, qualitative, mixed or historical (Gall,
Gall & Borg, 2003).
The completion of a dissertation is the culmination of a many years of dedicated study.
A successfully completed dissertation reflects on the quality of the learning experience, the
faculty, the coursework and pedagogy, and the ability of the student to produce original research
which is potentially publishable. An approved dissertation should reflect a doctoral student’s
ability to describe, predict, improve or explain a phenomenon using a specific and justified
methodology.
44
The completion of a dissertation also signifies that the doctoral student can be a critic of
their own research efforts as well as the research of others. Doctoral students, through the
required research methodology courses, are taught to evaluate research using several methods
including one by McMillan (2000) and the second by Gall, Gall and Borg (2003). The McMillan
method is described in the following two steps:
• Determine the research method used by the researcher (quantitative, qualitative,
historical or a mixed methodology)
• Apply a series of questions toward each section of the study (for example for a
quantitative study the sections to review would include the research problem, the
literature review, the research hypothesis, the selection of subjects, the
instrumentation, the design, the results and discussion/conclusion sections)
(McMillan, 2000, pp. 304 – 308)
The second approach as outlined by Gall, Gall and Borg (2003) provides not only a set of
questions for the novice researcher, but also an explanation concerning the type of information to
look for within the study to answer the question. For example,
Question:
Is the literature review section of the report sufficiently
comprehensive? Does it include studies that you know to be
relevant to the problem?
Information needed: Examine the studies mentioned in the report. Note particularly if a
recent review of the literature relevant to the research problem was
cited or if the researchers mentioned an effort to make their own
review comprehensive.
(Gall, Gall & Borg, 2003, p. 605)
Neither author discusses specifically the formal application of their method for evaluating
dissertations, but they imply that their approach is applicable for all education research studies
and reports.
Educational evaluators utilize a multitude of different strategies to measure the outcomes
of education programs and research. Two strategies are worthy of consideration for this
particular study: expertise-based evaluation and professional judgment. Expertise-based
45
evaluation, according to Gall, Gall & Borg (2003) is a “time-honored and widely used method of
evaluation” (p. 567). These researchers define expertise-based evaluation as “the use of experts
to make judgments about the worth of an education program” (Gall, Ball & Borg, 2003, p. 625).
Usually experts are qualified by their experience and demonstrated their expertise during prior
evaluation studies.
Professional judgment is often used interchangeably with expertise-based evaluation
where “the evaluator exercises considerable influence on the nature of the evaluation, inasmuch
as it is that evaluator’s judgment that determines how favorable or unfavorable the evaluation
turns out to be” (Popham, 1993, p. 26). Dissertation advisors and committee members rely
solely on their expertise-based and professional judgment skills. These approaches, while widely
accepted, have absolutely no internal or external validity and can not be validated by any other
means. The use of these two evaluation approaches results in wide variance of dissertation
quality from superior to inferior.
Lovitts (2005) discusses the ongoing need for academic disciplines to develop criteria to
evaluate dissertations, criteria that “would constitute powerful indicators of the success of
research training, provide a method for evaluating PhD programs, and allow more object
comparisons among them. The creation of such “standards would also make the evaluation of
dissertations more valid and reliable across candidates in a department or field” (Lovitts, 2005, p.
18). Lovitts argues that the dissertation evaluation process has been an implicit exercise,
somewhat shrouded in secrecy. Lovitts asserts that by making the implicit more explicit, every
stakeholder in doctoral education programs would benefit.
Dissertations have been required for the completion of a doctoral degree in America for
over one-hundred years. Why, in that period of time have faculty within academic disciplines
46
been reluctant to create measure of performance relative to the dissertation? Some might argue
that to create standards of performance for would-be scholars could, in turn, create more rigorous
measures of research performance for current faculty – perhaps making it more difficult for
faculty to publish their research. Generating a rubric to evaluate research could also impact
faculty in the tenure-review process creating standards of evaluation for provosts and deans –
and perhaps complicating, delaying or reducing the number of faculty who cross the tenure
threshold.
Developing standards and rubrics for evaluating dissertations could have many academic,
programmatic, institution and societal benefits including the following:
1.
Providing a standard means for faculty to evaluate dissertation using specific criteria
2.
Providing a means to train new faculty on how to evaluate dissertations
3.
Providing a means for faculty to evaluate the quality of their own research
4.
Providing faculty with a means to compare and categorize levels of research
5.
Providing faculty with the ability to break down the research process into specific, concrete
learning objectives, where outcomes and measures of performance can be evaluated
consistently
6.
Providing the department with a means to insure that all the elements of research design,
writing and creation are included in the curriculum and are taught in a logical and rational
order
7.
Providing a means for doctoral students to demystify the dissertation production process
8.
Providing a means for doctoral students to break down the dissertation into manageable
pieces and determine where they have deficiencies in the research process
9.
Providing a means for universities and programs to reduce attrition rates in doctoral
programs because they would be preparing doctoral students for the dissertation production
process in a more effective and regimented manner
10. Providing a means for governments and private corporations to invest dollars more
effectively and efficiently in doctoral programs that have demonstrated greater success in
preparing scholars
47
Few efforts have been made to create dissertation evaluation criteria. The most recent
attempt came in a study conducted by Barbara Lovitts in 2003-2004. In the study, 300 faculty
representing 74 departments from 10 disciplines at 9 universities worked in focus groups to
characterize dissertations and their components. During the initial discussions, it appeared that
faculty did not have specific means for characterizing dissertations, but as the focus group
discussions continued, a series of components emerged. The specific categories of performance
included: outstanding, very good, acceptable, and unacceptable (Lovitts, 2005, p. 19). The
following list represents the characteristics of each category as defined by Lovitts research:
Outstanding: original, significant, ambitious, brilliant, clear, clever, coherent, compelling,
concise, creative, elegant, engaging, exciting, interesting, insightful, persuasive,
sophisticated, surprising, thoughtful; well written; organized; synthetic; interdisciplinary;
connects components in a seamless way; exhibits mature and independent thinking; has a
point of view and a strong, confident, independent and authoritative voice; asks new
questions or addresses an important question or problem; clearly states the problem and
why it is important; displays a deep understanding of a massive amount of complicated
literature; exhibits command and authority over the material; argument is focused,
logical, rigorous and sustained; is theoretically sophisticated and shows a deep
understanding of theory; has a brilliant research design; uses or develops new tools,
methods, approaches or types of analysis; is thoroughly researched; has rich data from
multiple sources; analysis is comprehensive, complete, sophisticated and convincing;
results are significant; conclusion ties the whole thing together; is publishable in top-tier
journals; is of interest to a larger community and changes the way people think; pushes
the discipline’s boundaries and opens new areas for research
Very Good: is solid, is well written and organized; has some original ideas, insights and
observations but is less original, significant, ambitious, interesting, and than the
outstanding category; has a good question or problem that tends to be small and
traditional; is the next step in a research program; shows understanding an mastery of the
subject matter; has a strong comprehensive and coherent argument; includes wellexecuted research; demonstrates technical competence; uses appropriate (standard)
theory-methods-techniques; obtains solid expected results or answers; misses
opportunities to completely explore interesting issues and connections; makes a modest
contribution to the field but does not open it up
Acceptable: is workmanlike; demonstrates technical competence; shows the ability to do
research; is not very original or significant; is not interesting, exciting or surprising;
displays little creativity, imagination or insight; writing is pedestrian and plodding; has a
weak structure and organization; is narrow in scope; has a question or problem that is not
exciting – is often highly (derivative or extension of the advisor’s work); displays a
48
narrow understanding of the field; reviews the literature adequately – knows the literature
but is not critical of it or does not discuss what is important; can sustain an argument, but
the argument is not imaginative, complex, or convincing; demonstrates understanding of
theory at a simple level, theory is minimally to competently applied to the problem, uses
standard methods; has an unsophisticated analysis – does not explore all possibilities and
misses connection; has predictable results that are not exciting; makes a small
contribution
Unacceptable: is poorly written, has spelling and grammatical errors; has a sloppy
presentation; contains errors or mistakes; plagiarizes or deliberately misreads or misuses
sources; does not understand basic concepts; processes, or conventions of the discipline;
lacks careful thought; look at a questions or problem that is trivial, weak, unoriginal, or
already solved; does not understand or misses relevant literature; has a weak,
inconsistent, self contradictory, unconvincing, or invalid argument; does not handle
theory well, or theory is missing or wrong; relies on inappropriate or incorrect methods;
has data that are flawed, wrong, false, fudged, or misinterpreted; has wrong,
inappropriate, incoherent, or confused analysis; includes results that are obvious, already
known, unexplained, or misinterpreted; has unsupported or exaggerated interpretation;
does not make a contribution.
(Lovitts, 2005, p. 22-23)
These characteristics, while exhaustive, are also very subjective and are likely to various
interpretations depending upon a particular faculty member’s prior education, research
perspective, prior research bias and personal opinion. Lovitts suggests that if faculty members
want to create standards that can be translated in performance rubrics, they should use a rubric
development method like the one articulated in a 2004 book entitled Introduction to Rubrics: An
Assessment Tool to Save Grading Time, Convey Effective Feedback, and Promote Student
Learning by Dannelle Stevens and Antonia Levi. They propose, according to Lovitts, a four
stage process for creating performance rubrics: (1) reflect on performance outcomes, (2) list the
details of each task and the specific learning goals, (3) group and label the skills and place them
into specific component categories, and (4) provide written descriptions for each component and
task.
Faculty critical of establishing dissertation evaluation schema may argue that the
dissertation assessment process is not about determining whether a student passes or fails the
49
dissertation experience. Faculty would more likely view the dissertation review process as a
formative exercise devoted to improving student research capabilities (Mullins & Kiley, 2002,
p.17). Faculty are naturally formative – providing feedback in a casual, on-going exchange
between themselves and doctoral students, and to force a restrictive more summative rubric on
the experience would diminish the teaching aspect involved in the dissertation committee
activities. Mullins and Kiley (2002) state that a passable dissertation demonstrates the following
criteria:
• Exhibit scholarship
• Originality, coherence, a sense of student autonomy or independence
• Original use of a concept or theoretical framework
• Well-structured argument
• Logical progression of ideas, work and presentation
• Higher level of thinking and analysis
• A real problem: a sensible, do-able question
• A literature review that tells a story
• A document takes you on a journey
• Succinct writing without speculation
• Sufficient material for publication
• Reflection
• A critical assessment of the author’s own work
• Demonstrates the ability of the author to work through problems
• Demonstrates the author’s recognition and grappling of contradiction. (Mullins &
Kiley, 2002, p. 379)
50
Mullins and Kiley purport that while a passable dissertation can be identified by the
aforementioned items, “it is not possible to ‘mark’ each one out of 10, total the results, and
declare a thesis passed or failed” (Mullins & Kiley, 2002, p. 383). One element on Mullins and
Kiley’s list is particularly relevant to this study: the ability of the dissertation author to assess
their own work. Evidence of critical self-assessment is demonstrated by the student utilizing
McMillan (2000) or Gall, Gall and Borg (2003) to determine if they adequately answered the
questions that these authors pose for determining the quality of educational research.
Learning to become a researcher is a lengthy process and Mullins and Kiley (2003) state
that “A PhD is a stepping stone into a research career. All you need to do is to demonstrate your
capacity for independent, critical thinking. That’s all you need to do. A PhD is three years of
solid work, not a Nobel Prize” (Mullins & Kiley, 2002, p. 386). These authors conclude that the
development of a dissertation assessment rubric is not yet possible, but the components of a
passable dissertation are discernable and therefore, a reasonable place to start, in developing a
means to evaluate doctoral research.
Despite the lack of development in creating dissertation evaluation tools, academics have
discussed the evaluation and assessment of the literature portion of the doctoral dissertation.
Boote and Beile (2005) state that
a substantive, thorough, sophisticated literature review is a precondition for doing
substantive, thorough, sophisticated research. ‘Good’ research is good because it
advances our collective understanding. To advance our collective understanding, a
researcher or scholar needs to understand what has been done before, the strengths and
weaknesses of existing studies, and what they might mean. A researcher cannot perform
significant research without first understanding the literature in the field.
(Boote and Beile, 2005, p. 3)
Boote and Beile agree that the quality of the literature review section of the doctoral
dissertation can potentially determine whether the research is accepted by the discipline. They
propose a comprehensive literature review rubric to evaluate the quality of dissertations to insure
51
that the quality level is such that it advances knowledge and advances the discipline. The rubric
includes five major categories: coverage, synthesis, methodology, significance and rhetoric.
Within each of these categories, Boote and Beile (2005) outline specific criteria and levels of
performance which emphasize what deficiencies are present in the literature review document.
Rubrics, such as those proposed by Boote and Beile (2005), can provide direction for
both doctoral students and faculty advisors. Together specific guidance and feedback help the
student to complete what some have determined to be the most difficult aspect of the
dissertation. When Boote and Beile (2005) tested their literature review rubric on a small sample
of dissertations, they determined that the rubric was effective and not unreasonable; however
they were uncertain about whether the same literature review criteria could be used on both EdD
and PhD dissertations.
Developing widely accepted dissertation evaluation tools has the potential to dramatically
impact education as a field of study. Published research in education journals, doctoral
programs, academic organizations and teaching would all be improved. The risks, however, are
not to be discounted. Creating standards requires courage and tenacity which will result in
sweeping modifications to many aspects of doctoral education including the development of
admissions rubrics to determine ability and potential, changes in how course exams and
qualifying exam are graded, greater definition to the specifications of published research that
impact tenure decisions, and the assessment of research articles by peer review publications.
Measuring quality in a literature review is critical, but futile unless the rhetoric is clear,
concise and well written. Faculty assume, students upon admittance to a doctoral programs, are
already proficient writers.
What is shocking to faculty is that many graduate students not only do not write like
scholars, but they also may not think like scholars. This problem is particularly evident
52
in professional schools in which many doctoral students in the USA are full-time
practitioners with very demanding schedules and precious little time for research and
writing. (Caffarella & Barnett, 2000, p. 40)
Caffarella and Barnett (2000) state that doctoral students can only improve their writing
skills to the degree that their skills are evaluated frequently (Caffarella and Barnett, 2000, p. 39).
The authors admit that very little research has been conducted on student’s perceptions of
scholarly writing and that void creates a challenge for those teaching doctoral students how to be
scholars. Their study reviewed the effectiveness of a writing module that was delivered during
the first semester of a doctoral program in educational leadership. From their research project,
Caffarella and Barnett determined that student’s perceptions about writing were changed and
writing was improved when they received feedback on the content, as well as the writing
process.
Literature Review Conclusion and Rational for Dissertation
This chapter has reviewed previous research studies related to the following: nature of the
education doctorate, doctoral attrition and persistence rates, composition of dissertations and
how dissertations are currently assessed and evaluated.
The nature of two separate doctoral tracks in education has created inconsistencies in the
quality of the required dissertation. Scholars need to investigate programs that have successfully
established measurable distinctions between the dissertations of EdD versus PhD students.
Doctorial attrition is an expensive burden on institutions of higher learning that spend
considerable sums to support scholarships, fellowships and assistantships for students who never
complete the degree. Society is also burdened by high doctoral attrition rates because fullyemployed education doctoral students are taking time away from academic positions to pursue a
degree that they are not likely to earn. The greatest attrition burden is born by education doctoral
students who invest thousands of tuition dollars and numerous years pursuing degrees. Scholars
53
must explore how improving the dissertation process can reduce attrition in doctoral education
programs.
Much of the dissertation composition process is shrouded in mystery and secrecy. Those
students who are tenacious enough to discern a pathway through the academic maze will earn the
degree. Those who require more direction, however, are left to become an attrition statistic.
Scholars must explore, more thoroughly, the dissertation composition process and define
variables that can be controlled and supported to insure that a greater number of students
complete the task and earn the doctoral degree.
Little academic research has been directed toward creating dissertation assessment
instruments and rubrics. Higher education, as an advocate of educational evaluation, must set
standards for their own profession and explore ways to evaluate the most pivotal outcome of the
doctoral education process – the dissertation. Efforts to create evaluation processes can
potentially improve (1) the reputation of the educational doctorate and status of the education
doctoral degree, (2) the attrition rates for doctoral programs, especially education doctorates, (3)
the quality of the doctoral education experience, (4) reduction in the time it takes to complete the
doctoral degree and dissertation, and (5) an improvement in the quality of doctoral dissertations.
Doctoral students should also be schooled on how to use what they have learned in the basic
research methods courses to continuously evaluate their own dissertation work product. Selfassessment rubrics, combined with committee evaluation rubrics could serve to guide the
doctoral student through the dissertation maze, resulting in less overall doctoral attrition.
In an effort to determine and to recognize scholastic achievement in dissertation
production and without regard to any specific criteria or objectives, the Association for the Study
of Higher Education (ASHE) instituted an annual award in 1979 called the Dissertation of the
54
Year award. A dissertation has been chosen subsequently each year, based on limited criteria
established by the Association, and has been recognized at their annual conference. Since 1979,
the Dissertation of the Year award has been given 28 times. The name of the award was changed
in 1987 to recognize a doctoral student, Bobby Wright, who had died after completing his award
winning dissertation. The award is now referred to as the Bobby Wright Dissertation of the Year
Award.
The purpose of this study is to provide a comprehensive description of both the award
winning dissertations and the winners of the Bobby Wright Dissertation of the Year award. This
analysis will expose not only descriptive characteristics of the dissertations, but will also
highlight aggregated personal and vocational characteristics of the award winners. This analysis
will support what we already know about successful doctoral students and expose new problems
associated with attempting to determine what constitutes a quality dissertation in higher
education.
55
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This study examined the written doctoral dissertation, a requirement for conferral of a
doctoral degree in America. This study examined a specific set of acclaimed dissertations and
their authors to determine those factors which may have contributed to their receiving
recognition by the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE).
This study employed a mixed-methodology with both quantitative and qualitative
aspects. Gall, Gall and Borg (2003) define quantitative and qualitative as follows:
Quantitative research – Inquiry that is grounded in the assumption that features of the
social environment constitute an objective reality that is relatively constant across time
and settings. The dominant methodology is to describe and explain features of this reality
by collecting numerical data on the observable behaviors of samples and by subjecting
these data to statistical analysis.
Qualitative research – Inquiry that is grounded in the assumption that individuals
construct social reality in the form of meanings and interpretations, and that these
constructions tend to be transitory and situational. The dominant methodology is to
discover these meanings and interpretations by studying cases intensively in natural
settings and by subjecting the resulting data to analytic induction.
(Gall, Gall & Borg, 2003, p. 634)
The benefit of combining both quantitative and qualitative research designs is found in the
research outcomes. The amalgamation of two different methodologies provides extensive
numerical data combined with rich description and interpretation (Sogunro, 2001). Sogunro also
refers to Creswell (1994) and his assertion that it is “advantageous to a researcher to combine
methods to better understand a concept being tested or explored” (Creswell, 1994, p. 177).
Sogunro states that “research being a truth-finding construct aimed at verifying and
authenticating phenomena, evidence abounds that the use of a combination of both quantitative
and qualitative research methods results in a stronger validity of outcomes” (Songunro, 2001,
p. 7). Given the benefit of utilizing a mixed methodology, as articulated above, this study
56
combined the following: a quantitative survey instrument for dissertation recipients and a
qualitative summative rubric for a sample of the award winning dissertations. The mixed
methodology included two data collection instruments, a survey (Appendix A) designed to
collect quantitative data from recipients of the ASHE dissertation award and a qualitative rubric
(Appendix B) designed to collect qualitative data from a sample of the ASHE winning
dissertations. The combined results from this study generated vivid and rich descriptions of both
the recipients and a sample of the award winning dissertations.
Purpose of Study
This study served numerous purposes including the following:
1.
To describe more succinctly the personal and demographic attributes of dissertation authors
that were selected to receive the Bobby Wright Dissertation of the Year Award from 1979
through 2004
2.
To describe what factors recipients said positively and negatively influenced the completion
of their winning dissertation
3.
To describe what factors recipients said positively and negatively influenced their doctoral
experience
4.
To describe the career progression of recipients of the Bobby Wright Dissertation of the
Year Award from 1979 through 2004
5.
To describe the scholarly contributions of recipients of the Bobby Wright Dissertation of the
Year Award from 1979 – 2004
6.
To determine what factors describe the award winning dissertations
7.
To describe a sample of the award winning authors using Gall, Gall and Borg’s (2003)
criteria for evaluating educational research
This study attempted to answer the following research questions:
1.
What attributes and demographic factors describe past winners of the Association for the
Study of Higher Education Dissertation of the Year from 1979 through 2004?
2.
What factors had the greatest positive or negative impact on the dissertation completion
process for the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE) Dissertation of the
Year recipients?
57
3.
What factors had the greatest positive or negative impact on the quality the doctoral
experiences for winners of the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE)
dissertation award?
4.
What factors describe the career progression of past winners of the Association of the Study
of Higher Education (ASHE) Dissertation of the Year award?
5.
What scholarly contributions have past winners of the Association of the Study of Higher
Education (ASHE) Dissertation of the Year award made to the study of higher education?
6.
What factors describe dissertations that were chosen as Dissertation of the Year by the
Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE) from 1979 through 2004?
7.
Using Gall, Gall and Borg’s (2003) criteria for evaluating educational research, how would a
researcher describe a sample of the ASHE award winning dissertations?
Limitations
The conclusions drawn could not be generalized to other similar dissertation award
winners or dissertations in higher education or any other academic field of study or academic
discipline. The data collection for this study were affected by the passage of time and was
dependent upon the ability of the researcher to connect with all recipients of this award. Of the
28 recipients, only 27 were found to be living.
Delimitations
The study was limited to analyzing dissertations which were designated as winners of the
Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE) Dissertation of the Year award from
1979 – 2004. The award is also known as the Bobby Wright Dissertation of the Year award.
The qualitative portion of this study was limited to only those AHSE award winning
dissertations that were determined to be quantitative and qualitative through a review of each
dissertation abstract. Those dissertations that were determined to use a mixed methodology were
eliminated for consideration in the sample because the methodology was limited to research
classified as either quantitative or qualitative.
58
Procedures for Data Collection
Data were collected through the use of two different survey instruments. The first survey
(Appendix A) instrument was distributed via electronic mail to all living recipients of the
Association for the Study of Higher Education Bobby Wright Dissertation of the Year award
from 1979 - 2004. The email survey was sent to twenty-seven of the twenty-eight recipients of
the ASHE Dissertation of the Year award (one award recipient is deceased, Lee Bobby Wright,
1987). The email survey was sent on May 22, 2006 asking recipients to complete and return by
June 10, 2006. Accompanying the survey was a letter of introduction (Appendix C) which
explained the purpose of the research study and asking for their participation. Survey
participants also received a statement concerning informed consent required by the institutional
review board. For those recipients who did not return a completed survey, a reminder email was
sent and a follow-up phone call was made. The recipients could return their completed survey in
one of two ways: either electronically as an attachment to an email message or through the US
Postal Service.
The second survey instrument (Appendix B) was used to gather information from a
sample of the winning dissertations. A specific sampling method was used to determine which
dissertations would be analyzed. Each selected dissertation was ordered through Interlibrary
Loan at the university library. All of the sampled dissertations were read in full. The qualitative
analysis of the selected dissertations was guided by a series of questions by Gall, Gall and Borg
(2000) to describe the sample of winning dissertations.
Study Instruments
Two survey instruments were utilized for this study; the first instrument was used to
collect quantitative data from recipients of the ASHE Dissertation of the Year award. The
second survey was used to collect qualitative data from the award winning dissertations.
59
The first survey (Appendix A) was designed to collect information from each living
recipient of the ASHE dissertation award. The instrument was divided into five sections with
specific questions directed at five different categories of data: personal attributes, doctoral
experience, dissertation characteristics, dissertation completion process and career progression.
Several sections of the survey were based on attributes from information gathered in prior
research. The survey contained mostly closed-ended questions where the survey participant
could select only one answer. Some of the questions were yes/no options and other questions
contained five-point or eight-point Likert scales. Only a few open-ended questions were
included on the survey. Participants were advised that the survey would take approximately
thirty minutes to complete. The survey instrument was reviewed by the University of North
Texas Institutional Review Board to insure that it did not violate any of the designated research
standards for research conducted with human subjects.
The second instrument (Appendix B) contained a list of research evaluation questions
(for both quantitative and qualitative research studies) developed by Gall, Gall and Borg (2003).
Their educational research evaluation questions were used to guide the evaluation the entirety of
each sampled dissertation.
Study Population
The study population was defined by the Association for the Study of Higher Education
as recipients of the Dissertation of the Year award from 1979 to 2004 (also known as the Bobby
Wright Dissertation of the Year Award). This list was located on the Association’s website at
following Web address: http://www.ashe.ws/. All living recipients of the dissertation award
were invited to participate in this research study.
Email addresses of the award winners were identified through two initiatives: the first
initiative involved contacting an ASHE employee at the University of Michigan and requesting
60
the public email addresses of award winners. The second initiative involved a thorough Internet
search using Google.com and Yahoo.com to identify email addresses of past recipients of the
award.
Sampling Method
All living recipients of the ASHE Dissertation of the Year award from 1979 – 2004 were
asked to participate in the quantitative portion (email survey) of this study. A sampling method
was used for the qualitative segment of this study to identify a sample of the winning
dissertations.
To determine which dissertations were evaluated for the qualitative portion of this study,
I identified the research methodology for each winning dissertation. The research methodology
was determined by reviewing each dissertation abstract on Digital Dissertations. Once the
research methodologies were determined, I divided the winning dissertations (28 total
dissertations) into three equal chronological groups: the first group contained dissertations from
1979 through 1985, the second group contained dissertations from 1986 through 1995 and the
third group included dissertations from 1996 through 2004. It is important to note that the
Association for the Study of Higher Education had co-award winners for the 1980.
The first attempt to generate a sample of the award winning dissertation involved the use
of a systematic sampling method. The first quantitative and qualitative dissertation from groups
one, two and three were selected, but the process generated a group of six dissertations whereby
three of the six came from the same institution and five of the six were female. In order to
generate the greatest diversity in terms of gender represented in the study, I selected the second
quantitative and qualitative dissertation from group one, the first quantitative and qualitative
dissertation from group two and the fourth quantitative and qualitative dissertation from group
three. This resulted in equal number of male and female authors and representation from four
61
different institutions. This sampling process allowed for the inclusion of dissertations over the
entire span of time from 1979 through 2004. Dissertations identified as historical were classified
as qualitative studies. Mixed methodologies were not considered for inclusion in the sample
because Gall, Gall and Borg (2003) do not provide an evaluative process for specifically
reviewing a mixed methodology study.
Procedures for Data Analysis
The data for the first survey instrument (one emailed to recipients) was analyzed when all
recipients had responded or indicated that they would not respond. Data collected from each
returned email survey (quantitative survey) were entered on a spreadsheet and manipulated by a
statistical software package which produced a descriptive profile of the dissertation award
recipients. General frequencies counts, percentages and distributions were calculated for each of
the variable. In some situations, the closed-ended responses from the survey were collapsed into
meaningful categories. The variable list following each research question was utilized to provide
an answer to that specific research question.
1.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
What attributes and demographics describe past winners of the Association for the Study of
Higher Education Dissertation of the Year from 1979 through 2004?
Gender
Ethnicity
Time elapsed since award
Undergraduate degree
Undergraduate degree institution
Masters degree
Masters degree institution
Masters area of study
Education doctoral degree type
Doctoral degree institution
Doctoral degree label
Cognate and minor degree focus
Age when dissertation completed
Part-time versus full-time student status during doctoral study
Assistantship
62
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Assistantship amount
Assistantship hours per semester
Number of assistantship semesters
Fellowship
Fellowship amount
Courses taught during doctoral study
Assisted faculty research efforts
Gender of chair
Number of committee members
Dissertation chair’s rank
Classification of doctoral institution
What factors had the greatest positive or negative impact on the dissertation completion
process for the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE) Dissertation of the
Year recipients?
Reference manuals/materials
Choice of topic
Ability to generate proposal
Knowledge of analysis procedures
Major professor
Frequency of meeting with major professor
Major professor’s preparedness for meetings
Major professor armed with accurate information
Willingness to make relevant disclosure to advisors
Timeliness of meetings with advisors
Follow-through by advisor
Willingness of advisor to ask questions
Other committee members
Influence of peers
Friends
Dissertation support group
Collegial nature of doctoral environment
Spouse
Parents
Research coursework
Peer review of dissertation
Early collaboration with mentors
Assistantship or fellowship
Marital status while completing dissertation
Care of small children while completing dissertation
Elderly parent care while completing dissertation
Sources of stress while completing dissertation
63
3.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
4.
•
•
•
•
5.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
6.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
What factors had the greatest positive or negative impact on the quality of the doctoral
experiences for winners of the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE)
dissertation award?
Disciplinary knowledge
Informed career choice
Teaching competency
Understanding diversity
Understanding mentoring
Connecting across disciplines
Global perspective
Viewing oneself as scholar-citizen
Ability to communicate in teams
Understanding ethical conduct
What factors describe the career progression of past winners of the Association of the Study
of Higher Education (ASHE) Dissertation of the Year Award?
Academic track vs. non-academic track
Tenure
Plans for tenure
Last academic job title
What scholarly contributions have past winners of the Association of the Study of Higher
Education (ASHE) Dissertation of the Year Award made to the study of higher education?
Journal articles published
On-line articles published
Books published
Book reviews published
Conference presentations
Number of academic organization memberships
Number of leadership positions held
What factors describe dissertations that were chosen as Dissertation of the Year by the
Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE) from 1979 through 2004?
Length
Research method
Topic related to committee chair research interests
Broadness of topic
Method of data analysis
Statistics used
Total time to complete dissertation
Time to degree completion
Funding received for dissertation
64
• Articles published from dissertation
• Conference presentations for dissertation
The seventh research question was answered from data gathered through the application
of an evaluative research approach provided by Gall, Gall and Borg (2003). Their approach
provided a series of questions for each section of an educational research report or study. Only
those questions that could be reasonably answered were used for the qualitative analysis of a
sample of ASHE award winning dissertations. Those questions that could not be successfully
answered were disregarded.
The actual process for qualitatively analyzing the selected dissertations emerged as the
review process began. The initial effort involved reading each selected dissertation in full,
applying Gall, Gall and Borg’s questions throughout the review. It became clear, however, that
in order to compare, contrast and evaluate comparable sections, the researcher read the
introductory section of each dissertation, applying the Gall, Gall and Borg (2003) criteria, then
moved on to each subsequent section. This process allowed for the researcher to compare,
contrast and evaluate the chapters or sections simultaneously, enriching the data gathering
process. The research question that guided this qualitative analytical process is as follows:
7.
Using Gall, Gall and Borg’s (2003) criteria for evaluating educational research, how would a
researcher describe a sample of the ASHE award winning dissertations?
Data from the second survey (qualitative survey) were collected in narrative form as each section
was read.
Reporting the Data
The results of the data are reported in accordance with the original research questions as
presented earlier in this chapter. The first six research questions are answered with
corresponding data and available in table format with narrative explanations. All survey data are
65
reported in terms of frequency counts and percentages as appropriate. The answer to the seventh
research question is reported only in narrative form.
66
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH
Introduction
This chapter presents the data analysis results derived from the research design explained
in Chapter three. The first portion of this chapter presents the findings from a quantitative
survey administered to 27 living recipients of the Association for the Study of Higher Education
Dissertation of the Year award. Seventy-four percent or 20 of the 27 living recipients completed
and returned the survey. One of the 27 possible responders, one declined to participate and the
remainder did not complete the questionnaire. The survey generated the descriptive findings for
the following six research questions:
1.
What attributes and demographic factors describe past winners of the Association for the
Study of Higher Education Dissertation of the Year from 1979 through 2004?
2.
What factors had the greatest positive or negative impact on the dissertation completion
process for the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE) Dissertation of the
Year recipients?
3.
What factors had the greatest positive or negative impact on the quality of the doctoral
experiences for winners of the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE)
dissertation award?
4.
What factors describe the career progression of past winners of the Association of the Study
of Higher Education (ASHE) Dissertation of the Year award?
5.
What scholarly contributions have past winners of the Association of the Study of Higher
Education (ASHE) Dissertation of the Year award made to the study of higher education?
6.
What factors describe dissertations that were chosen as Dissertation of the Year by the
Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE) from 1979 through 2004?
Each of the preceding research questions are presented consecutively in this chapter with
corresponding data in table form.
The second portion of this chapter presents the narrative findings from the qualitative
analysis of a sample of the award winning dissertations. This descriptive analysis provides the
67
framework for answering the seventh and final research question for this study which is as
follows:
7.
Using Gall, Gall and Borg’s (2003) criteria for evaluating educational research, how would a
researcher describe a sample of the ASHE award winning dissertations?
Research Question 1
Past winners of the Association for the Study of Higher Education’s Dissertation of the
Year award can be described according to attributes measured by the completed questionnaires.
Of the 20 living recipients that responded, 50% were male and 50% were female. As a group of
respondents, 85% were Caucasian with representation from both Hispanic and Asian ethnic
groups. The Caucasian respondents were reflective of relatively equal percentages of male
(52%) and female (47%) award winners.
Table 1
Gender by Ethnicity Crosstabulation
Ethnicity
Gender
Caucasian
Asian
Hispanic
Total
Male
9
1
0
10
Female
8
1
1
10
Total
17
2
1
20
The survey respondents were well represented over time. One response came from a
winner from the last 3 years, five from 4 to 6 years ago, three each from 11 to 15 years ago and
16 to 20 years ago, and finally seven from 21 or more years ago.
68
Amongst the winners, the distribution of undergraduate majors was very diverse. Of the
20 respondents, three did not provide a specific undergraduate major, three indicated English as
their undergraduate major, and the remaining respondents listed 13 other undergraduate areas of
study. Two respondents of the 20 indicated an undergraduate major in anthropology and
political science with two others indicating undergraduate degrees in more practical subjects
such as journalism and management information systems. None of the recipients indicated that
their undergraduate major was from any of the hard sciences such as biology, chemistry or
physics. Table 2 provides an overview of the undergraduate degree distribution.
69
Table 2
Undergraduate Field of Study
Field
Frequency
Percent
Anthropology
1
5.0
5.0
Anthropology/Sociology
1
5.0
10.0
Art Education
1
5.0
15.0
Communications/Journalism
1
5.0
20.0
English
3
15.0
35.0
French & Fine Arts
1
5.0
40.0
History
1
5.0
45.0
Humanities
1
5.0
50.0
Information Systems
1
5.0
55.0
Philosophy
1
5.0
60.0
Political Science
2
10.0
70.0
Religion
1
5.0
75.0
Social Studies
1
5.0
80.0
Sociology
1
5.0
85.0
Missing Values
3
15.0
100.00
Total
Cumulative Percent
20
The survey respondent’s undergraduate degrees were awarded by 20 different institutions that
included a variety of public, private and parochial institutions, both large and small.
70
At the graduate level, 35% of respondents indicated that they had earned a Master of Arts
degree. Only 15% earned a Master of Science degree with the remaining respondents indicating
another type of graduate degree. Two respondents did not provide the type of masters degree
earned. Table 3 displays the distribution of graduate degree types.
Table 3
Master Degree Type
Masters Degree Label
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative Percent
Arts
7
35.0
35.0
Divinity
1
5.0
40.0
Education
1
5.0
45.0
Liberal Studies
1
5.0
50.0
Professional Studies
1
5.0
55.0
Public Policy
1
5.0
60.0
Science
3
15.0
75.0
Social Work
1
5.0
80.0
Theology
1
5.0
85.0
Two Degrees
Art & Sciences
1
5.0
90.0
Missing Values
2
5.0
100.0
Total
20
Table 4 reveals 16 different master-level institutions for survey respondents. Three
respondents did not provide their master’s level institution and two respondents noted a dual
masters degree.
71
Table 4
Master’s Level Institutions
Institution
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative Percent
American Int’l College
1
5.0
5.0
Bowling Green
1
5.0
10.0
Cornell
1
5.0
15.0
Florida State University
1
5.0
20.0
New York University
1
5.0
25.0
North Dakota State
& Stanford
1
5.0
30.0
Penn State & Slippery Rock
1
5.0
35.0
Regis University
1
5.0
45.0
Syracuse University
1
5.0
50.0
Union Theological
1
5.0
55.0
University of Arizona
1
5.0
60.0
University of California
1
5.0
65.0
University of Minnesota
2
10.0
75.0
University of Texas
1
5.0
80.0
University of Wisconsin
1
5.0
85.0
Missing Values
3
15.0
100.00
Total
20
Forty percent of the respondents indicated that their master’s degree area of study was in
some aspect of education. It should be noted, however, that only one respondent reported that
the actual graduate degree was in education (Table 3). This indicates that some of the education
related topics were actually housed within other disciplines. Ten percent or two of the
respondents indicated that their masters’ degree was in some aspect of theology. Table 5
presents the distribution master degree areas of study.
72
Table 5
Masters Degree Area of Study
Field
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative Percent
1
5.0
5.0
Counseling & Administration
Policy Analysis
1
5.0
10.0
Divinity/Theology
2
10.0
20.0
Education Related
8
40.0
60.0
French Literature
1
5.0
65.0
H.R. & Community Affairs
1
5.0
70.0
Management &
Operations
1
5.0
75.0
Not-for-Profit Mgmt.
1
5.0
80.0
Psychiatry
1
5.0
85.0
Public Policy
1
5.0
90.0
Missing Values
2
10.0
100.00
Communication Theory
& Policy
Total
20
At the doctoral level, 95 % (19 of the respondents) produced their winning dissertation as
the final requirement for a PhD degree with one earning an EdD. Sixty percent (12 respondents)
of the doctoral degree were awarded from public institutions with the remainder (40% or 8
respondents) from private institutions. University of Michigan produced the greatest number of
award winners totaling three. The doctoral granting institutions represented mostly state
universities with two winners coming from each of the following institutions: Pennsylvania State
73
University, University of Arizona, University of Chicago and the University of Michigan. Table
6 portrays the institutions representative of the doctoral granting degrees for survey respondents.
Table 6
Doctoral Degree Institutions
Institution
Frequency
Percent
Pennsylvania State
2
10.0
10.0
Stanford University
1
5.0
15.0
University of Arizona
2
10.0
25.0
University of California
1
5.0
30.0
University of Chicago
2
10.0
40.0
University of Denver
1
5.0
45.0
University of Kansas
1
5.0
50.0
University of Michigan
3
15.0
65.0
University of Minnesota
1
5.0
70.0
University of Virginia
1
5.0
75.0
University of Wisconsin
1
5.0
80.0
Vanderbilt University
2
10.0
90.0
Washington State
1
5.0
95.0
Missing Values
1
5.0
100.00
Total
Cumulative Percent
20
Ninety-five percent of the responding award winners earned doctoral degrees in some
aspect of education with a 45% specifically designating their degree to be in higher education.
Only one respondent indicated a field outside of higher education, specifically French with an
emphasis in second language acquisition and pedagogy. Table 7 outlines the doctoral degree
labels that were representative of the 20 respondents.
74
Table 7
Doctoral Degree Labels
Degree Label
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative Percent
Admin. & Policy Analysis
1
5.0
5.0
Curriculum & Instruction
Adult Education
1
5.0
10.0
French (Emphasis in
1
Second Language
Acquisition & Pedagogy
5.0
15.0
Higher Education
9
45.0
60.0
Higher Education
Administration
4
20.0
80.0
Higher Education Policy
1
5.0
85.0
Measurement, Evaluation
& Statistical Analysis
in Higher Education
1
5.0
90.0
Public Policy
1
5.0
95.0
Missing Values
1
5.0
100.00
Total
20
Survey respondents seemed confused when asked to designate a cognate field of study or
a minor field of study and the responses from these two questions appear inconclusive.
Forty-five percent of the survey respondents indicated that they were between the ages of
33 and 38 when they completed their dissertations, with 25% below 33 years of age and 30%
over 38 years of age. Table 8 portrays the distribution of respondent’s ages at the time they
completed their winning dissertation.
75
Table 8
Age Dissertation Completed
Age
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
27 - 32
5
25.0
25.0
33 - 38
9
45.0
70.0
39 - 50
4
20.0
90.0
51 & over
2
10.0
100.0
Total
20
Seventy percent of the survey respondents indicated that they were enrolled full-time in a
doctoral program with 20% indicating a part-time status. Ten percent indicated that they attended
both full-time and part-time to complete their degree. Table 9 demonstrates the breakdown
between full-time and part-time doctoral student status.
Table 9
Doctoral Student Status
Status
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Full-time
14
70.0
70.0
Part-time
4
20.0
90.0
Both
2
10.0
100.0
Total
20
76
In terms of the awarding of assistantships and fellowships to dissertation winners, the
responses indicated that 55% had assistantships and 45% had fellowships. Respondents were
asked to define the dollar amount of their assistantships, the assistantship hours per semester,
number of assistantship semesters and fellowship dollar amounts. For the most part, most of the
respondents indicated that they received them, but could not recollect the exact amounts.
Ninety percent of the respondents did not have teaching responsibilities as a doctoral
student, while 60% or twelve of the respondents did assist faculty with their own research while
working on their doctorates. Sixty-five percent of the respondents also indicated that their
dissertation chair was male, while 35% were female. One respondent had two co-chairs, one
male and one female. Eleven or 60% of the respondents indicated that their dissertation chair
was ranked as a full professor, 20% (4 respondents) as an associate professor and 20% (4
respondents) as an assistant professor.
In terms of their size of the respondent’s dissertation committees, 45% said that their
committee contained 4 faculty members, 35% contained 3 and 20% contained five members.
When asked to classify their doctoral institution as research intensive, teaching intensive or both,
75% of the respondents classified theirs as research intensive. One respondent classified their
institution as teaching intensive; one indicated that their doctoral institution was both and one
respondent did not provide a response.
Research Question 2
The results of the survey indicate that numerous factors affected the dissertation
completion process for the Association for the Study of Higher Education dissertation award
winners. According to the survey results, respondents indicated the following:
1.
Fifty-five percent of the respondents believed that the use of reference materials or manuals
helped considerably in their effort to complete and defend their dissertation.
77
2.
Ninety-five percent of the respondents indicated that their dissertation topic choice had a
positive impact on the completion process, while 70% of the survey respondents reported
that the ease in writing their proposal helped significantly in the completion of their
dissertation.
3.
Ninety percent of the responding dissertation winners reported that research knowledge
helped them noticeably to complete and defend their dissertation.
5.
Eighty percent of the respondents indicated that their major professor had a considerable
impact, but that other committee members had limited influence on their ability to bring the
dissertation to fruition.
6.
Survey respondents reported that peers, friends and dissertation support groups were not
very important in the completion and defense of their dissertations.
7.
Sixty percent of the respondents reported that the collegial nature of the doctoral
environment had limited effect on their completion of the dissertation.
8.
Respondents indicated that while spouses a considerable effect, parents has virtually no
influence on the process.
9.
Survey respondents reported that knowledge gained in research coursework was a
considerable factor in completing their dissertation.
10. Respondents indicated that peer review of their dissertation had very limited impact on their
ability to complete and defend their dissertations.
11. Sixty-five percent of the survey respondents indicated that early collaboration with mentors
had a significant or very significant impact on their ability to complete the process.
12. Of those respondents who had assistantships and fellowship, half said that these
responsibilities positively impacted their ability to complete their dissertation and half said it
had little to no impact.
13. Fifty-five percent of the respondents were married while completing their dissertation, while
35% were responsible for the care of small children. None of the survey respondents were
responsible for caring for elderly parents while completing their dissertation.
14. Fifty-five percent of the respondents indicated that some form of stress impact their ability
to complete and defend their dissertation. Examples of stress included marital problems,
financial concerns, problems with IRB approval and attempting to begin a career while
completing a dissertation.
In addition to the previous listed factors, it appears that interaction with the dissertation advisor
had a substantial impact on the winner’s ability to complete the dissertation. Sixty-five percent
of the respondents reported meeting with their advisor occasionally and often. Eighty percent of
78
the respondents indicated that their faculty advisor was prepared for their sessions and their
advisor was armed with accurate and useful information. Eighty-five percent of the surveyed
winners stated that they were willing to make relevant disclosures to their advisor to help
facilitate the guidance and mentoring process. Seventy-five percent reported that the timing of
their advising sessions was often and 85% stated that their advisor followed through with
specific help or requested assistance.
Research Question 3
According to the Association of American Universities, doctoral programs should
produce doctoral students who exhibit a specific skill set. When respondents were asked to rate
the quality of each skill set, given their particular program, the following was determined.
In terms of disciplinary knowledge, 55% of the survey respondents believed that their
program provided very strong disciplinary knowledge, while 35% believed their program
provided moderate disciplinary knowledge.
Quality doctoral programs also provide students with a variety of informed career choices
and for the survey respondents, only 25% believed that their program provided a strong informed
career choice. Thirty percent reported that their program provided moderate strength relative to
informed career choice.
Two primary quality factors, teaching competency and understanding diversity were
determined by the respondents to be weak features of their doctoral program. Sixty percent of
the respondents reported that the teaching competency component in their program had minimal
or no strength. In terms of understanding diversity, as a doctoral program component, 55% of
survey respondents reported that this component was either non-existent or very weak.
Survey respondents reported that two doctoral program components, understanding
mentoring and connecting across disciplines, were moderate to very strong. Seventy percent of
79
respondents rated the understanding mentoring component as moderate to very strong, while
95% reported that the connecting across disciplines component was moderately to very strong.
Three additional doctoral program components were reported to be moderate to very
strong: scholar-citizen perspective, working in teams and understanding ethics. Sixty percent of
the respondents believed that their program provided a moderate to very strong effort to help
doctoral students develop a scholar-citizen perspective. Seventy-five percent reported that the
programs emphasis on learning to work in teams was moderate to very strong, while 70% rated
the ethnic component as moderate to very strong.
The final component, developing a global perspective, was reported in a dichotomous
fashion with 35% reporting that is was moderate to very strong, but 45% reporting that is was
weak to non-existent.
Research Question 4
The Association for the Study of Higher Education dissertation winners primarily chose
academic careers. Ninety-five percent or 19 of the 20 respondents indicated that following the
completion of their dissertation, they joined the academic ranks. Seventy percent of the
respondent chose a faculty path, while 25% followed an administrative path, in an academic
setting. Three indicated that they left the faculty ranks to become college presidents, one to raise
children and one to enter law school
Fifty-five percent of the respondents joined public institutions and 25% joined private
institutions. Two of the 20 respondents did not provide a response to the type of institution they
were employed by.
Fifty-five percent (11 respondents) of those seeking faculty positions accepted tenuretrack jobs. Of the 11 who pursued tenure, seven respondents (35%) earned tenure. Two
additional respondents expect to earn tenure. When respondents were asked to list their last title
80
in an academic setting, the majority (35%) reported their title as assistant professor. Table 10
exhibits the titles and percentages associated with the last listed title of each respondent.
Table 10
Last Title in Academia
Degree Label
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative Percent
Assistant Clinical Professor
1
5.0
5.0
Assistant Dean/Professor
1
5.0
10.0
Assistant Professor
7
35.0
45.0
Associate Professor
1
5.0
50.0
Associate Vice President
for Academic Affairs
1
5.0
55.0
Faculty President
1
5.0
60.0
Full Professor
2
10.0
70.0
President
3
15.0
85.0
Vice President
Educational
Tech. Services
1
5.0
90.0
Missing Values
2
10.0
Total
100.00
20
Research Question 5
The scholarly contributions of the recipients of the Association for the Study of Higher
Education dissertation award were substantial, according to the results of the survey. Overall,
90% of the survey respondents have published at least one journal article. Fifty percent have
81
published eight or more articles, while 70% have published five or more journal articles. Table
11 portrays the scholarly contributions of the survey respondents.
Table 11
Journal Articles Published
Number
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Zero
2
10.0
10.0
2
3
15.0
25.0
4
1
5.0
30.0
5
2
10.0
40.0
6
2
10.0
50.0
8+
10
50.0
100.0
Total
20
The 20 respondents reported that they had published journal articles in 36 different
publications. Eleven (55%) respondents reported publishing articles in the Journal of Higher
Education, ten (50%) in the Review of Higher Education, 4 (20%) in Research in Higher
Education and two (10%) each in Higher Education, Journal of College Student Development
and Sociology of Education.
The respondents did not appear to participate in the publication of as many on-line
articles or books as they had journal articles. Seventy-five percent of the respondents had not
published one on-line article and 55% had not published an academic book. Fifty percent of the
respondents published two or more book reviews and 80% were involved in making five or more
82
conference presentations. Table 12 exhibits the number of conference presentation reported by
the respondents.
Table 12
Conference Presentations
Number
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative Percent
Zero
3
15.0
10.0
4
1
5.0
30.0
5
2
10.0
40.0
7
1
5.0
50.0
8+
13
65.0
100.0
Total
20
The survey participates appear to be highly involved in professional organizations.
Eight-five percent belong to two or more organizations and 35% belong to four or more. The
respondents have also held numerous leadership positions within professional associations.
Since completing their dissertations, 12 or 60% of the respondents have held at least one or more
leadership positions.
Research Question 6
The following attributes describe the Association for the Study of Higher Education
award winning dissertations as represented by the respondent pool. Fifty percent or 10
dissertations were between 200 and 399 pages, with 3 over 200 pages. Table 13 portrays the
distribution of dissertation length across 20 dissertations that were tabulated.
83
Table 13
Dissertation Length
Pages
Frequency
Percent
Under 200
3
15.0
15.0
200 to 399
10
50.0
65.0
400 to 699
4
20.0
85.0
700 and Over
3
15.0
100.0
Total
Cumulative
Percent
20
The research design combined with the dissertation length suggests that qualitative and
historical dissertations tend to be longer than quantitative dissertations. Table 14 provides a
crosstabulation of the dissertation length with the research method used by the 20 respondents.
Table 14
Dissertation Length Crosstabulation with Research Method
Research Method
Length
Quant.
Qual
Both
Historical
Total
Under 200
1
0
2
0
3
200 to 399
4
4
2
0
10
400 to 699
0
2
1
1
4
700 and over
0
2
1
0
3
Total
5
8
6
1
20
Sixty-five percent (13 respondents) reported that their dissertation topic was suggested by
their major professor and that the topic was of interest to their dissertation chair. The
dissertation topic for the surveyed dissertations was very broad and included the following:
84
1.
Twenty percent of the dissertation topics were related to organizational theory.
2.
Fifteen percent were higher education finance topics.
3.
Fifteen percent were higher education policy topics.
4.
Ten percent were literacy topics.
5.
Ten percent were connected to faculty work or faculty work product.
6.
The remaining 30% represented single categories.
As diverse as the dissertation topics were, the respondents also used a wide variety of
qualitative and quantitative methods to analyze their data. The qualitative approaches included
case studies, content-analysis, ethnography-related analysis, historical analysis, interpretive
analysis and pattern matching. The quantitative approaches included correlational factor
analysis, inferential statistics, multiple regression and survey analysis.
The surveyed dissertations also used a wide array of statistical calculations including
ANOVA, scale development techniques, correlational analysis, cluster analysis, regression,
multiple regressions, tests of multi-collinarity, t-tests, Pearson Product coefficients and chi
square.
The surveyed dissertations were completed on different time tables with 50% requiring
from 2 to 4 years. Table 15 provides an overview of the length of time required to complete the
surveyed dissertations.
85
Table 15
Time to Complete Dissertation
Time
Less than 2 years
2 to 4 years
More than 4 years
Total
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative Percent
7
35.0
35.0
10
50.0
85.0
3
15.0
100.0
20
Seventy-five percent of the surveyed winners required between three and six years to
complete their doctoral program. Table 16 provides the breakdown of time-to-degree
completion information.
Table 16
Time to Complete Doctoral Program
Time
Less than 3 years
3 to 6 years
More than 6 years
Total
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative Percent
1
5.0
5.0
15
75.0
80.0
4
20.0
100.0
20
Fifty percent of the surveyed respondents received funding for their research and 30% of
the respondents generated more than three articles for publication from their dissertation
86
research. Ninety percent of the respondents made conference presentations that were the result
of their completed dissertation.
Research Question 7
The second phase of this study involved the qualitative assessment of a sample of the
award winning dissertations. The sample, having been generated by the sampling method
articulated in the previous chapter, reflected an even percentage of male (3) and female (3)
dissertation winners. Two different ethnic backgrounds were reflected in the sample with five
being Caucasian and one being Hispanic. The sample was also representative of four different
doctoral institutions including University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Washington State
University, University of Michigan and Vanderbilt University. The sample included two
winners from both the University of Michigan and Vanderbilt University. Overall the sample
was representative of range of award winners from 1979 through 2004. Two winners came from
the first chronological group (1979 through 1985), two from the second chronological group
(1986 – 1995) and two from the last chronological group (1996 – 2004). Half of the sampled
dissertations appeared to be qualitative in nature and the other half appeared to be quantitative
based upon an assessment of the dissertation abstracts. Some of the sampled qualitative
dissertations contained quantitative features.
The sampled dissertations also revealed a wide array of lengths. Each of the sampled
dissertations reflected the same basic structure, with some of the dissertations having five
chapters and others having as many as eight, but all inclusive of the basic requirements including
introductory information, background or literature review information, methodology, results and
concluding remarks.
The process of applying Gall, Gall and Borg’s (2003) procedure for evaluating
educational research resulted in the development of a method to contrast, compare and evaluate
87
the quality of each section of the sample dissertations. For example, each dissertation section
was read for the purpose of making specific observations. Then the sections were compared and
contrasted relative to the criteria established by Gall, Gall and Borg (2003). Given the emergent
nature of the qualitative assessment, the criteria presented by Gall, Gall and Borg only loosely
directed the qualitative assessment providing a starting point for each phase of the analysis.
Because Gall, Gall and Borg (2003) present different questions for qualitative versus quantitative
studies, the qualitative dissertations were thoroughly analyzed and the results presented first.
The analysis of the sampled quantitative dissertations immediately follows the qualitative results
section.
It should be noted that Gall, Gall and Borg (2003) do not believe that quantitative and
qualitative research traditions are necessarily distinct and separate. They argue that elements of
one approach can be effectively used within the application of the other. Gall, Gall and Borg
(2003) state that quantitative analytical data analysis methods can be used both in case study
analysis, historical and ethnographic studies. This blended perspective (quantitative analysis
within qualitative studies) is reflected within the questions they suggest for the analysis of
qualitative studies.
The six dissertations included in the qualitative analysis have been designated as A, B, C,
D, E and F. The first three (A, B and C) were representative of qualitative dissertations and the
second three (D, E and F) were representative of quantitative dissertations.
Qualitative Dissertation Assessment
Assessment of background and literature review sections
The questions posed by Gall, Gall and Borg (2003) to evaluate the quality of the
background and literature review sections of educational researchers were as follows:
88
1.
Are the research problems or findings unduly influenced by the researcher’s
institutional affiliations, beliefs, values, or theoretical orientation?
2.
Do the researchers demonstrate undue positive or negative bias in describing the
subject of the study?
3.
Is the literature review section of the report sufficiently comprehensive? Does it
include studies that you know to be relevant to the problem?
Dissertation A
Dissertation A’s introduction and background section was included in part one (of three
parts) of her dissertation. Part one included the background, the problem statement and the
methodology. The author of Dissertation A immediately introduced the focus of her research
study in the first sentence of the dissertation. In the second sentence of her dissertation she
defined the core element and in the third sentence she connected her research study to a prior
effort conducted in 1958. This author left nothing to the reader’s imagination and immediately
stated that a prior research study in 1958 was the baseline for her dissertation. Dissertation A’s
author, after presenting her research objective in the first page, spent much of the next ten pages
explaining why the baseline study needed to be updated and reengineered for present-day
academics. This author did not use descriptive adjectives in her introductory pages that might
indicate any bias on her part.
The literature review section of Dissertation A began on the second page of the
dissertation with the author’s analysis of the baseline study that framed her research. One
compelling aspect of the literature review section was how the author combined her review of
the prior research with how the prior research had left knowledge gaps. This process provided
the reader with immediate reasons why her dissertation was relevant and timely. More
importantly however, she framed, for the reader, why her dissertation would have value to future
researchers.
89
The author also made no assumption about the reader’s prior knowledge of her topic and
carefully defined and described critical aspects of the literature as it related to her study. The
transitions between various studies were logical and convincing. The reader did not have to
struggle with the progression of information. Dissertation A was written in the mid 80’s and all
of the prior research studies were recent and relevant to her analysis. The highlight of the
literature review section is found in the summation at the end of introductory section where the
author efficiently summarized the literature and presented a solid legitimate need for her own
dissertation study.
Dissertation B
Dissertation B’s table of contents demonstrated the complexity of this author’s research
agenda. The table of contents totaled seven pages and presented a comprehensive, logical and
complete explanation of what would be a complicated and exhaustive research study. In chapter
one, Dissertation B’s author, provided the context, purpose, problem, research question and
research goals. He was also careful to provide specific definitions and parameters of his study,
along with his explanation for the significance of the study. In the next 46 pages of his
dissertation, the author provided a thorough and comprehensive historical explanation that
demonstrated his historical knowledge of autonomy and control in higher education and patterns
of campus-state relations.
The literature review section of Dissertation B was less structured than Dissertation A.
He admitted early on that little research had been done on his topic, so his review of the literature
reflected a unique combination of a few pertinent studies and theoretical models that he would
use to support his research agenda and methodology. He allocated numerous pages to an
historical overview of how political scientists have paid increasing attention to the phenomenon
of agenda-setting followed by a section that he labeled as a theoretical framework. At the
90
conclusion of chapter three, the author produced a two-page summary that brought together the
background information, weaknesses in previous literature, the need for more theoretical
research in the area of agenda stetting and an summary of why current theoretical models are
inadequate. Together in his summary, the author legitimatized the relevance of his research in a
very effective and consolidated manner.
Dissertation C
Dissertation C was the longest of the three sampled qualitative dissertations and unlike
the other two qualitative authors, this author began her dissertation with a question. In fact, the
author’s writing style reflected a predisposition to ask questions of the reader and she did so
several times on the first two pages and throughout her dissertation. Gall, Gall and Borg (2003)
would classify this dissertation as a historical research study.
Unlike the other dissertations in the qualitative sample, this dissertation presented a
unique format, perhaps based on its historical perspective. This author devoted the first chapter
to an overview of the entire dissertation chapter by chapter. This opening chapter was critically
important for the reader to understand her research proposition and how she would use her
historical review to support or deny her single research proposition.
Chapter two of Dissertation C, the author presented a historical review of the role of state
legislatures since 1900 and the creation of administrative boards to oversee public higher
education. Within the author’s historical review, she carefully intertwined explanations of recent
studies and prior dissertations conducted on state control of higher education. The author of
Dissertation C was very thorough in her assessment of recent studies and carefully explained
where each study may have been limited in scope or did not specifically address her primary
research interest. The author devoted only four pages to recent studies and dissertations and
despite the brevity of her review, she did consolidate the studies and comment succinctly about
91
how the quality of the research and how those studies did not address the concerns of her
dissertation research. At the end of chapter two, Dissertation C’s author did provide a brief
conclusion with once definite statement that legitimatized her dissertation study.
Assessment of research procedures sections
The questions proposed by Gall, Gall and Borg (2003) used to evaluate the research
procedures sections were as follows:
1.
Did the sampling procedure result in a case or cases that were particularly
interesting and from which much could be learned about the phenomena of
interest?
2.
Was there sufficient intensity of data collection?
3.
Is each measure in the study sufficiently valid for its intended purpose?
4.
Is each measure in the study sufficiently reliable for its intended purpose?
5.
Is each measure appropriate for the sample?
6.
Were the research procedures appropriate and clearly stated so that others could
replicate them if they wish?
Dissertation A
Dissertation A’s author presented very clear and concise explanations for her research
plan and agenda. She stated that her study was a replication study with three modifications. The
first modification involved using paired variables; the second involved reducing the sample from
nine universities to six and the third involved interviewing a very limited group of department
chairs and peers to interviewing a wide array of academic levels. In order to justify the
differences between the initial study and her research, she reviewed the prior study’s research
questions and explained in great detail how she planned to deviate from those and how the
deviations would enhance her results.
92
The researcher was not able to duplicate the prior study’s sample perfectly, but made
reasonable adjustments that would not jeopardize the study’s outcome. The original study
included faculty employment data from nine universities and her study focused on only six
universities. Despite the reduction of universities, the author was able to generate nearly the
same number of respondents (310 versus 306). Data generated for her study were representative
of 77 assistant professors, 46 associate professors, and 183 professors – all coming from 131
different departments. In comparison to the original study, this author was able to broaden her
sample to include more women (51 as compared to 17), more Asian minorities (12 versus one)
and more departments (131 versus 12).
Dissertation A’s author generated substantial amounts of data that were representative of
differing faculty levels, types of institutions, classification of institutions, ethnicity and gender.
In total, the author collected data via personal interviews, mail-in questionnaires and telephone
interviews. Most of the data were generated through open-ended questions that were coded and
classified after the collection process had ended. The variables generated by the data were
determined, somewhat by the prior baseline study that the author was replicating, but new
variables became evident as the coding process commenced. All of the variables were
appropriate for the sample and were relevant to the research questions that she outlined at the
beginning of her study. The author clearly explained her coding process and provided the reader
with a means to follow her process. However, trying to replicate this type of study would be a
complex and laborious task, but certainly doable.
Dissertation B
Prior to explaining Dissertation B’s sampling process, the author provided a detailed
explanation for his research strategy. In fact, he created a separate section to detail and explain
why a comparative case study was used as his primary research strategy. He justified the use of
93
this strategy by explaining the following: (1) that comparative case studies are appropriate for
phenomena where the contextual features are central, (2) that his data could not be
experimentally manipulated, and (3) that to answer his research question; he would need to seek
out multiple sources of data or evidence. He added further justification for his research strategy
by explaining that comparative case studies are predominate in political science and policy
research studies.
Dissertation B’s author employed a complex sampling method for the purposes of
understanding and explaining state-level policy making processes. He stated that his study was
based on replication logic and outlined three criteria to select individual states. After applying
the criteria, he identified three states (Arkansas, Hawaii and Illinois) to represent independent
tests of different political agenda models. Thus, when taken together, the independent tests
would create a conceptual framework for understanding policy making at the state level.
The author of Dissertation B used a wide variety of data from the three states in his
sample including interviews, documents and archival material. He used multiple sources of
evidence to develop both perceptual and factual data so he could identify converging lines of
inquiry. He argued that by having an abundance of evidence, he would increase the validity and
reliability of his results. Dissertation B’s author carefully explained his research method
including (1) how he identified candidates for interviewing, (2) how he collected data, (3) his
interview protocol and (4) how he generated narrative data from the interviews and archival data.
He dedicated three full chapters, one for each state in the sample, for the purposes of explaining
and describing each state based on his data. The author at the end of his methodology section
described how he would provide validity control for his study. He outlined five different types
of validity issues that he controlled for including content validity, construct validity, internal
94
validity, external validity and reliability. He included a chart that explained the specific test, the
tactic he used to control the validity issue and at what phase he executed that control.
Overall, Dissertation B could be replicated by another researcher, but it would be a
tedious and difficult process. The methodology and process could be easily repeated, but
without substantial knowledge of political science research and policy studies, a complete
replication of this study might be impossible.
Dissertation C
The author of Dissertation C utilized a very simple sampling method and articulated the
entire method in one sentence. This author employed a random sample stratified on the basis of
rank in per capita expenditures for higher education and population totals for a specific period of
time, 1900 – 1979. Her sampling method generated four states to be included in her study:
Washington, Idaho, Tennessee and New Hampshire. For the design of her study, she referenced
a pilot study on the state of New Jersey that had been conducted for the same time period.
For data, this author used a multitude of resources including laws, joint resolutions, riders
and appropriate acts for the states of Washington, Idaho, Tennessee, and New Hampshire over an
eighty year time span, legal sources including higher education acts, statutes, state constitutions,
state budgets, selected state court decisions, institutional histories, reports of state boards of
education and other state agencies, reports of the U.S. Office of Education and its successors,
studies of state systems of higher education done by outside consultants, reports of legislative
committees, and newspapers. To provide greater understanding, the author conducted interviews
with state legislators, university and state officials.
The author’s rationale for the study was located in her methodology chapter, which was
very different from Dissertations A and B. She continued to pose questions at the beginning of
critical sections and did so even in the methodology chapter. Aside from repeating her central
95
research question and five auxiliary questions, the remainder of her methodology chapter was
dedicated to explaining how she collected, categorized and analyzed the data. Given the
multitude of data sources, the author only dedicated ten pages to those processes. At the
conclusion of her methodology chapter, the author briefly revisited her sampling procedure.
The sampling method and data collection processes for Dissertation C could easily be
replicated, but any researcher would likely be overwhelmed with the mass of information.
Instead of organizing the data by each state, the data was presented by data type: (1)
development of governance structures and other major legislation, and (2) quantitative and
qualitative analysis of all acts and riders to appropriate acts, 1900- 1979. While the sampling
method and data collection processes could be replicated the process for analyzing the data could
not. For example, the author stated that certain events were described and significant changes or
differences between the states were noted, but she did not specify the process for she used for
tracking the changes or differences.
Assessment of results section
The questions suggested by Gall, Gall and Borg (2003) to evaluate the quality of the
results sections were as follows:
1.
Did the report include a thick description that brought to life how the individuals
responded to interview questions or how they behaved?
2.
Did each variable in the study emerge in a meaningful way from the data?
3.
Are there clearly stated hypotheses or questions? And do they emerge from the
data that were collected?
4.
Were appropriate statistical techniques used and were they used correctly?
Dissertation A
The author of Dissertation A devoted a full chapter to each of four specific research
questions. Each chapter began with a concise statement directing the reader to the original
96
question and a brief reminder of why it was important to address that particular question. The
author carefully presented each variable studied and demonstrated how the results from her
analysis compared to the original 1958 study. This author appeared to have taken great care in
providing a complete and thick description of each variable in a variety of relevant contexts. She
enhanced those descriptions with rich quotes from specific interviews that she conducted.
The author of Dissertation A complemented her findings with citations that helped add
further explanation to her findings, especially those findings that she compared to the original
baseline study. Her references to historical data on faculty placement and recruitment from the
National Research Council, Chronicle of Higher Education and her inclusion of prior research
helped to shape her descriptions in a more credible and meaningful fashion. In addition to the
narrative discussion of her findings, the author supplemented the narration with appropriate
tables providing the reader with a quantitative perspective of the results.
At the conclusion of each descriptive chapter, the author of Dissertation A provided the
reader with a well-written and purposeful data summary. The summary identified the important
data points from that chapter and the comparisons made between those findings and the findings
from the original study. The author, while not rendering conclusions, did suggest possible
explanations for the variation of results between the 1958 study and her study.
It should be noted that this author provided clear transitions between chapters, reminding
the reader about what had occurred in the previous chapter and what could be expected in the
next. This process provided the reader with the ability to move quickly from section to section
without having to backtrack for critical information.
Dissertation B
The author of Dissertation B provided a separate chapter for each of the states in his
sample. The first three to four paragraphs of each chapter provided an overview of the entire
97
chapter and provided the reader with a mental roadmap for the data presentation. The author
provided a thick and vivid description of the data, combining his results with important historical
information (facts and figures) and then linking his findings to the theoretical framework that he
had presented earlier in the dissertation. Given the cross-case comparative nature of his research,
the author used the same or similar format for each of his three descriptive chapters which each
chapter containing a section on the setting (including the setting for state government and higher
education), a section that outlined the stresses or challenges that each state faced, the emergence
of higher education in each state and ending the chapter with a case analysis for the particular
state in question. The consistency of format assisted the reader as they moved from one data
chapter to the next. Like the author of Dissertation A, this author also used quotes from
interviews to enhance his findings. These quotes were used appropriately and added
substantially to the flow and understanding of the data.
The final section of each case study chapter connected the author’s findings for that state,
to the agenda setting theory that had been articulated in the background chapter. The process for
connecting this information at the end of each chapter set the tone for how the author would
cross-compare the state findings in the discussion section of the dissertation. Overall, the case
study chapters were very well written and integrated complicated historical information together
in a revealing and illuminating manner.
After expounding on the data, state by state, the author of Dissertation B provided a
comparative analysis chapter where he compared the findings from each state to one another for
the purpose of answering his primary research question. This purpose of his research was to
compare three rival models of agenda-setting in complex public organizations to determine
which one best explained how decentralization of public higher education achieves the agenda
98
for state government. In this comparative chapter, the author carefully explained the two specific
steps he used to conduct his cross case comparisons. First, he conducted a cross-case analysis
where he compared the three sample cases to seven dimensions outlined in his theoretical
chapter, and second he conducted a cross-model analysis to determine which model best
achieved the agenda of state governments. Within the cross case comparison section, the author
provided succinct and well-presented tables to compare the three sample cases to each
dimension. The charts were easy to read and provided the reader with a visual understanding of
how the author’s findings compared from state to state. Following each table, the author
provided a well-written narrative to highlight important points of similarity and difference
between the sample states.
In the second portion of the comparative analysis chapter, the author applied a crossmodel analysis process to determine which of the three rival models best explained state agenda
setting. To help illustrate his findings, the author created a simple table comparing each model
to each of the seven theoretical dimensions. This process illustrated how one model worked
better than the other to determine how agenda setting works in complex public organizations.
The combination of rich and descriptive narratives combined with well-executed tables helped
the reader to understand and process a highly complex and theoretical set of results. The
qualitative process employed by this author demonstrated an excellent example of where new
data emerged as the result of his analytical procedure. The new understanding generated by
using a comparative analysis combined with a cross-model analysis demonstrated how
qualitative procedures used in other disciplines (political science in particular) can work well for
higher education.
99
Dissertation C
The author of Dissertation C organized her data into two separate parts for the purpose of
addressing: (1) the development of governance structures and other major legislation, and (2)
quantitative and qualitative analysis of all acts and riders to appropriate acts, 1900- 1979. By
organizing her data in this fashion, the author was able to compare the four states in her sample
based on one measure at a time. The author created an overview to reintroduce each measure
and to set the context for understanding results for each state on each measure. Following her
overview section, she provided a separate chapter on each state’s findings.
Each chapter described the following: (1) the development of higher education in each
state prior to 1900; the establishment of acts that help create state governance structures;
important acts that impacted private higher education, (2) major acts since 1900 that impacted
governance of each state’s public and private higher education institutions, (3) the circumstances
or politics behind the passage of legislation, and (4) a description of the institutional autonomy
that existed in each state.
Each state chapter was lengthy and began as an historical review of the development of
higher education from a legislative point of view. The author included other political
perspectives including governors, influential people of interest and even interest group activities.
At the end of each chapter, the author summarized her findings for the state providing some
overall general conclusions about how the higher education governance in each state had come to
fruition. It should be noted that the style manual used by this author required the use of
footnotes that were exhaustive and abundant.
In part III of Dissertation C’s dissertation, the author presented the numerical data from
her analysis of the legislative and appropriation acts of the four sample states or what she
referred to as Measure II of her dissertation. She created empirical variables based on her
100
analysis and presented them in table and graph form for the reader. Each measure was well
defined and executed and presented a mammoth amount of data. Her analysis presented actual
counts of various legislative activities and a comprehensive section which described various
trends that had occurred during her time frame 1900 through 1979. This author chose line
graphs to create powerful images of the data, especially trend analysis data. Each table and
graph was accompanied by well-written narrative explanations of the data.
In addition to the quantitative analysis of her data, the author also provided a chapter for
the qualitative analysis of higher education laws by each area. This chapter provided the reader
with an understanding of the general trends as well as the topics covered by higher education
legislation in the four sampled states.
Overall, this author provided an abundance of data for her analysis. The data were
overwhelming and required the author to create lengthy and descriptive narrative sections that
were historical in one perspective, but required an empirical assessment to determine the true
legislative activity of each state. This format provided a data rich analysis that could be
duplicated, but would likely overwhelm any competent researcher.
Assessment of discussion of results section
The evaluative question posed by Gall, Gall and Borg (2003) for the discussion sections
of educational research were as follows:
1.
Were multiple sources of evidence used to support the researcher’s conclusions?
2.
Did the researchers provide reasonable explanations of the findings?
3.
Was the generalizability of the findings appropriately qualified?
4.
Did the researchers draw reasonable implications for practice and future research
that the researchers drew from their findings?
101
Dissertation A
The author of Dissertation A followed a consistent format throughout her dissertation.
She presented her conclusions in the same order as she had presented her research questions and
research results. This dissertation, unlike the others in this sample, focused on understanding
how a specific process (namely faculty selection) changed over a thirty year time frame. Given
that hiring is a somewhat evolutionary process, with a specific set of tasks dedicated to each
phase of the process, it was helpful for the researcher to present her conclusions in the same
evolutionary manner (the faculty search process, the faculty selection process, the faculty
separation process and the effect of the market and institutional policies on the hiring process).
For each portion of the faculty selection process, she presented a research question, except for
the last portion, where she presented two research questions.
With the presentation of each conclusion, this author was careful to bridge a connection
between her findings and the results of original baseline study. By bridging these connections,
the author was able to conclude and comment on the following: (1) whether the faculty search
process had changed, (2) whether the faculty selection process had changed, and (3) why these
changes may have occurred. She tied her conclusions to very specific data, explaining how the
data supported her conclusions. This process was very effective and gave tremendous credibility
to her conclusions. In some cases, the author provided specific explanations for why the data
reflected no change from the baseline study to her study. For example, in the selection process
section, the author discussed the impact of affirmative action in today’s hiring environment and
discussed her explanation for why the impact has been marginal at best.
This author admitted in her conclusion section that the results from her study were
somewhat mixed. To explain this dichotomy, she presented a simple three column chart
demonstrating change in the faculty selection process from 1958 to the present time. In addition
102
to the chart, the author provided explanations for where the results were positive, contrary or not
conclusive. She supported her explanations with specific references and provided, in some cases,
ideas for further research.
In generalizability terms, Dissertation A’s author data set was extremely representative of
American higher education during the 1980’s and her results could easily be generalized to
comparable institutions as defined within her study.
In the final section of Dissertation A, the author provided a section entitled implications
for practice. She presented four conclusions that would be of substantial value to academic
leaders who have responsibility for the human resource hiring function within the academy.
These conclusions were presented as food for thought for those who bear the responsibility for
hiring faculty, but could also be considered opportunities for continued research within this
particular research vein.
In the last few pages of the dissertation, the author collapsed the major findings for her
study into two categories: (1) changes that had occurred in the hiring process, and (2) areas
where change had failed to occur. By consolidating and collapsing her conclusions down to two
aspects, she was able to provide suggestions for further research for both the hiring department
(including specific entities within) and suggestions for the external forces that impact faculty
hiring. Her recommendations were specific and reasonable and helped position the results and
conclusions as the new baseline study for the faculty hiring process.
Dissertation B
Dissertation B’s author used an exhaustive and eclectic mix of data to develop one major
conclusion and seven important findings. After using a comparative case analysis approach, the
author concluded that only one model best explained the process of state agenda formation as it
relates to the issue of decentralization of higher education. While the primary conclusion and
103
seven findings were important, the emergence of an unexpected outcome received greater
attention in the conclusion chapter. The results of his data analysis process brought forth the
emergence of newly revised model of state agenda formation; one that he argued did a better job
of explaining agenda setting than the three he had considered in the study. The author devoted
several pages for the purpose of providing a narrative and graphic explanation of his newly
grounded theory.
This unexpected outcome or conclusion significantly enriched the power of the author’s
conclusions. It is not clear that the author expected to arrive at this conclusion because at no
time prior to the end of the dissertation, did the author mention this possible outcome, except for
within the formal title of the dissertation.
In generalizability terms, it is not clear whether the states studied in this dissertation were
necessarily representative of all other states. Therefore it would be difficult to determine
whether these findings (or the development of a newly grounded theory/model) could be
specifically generalized to states beyond the sample, unless the entire study was replicated for
every state in the union.
The last few pages of this dissertation, the author provided a section on theoretical
implications of his research and implications for policy practitioners. The first section on
theoretical implications provided a rich discussion of how this author had generated new inroads
to the development of theory building in the policy arena. These comments provided rich
commentary that could lead to many new theoretical studies and outcomes. The section on
implications for the policy practitioner were less monumental that the theoretical section, but did
provide the practitioner with a few critical reminders when approaching the development of
policy as it relates to decentralization in higher education.
104
In the final paragraphs of this dissertation, the author does make some relevant
suggestions for future research. His suggestions, however, were clouded by his concern that his
study may have created more questions than answers.
Dissertation C
The organization of Dissertation C was very different than the two other qualitative
dissertations in this study. While the other authors had lengthy conclusion chapters, this author
devoted only ten pages to her final chapter. It should be noted that in an effort to provide an
understanding to her comprehensive and exhaustive results, she found it necessary to present
some of her conclusions in the results chapters instead of in the concluding chapter.
In the first two lines of the conclusion chapter, the author presented her primary research
questions as a means to introduce the chapter. The next several paragraphs were devoted to
explaining what had been studied, the method used and what had generally been discovered.
Following this introductory section, the author compared how her findings had differed from
other similar legislative studies beginning with the pilot study that had been done on New Jersey
(the same pilot study that had guided her research agenda). She compared the results of the New
Jersey study to the results from the four states that she had studied and provided very brief
concluding remarks.
In terms of generalizability, this author did not provide any commentary how her results
might reflect on any states beyond her sample. It can be assumed that her methodology could be
replicated to include other states, but it is not clear that the results would reflect similar findings.
The author of Dissertation C did not make any reference to opportunities for further
research.
105
Quantitative dissertation assessment
Assessment of introduction section
The evaluative questions suggested by Gall, Gall and Borg (2003) for the introductory
section of quantitative dissertations are as follows:
1.
Are the research problems or findings unduly influenced by the researcher’s
institutional affiliations, beliefs, values, or theoretical orientation?
2.
Do the researchers demonstrate undue positive or negative bias in describing the
subject of the study?
3.
Is the literature review section of the report sufficiently comprehensive? Does it
include studies that you know to be relevant to the problem?
4.
Is each variable in the study clearly defined?
5.
Is the measure of each variable consistent with how the variable was defined?
6.
Are the research hypotheses, questions, or objectives explicitly stated, and if so,
are they clear?
7.
Do the researchers make a convincing case that a research hypothesis, questions,
or objective was important to the study?
Dissertation D
Dissertation D was focused on the topic of organizational structure in higher education.
The dissertation was organized into five chapters including an introduction, literature review,
research methodology, data analysis and a summary/conclusions chapter. Gall, Gall and Borg
(2003) indicate that research that reflects any bias, on the part of the researcher, becomes
debatable. The author of Dissertation D demonstrated no apparent bias of any sort throughout
his dissertation.
This complicated study’s introductory chapter provided a well-written technical preview
that was not typical of the other quantitative dissertations in the sample. His technical overview
closely resembled a dissertation abstract minus the specific findings and conclusions. Within
106
this technical preface, the author presented an abbreviated preview of the entire dissertation, all
within three lengthy paragraphs. The remainder of the initial chapter included a formal
introduction and general intent of the study, the background, purposes, significance, limitations
and important definitions. Unlike other dissertations in the sample, Dissertation D provided a
roadmap for his introduction and background chapter by stating a set of very specific objectives
for the reader. For example, given that his study was on organizational structure, the author
explained that he would first define organizational structure and explain how it could be used as
a research concept. Next, the author traced the development of formal structure as a broad
construct within organizational theory, and then specifically within higher education. He also
stated that he would demonstrate how existing research was limited and how his study would
address those limitations and add to the greater body of knowledge.
Prior to presenting a comprehensive literature review, the author of Dissertation D
provided the reader with an historical review or his primary research term – organizational
structure. He demonstrated how the term had been defined by previous researchers and
presented the definition that he would use for the purposes of his study. He also presented the
essential characteristics of his primary research term for the purposes of framing his research
questions. Once he had identified, defined and secured the perspective that would guide his
study, this author provided the reader with a useful and informative transition paragraph that
would serve as an effective roadmap through his comprehensive background section.
This transition paragraph provided a chronological pathway through the background
information by stating: (1) specific purpose of the background section (to explore distinct
dimensions that define formal structure), (2) the identification, definition of and operational
definitions of key dimensions (of structure), and (3) the key relationships between dimensions.
107
After careful elaboration of each of the aforementioned sections, the author presented the three
major purposes of his study, the significance of the research and the limitations of the study.
Prior to the summary section of his introductory chapter, the author presented six primary
definitions of organizational structure that had been defined for his study. Because of the
author’s concise and clear transitory paragraphs between every section in the introductory
chapter, the reader was never lost or confused about the process or the delivery of key
information.
The specific literature review section was compact and concise and despite the
complexity of the author’s topic, only generated 32 pages of information. As was typical of this
author, the introductory paragraphs of the literature review section provided a clear roadmap for
the reader. The author stated that the review of the literature was designed to accomplish five
specific objectives, then organized his chapter to address each objective in the order that it was
initially presented. The author organized his review in a somewhat funnel-like approach
whereby he approached the broadest issues of organizational structure and moved to more
specific and narrower aspects of organizational structure. This technique was very effective for
any reader who did not have substantial prior knowledge of his topic.
In the summary section of the literature review chapter, the author presented a convincing
reason why his research was critical, relevant and important. He framed his review of the
literature by highlighting the limitations of prior research and how his study would address those
gaps.
Dissertation E
Dissertation E was organized in a similar fashion to the previous quantitative study with
eight chapters dedicated to the following: an introduction, literature review, conceptual
framework and research design, data source and methodology, operationalization of variables
108
and scale validation, testing the hypotheses, analysis of the conceptual model and a conclusion.
Dissertation E examined how Caucasian faculty at pre-dominantly white institutions have
responded to racial diversity. Given the sensitive nature of this topic, the author of Dissertation E
was careful to provide explanations for certain terms that might be perceived as prejudicial –
terms such as black versus African-American. This author immediately, in a footnote on the first
page, explained that these terms would be used interchangeably and that any social prejudice
associated with these two terms would not impact her use of the terms.
The introductory chapter of Dissertation E totaled eleven pages with acknowledgment, by
the author, that little to no research has been conducted on Caucasian faculty and their response
to racial diversity. The author used this apparent gap in the literature to frame her rationale for
the study. The author’s singular research question was presented in the fourth paragraph of her
dissertation. She also provided a section explaining the significance of the study and an overview
of the study. The study overview provided the reader with a specific narrative outline for each
chapter of the dissertation.
The literature review chapter was focused on current social-psychological literature and
how Caucasian faculty have responded to African-Americans. The chapter began with a quote
setting the framework for understanding that racism has existed for centuries and that no single
person can free themselves from the socialization process that creates racism. With that in mind,
the author proceeded to outline the various theories that have attempted to frame Caucasian
attitudes toward African Americans. She allocated space to explain white racial attitude theories,
symbolic and modern racial theories, group position and group conflict theories, human
cognition and white racial beliefs and theories for the well-intentioned. The author appeared to
have thoroughly exposed the major theoretical perspectives and provided numerous references to
109
previous studies. In the summary section of this chapter, the author homogenized the theories to
create four themes she deemed as crucial for explaining white racial attitudes. Given that these
themes reflect general attitudes, the author proceeded to explain how these themes relate to
faculty and their roles and experiences in higher education. By relating these themes to faculty,
the author reviewed prior research that was relevant to her research agenda. The analysis was
thorough and commanding and was presented in an unbiased and informative manner.
In the final section of Dissertation E’s literature review chapter, the author explained the
emergence of the role of context in understanding white faculty racial attitudes and responses.
Because the role of context emerged, the author spent several pages reviewing prior research
studies that identified important contextual factors that were relevant to her study and helped
frame her conceptual framework.
The third chapter of Dissertation E was devoted to explaining and providing a conceptual
framework for the study and outlining the research design. Using the themes identified in the
previous chapter, the author presented a theoretical process model that was used to guide her
research agenda. The theoretical model was presented as an illustration and was supplemented
by ample narrative explanation. The author explained in detail how her process model accounted
for deficiencies of other models. The model also presented the two primary variables of the
author’s study: attitude arousal and normative constraint.
The remainder of chapter three explained the author’s research design and study
hypotheses. The constructs to be studied were defined in detail and the hypotheses were
presented in outline form along with specific indicators or variables used to measure the presence
of the constructs. For example: the hypotheses of the effect of individual characteristics
included indicators of culturally related beliefs relative to gender, age, tenure, rank, discipline
110
and research productivity. The author presented two comprehensive hypotheses with numerous
indicators following each hypothesis.
Dissertation F
Dissertation F was the shortest dissertation reviewed using Gall, Gall and Borg (2003).
The textual portion of the dissertation was limited to 102 pages and exhibited no apparent bias.
The author of Dissertation D presented the following sections (in this order) in his introductory
chapter, which totaled 20 pages: significance of the problem, purpose of the research,
background the research problem, the study problem and definition of terms. Unlike the other
dissertations in the sample used for this study, Dissertation F began with a section that explained
the significance of his research problem as opposed to providing the reader, upfront, with
background information.
In the first sentence of the dissertation, the author presented the focus of his study. He
stated that his dissertation would explore the relationship between leadership teams and
organizational effectiveness. In his second sentence, the author stated that most leadership
studies, prior to his, have focused solely on the role of individual leaders and have neglected the
study of other sources of leadership within institutions of higher education. Once again, unlike
the other dissertation authors in this study, Dissertation F’s author provides referenced support
for his research agenda and countless quotes from notable organizational experts who advocate
research studies that will broaden existing leadership studies. This approach, while not typical in
the sampled dissertations, does provide the reader with the notion that the outcomes of
Dissertation F will be immediately valuable and useful to those who study leadership. The
readability of this section, however, is complicated by the abundance of references to other
researchers and to previous academic studies.
111
Following the significance of the study, the author provided the reader with a brief
section outlining the purpose of the research. He positioned his purpose in a single sentence and
informed the reader that his research was groundbreaking and would add to the greater body of
knowledge. Making these types statements was uncharacteristic of the other sampled
dissertations, in that most of the dissertations authors have allowed the research process to
determine if the research was groundbreaking, as opposed to stating upfront that the research was
groundbreaking. Following his statement of purpose, the researcher provided a section entitled
background to the research problem. Within this section, the author made his case for why it
was critically important to study team leadership in higher education. This section concluded
with the presentation of a single directional hypothesis that basically asked if there was a higher
level of cognitive complexity exhibited by a leadership team in an academic institution, was
there a higher level of organizational effectiveness? Without any transition, the author presented
a set of important terms and definitions. The chapter concludes with no summary or concluding
remarks.
Dissertation F’s literature review section total 25 pages beginning with a very brief
overview of the types of studies that would be reviewed. This author specifically stated that he
intended (through his review) to develop a literature base that supported the existence of a
relationship between two variables presented in his hypothesis. Each section of the literature
review was presented in a logical format and was concise, informative and timely. The author
carefully presented each variable that would be studied, defined the variable based on the
literature and was extremely careful to insure that the proper context for each variable was
explained.
112
The author of Dissertation F provided a well written summary at the end of his literature
review chapter that established a clear mandate for his study. His mandate was convincing and
well supported by his research review.
Assessment of methods section
The following questions are suggested by Gall, Gall and Borg (2003) to evaluate the
quality of the methods section of a quantitative dissertation:
1.
Did the sampling procedures produce a sample that is representative of an
identifiable population or your local population?
2.
Did the researcher form subgroups to increase understanding of the phenomena
being studied?
3.
Is each measure in the study sufficiently valid for its intended purpose?
4.
Is each measure in the study sufficiently reliable for its intended purpose?
5.
Is each measure appropriate for the sample?
6.
Were the research procedures appropriate and clearly stated so that others could
replicate them if they wished?
Dissertation D
The author of dissertation D used the same structure for his methodology chapter that he
used in previous chapters, providing an introduction and general overview of the chapter before
delving into the complexities of his methodology. The introduction briefly restated the purposes
of the study and the general overview provided a broad perspective of his approach to studying
organizational structure in higher education.
The author provided a thorough discussion of how his data would be collected and
variable definitions. Each variable was operationally defined with specific references to
previous research studies or researchers. The variables appeared to be sufficiently valid and
reliable. The author also discussed his survey instrument and reminded the reader that the
113
instrument was developed and used by a previous researcher in a study on comparative
organizational analysis. The author also noted that the instrument was modified to provide some
simplification and to include some new dimensions that had been identified by the literature
review.
The author used a random sampling procedure to identify 200 institutions from the list of
higher education institutions (2,508) created by the Carnegie Classification system. He also
stratified his sample to allow for proportional representation by institutional type. In addition to
a survey, the respondents were asked to forward organizational charts from their institution to be
used to correlate data. The data collection process was explained in great detail and provided the
reader with a clear understanding of the process, to the point of easy replication. At the end of
Dissertation D’s methodology chapter, the author provided a technical and statistical strategy for
each of his seven research questions (which he referred to as research objectives). By revealing
the specifics of his strategy, the author created a research methodology that could be easily
replicated at every stage of the process.
Dissertation E
Dissertation E’s author devoted approximately twenty pages to explaining her data source
and methodology. The author explained that she did not produce her own data, but used data
generated by a larger study that had been sponsored by the Spencer Foundation. The data had
been gathered from mail-in questionnaires sent to faculty at six different universities, universities
that were representative of stable African-American enrollments over a ten-year period. A
comprehensive description of each of the six representative universities was provided by the
author.
During the latter half of this chapter, the author thoroughly explained each of three data
analysis techniques she used for her study. For each phase of her data analysis, the author had
114
established a specific research objective. In phase one, the researcher was seeking to determine
if the scales (created to measure dependent and contextual concepts) used in the Spencer
Foundation study were valid. In the second phase of the data analysis process, the author’s
objective was to determine whether or not contextual factors moderate or effect individual
characteristic variables. In the last phase, the author tested the conceptual model that she had
presented earlier in the dissertation. Each of these complex processes was thoroughly explained
and was complemented by a discussion concerning the analytical procedures (statistical
processes such as confirmatory factor analysis, multiple classification analysis and multiple
regression) the researcher expected to utilize during each phase.
In chapter five, the author of Dissertation E identified the dependent and independent
variables in her study and also provided operational definitions for each. She provided lengthy
and rich descriptions of each variable and carefully explained the process for measuring each
component. The author also addressed validity and reliability issues relative to each variable.
The detail associated with describing the methodology and research design associated
with Dissertation E, would complicate the exact duplication of this study. However, if
significant efforts were employed to understand and accept upfront, the conceptual framework
proposed by this researcher, the study could be duplicated with significant time and sacrifice.
Dissertation F
Dissertation F organized his methods and procedures chapter in a manner different from
the other sampled quantitative dissertations. In his introductory paragraph, the author stated that
he would include in his chapter the following sections: research design, pilot study procedures
and results, sample population, the research question, instruments, procedures for data collection,
descriptive statistics, bias analysis and validity and reliability procedures and findings. This
115
author did not provide the reader with a brief refresher for the reader. Anyone who wanted to
understand the specific purpose of the research would have to refer back to the previous chapters.
Dissertation F’s author also directed the reader in the second paragraph of this chapter to
two reasons why he has chosen one of nine specific dimensions of organizational effectiveness
as the central focus of his study.
Following the researcher’s justification statements, the author provided a thorough and
concise explanation of his study design and introduced the reader to two study instruments that
would be used to gather information about his research dimension. The author was careful to
explain how each instrument was designed; what each instrument would measure, and reliability
and validity issues associated with each instrument. It was clear that the author intended to send
instruments to two separate audiences, but the author assumed that the reader knew which survey
went to which audience.
The sample population was adequately defined and the process for creating the sample
for the study could be easily replicated. The data collection process was also clearly explained
and included the author’s statement concerning individual and institutional confidentiality.
In the latter half of Dissertation F’s methods section, the author provided the descriptive
results from both survey instruments. Within this section, the author revealed the mean, standard
deviation and minimum/maximum ratings for both of the surveys. It was interesting that the
author did not remind the reader specifically about the individual measures prior to the
presentation of these descriptive findings. The specific explanations regarding the specific
measures followed the descriptive results and included sections on the validity and reliability of
each measure. The author’s method chapter ended with a page and a half summary of his
research method and data procedures.
116
Assessment of results section
Only one question is proposed by Gall, Gall and Borg (2003) to evaluate the quality of
the results section of quantitative dissertations and it is as follows:
1. Were appropriate statistical techniques used, and were they used correctly?
Dissertation D
The author of Dissertation D provided an introduction and conceptual overview of his
study at the beginning of his data analysis chapter. The introduction section provided a technical
roadmap for the data analysis chapter and the conceptual overview reminded the reader of his
seven research objectives and a general overview of the research design. The author also
provided a section explaining the response rate and representativeness of the sample and
included several comprehensive charts displaying the results of the sampling procedure.
The data were presented in chronological order beginning with the first research objective
and moving toward the last objective. For each objective, the researcher briefly reviewed the
purpose of the objective and the technical strategies employed to generate data. For example, for
the first research objective, the author stated that to achieve that objective, he would calculate
descriptive statistics for each variable and construct Pearson Product correlation matrices for
every dimension of each variable. The author calculated the mean, standard deviation, median,
range and sample range for each of eight dimensions and provided those calculations in easy-toread tables. The author also provided complete explanations for the correlation of various
variables to determine their connectedness to each other and all correlations were presented in
table form.
The author of Dissertation D dedicated over 100 pages to present the results of his study.
In the last paragraph, the author explained that his findings resulted in the conceptualization of a
117
four-dimensional structural process for identifying and describing higher education
organizations.
Dissertation E
The author of Dissertation E dedicated the latter half of chapter five and all of chapters
six and seven to present the findings from her research. At the end of each results segment, the
author provided a very short (only one or two paragraphs) discussion section. Most of the
dissertations reviewed using Gall, Gall and Borg (2003) separated the discussion section from
the results section.
The end of chapter five was dedicated to explaining and describing the validity of the
scales used in the Spencer Study. Given the three phase approach to her scale validity analysis,
the author managed to provide simple explanations to rather complex analytical procedures.
During phase one; the author used a complex statistical process called confirmatory factor
analysis. The author did not assume that the reader understood confirmatory factor analysis and
was careful to provide simple definitions, explanations for the procedure and a reference to the
appendices which provided a full explanation. During the second phase of her scale assessment,
the author used ANOVA calculations to compare means providing detailed explanations for how
the faculty responses from different institutional types varied on some factors and converged on
others. During the last phase of her scale assessment, the author explained the use of multiple
classification analysis to predict the variance in the context scales. In some cases, the author was
able to hold for some individual variables (such as individual characteristics of the faculty) while
comparing the effect of institutional variables (difference between institutions).
Chapter six of Dissertation E was dedicated to presenting the results from the author’s
test of the direct and moderating hypotheses. The primary hypothesis was to determine if
particular aspects of institutional context moderate the direct effects of faculty member’s
118
individual characteristics. For example, the author used bivariate analysis to examine each
individual (predictor) variable and its possible relationship to institutional variables. The
complexity of her narration was eased by box charts that illustrated her findings in a visual
manner. Later in this chapter, the author describes the use of multiple regression analysis as a
means for interpreting the existence and intensity of causal relationships between variables.
Chapter seven of Dissertation E was focused on the author’s test of the conceptual model
she had described in chapter three. The author described a complex process that involved a
hierarchical regression that examined the combined effects of the predictor variables and
moderating variables on the faculty’s responses.
The complexity of these results chapters demonstrated the vast quantitative skills of the
author and the depth of her research skill training during her doctoral program. The ability to
replicate this study would be contingent on another researcher developing the same wealth of
quantitative analytical ability.
Dissertation F
The analysis of the results chapter for Dissertation F totaled slightly over eight pages.
The chapter also contained eight tables with narrative explanations linking the information. Part
of the reason for the brevity of this chapter, is the author decision to present the descriptive
results in his methods chapter. The chapter included the following sections: data inspection,
multicollinearity assessment, statistical design, hypothesis analysis and a three paragraph
summary of results.
Within the data inspection section, the author discussed that the data appeared to have a
normal distribution with no apparent skewness. In the multicollinearity assessment section, the
author explained that prior to conducting the statistical procedures (regression), he conducted a
correlational analysis to determine if there was a relationship between the independent variables.
119
The results indicated that the independent variables were highly correlated. The author indicated
that the strong correlation complicated his planned regression analysis. He provided a specific
reference to support that claim that complications result when independent variables are highly
correlated. Following his correlational analysis, the author explained his statistical design in two
concise paragraphs. He explained that he conducted a series of multiple regressions on his
results and presented four tables with his multiple regression results. The author provided
limited narrative explanation of his multiple regression charts.
Assessment of the discussion of the results section
The following three questions are suggested by Gall, Gall and Borg (2003) for the
assessment of the quality of the discussion section of quantitative dissertations:
1.
Do the results of the data analyses support what the researchers conclude are the
findings of the study?
2.
Did the researchers provide reasonable explanations of the findings?
3.
Did the researchers draw reasonable implications for practice and future research
from their findings?
Dissertation D
The author of Dissertation D entitled his final chapter as follows: summary, conclusions,
implications and recommendations for further research. In approximately 38 pages, the author
summarized his dissertation from the initial theoretical framework, the purposes of the study, the
methodology and findings and his conclusions. The first few paragraphs of his conclusion
section were devoted to a brief discussion on the reliability and validity of study. He assured the
reader that great efforts were made to verify subjective survey responses with secondary
resources and that non-response bias was not a factor that impacted his results.
The author’s conclusions reflected a rich discussion of how his results reflect on
organizational theory as it relates to institutions of higher education. He identified key findings
120
that demonstrated significant correlations between various factors and provided an explanation
for those results. The author also connected his findings to previous research stating where his
results confirmed prior findings and where his results were different. This author argued that the
results of his study generated a new organizational structure model for higher organization and
provided a graphic illustration of that model for the reader.
In the author’s section entitled implications, the author outlined vital theoretical and
practical implications from his research. These implications were supported by specific findings
and were relevant for those who manage institutions of higher learning as well as those that study
organizational structure in higher education. The author was careful to explain that despite high
correlations between various variables in his study, the findings did not suggest a causal
relationship and both researchers and practitioners should refrain from make any assumptions.
Dissertation D’s author dedicated the last few pages in his dissertation to describing four
broad areas for further research given his findings.
Dissertation E
Dissertation E author divided her final chapter into the following sections: practical and
theoretical significance of the study, limitations of the study, future research and summary. The
entire chapter totaled less than ten pages. As already stated, in the previous section on this
dissertation, the conclusions for her findings were very brief and were located at the end of each
of results sections. The brevity of her conclusions chapter suggests that the author might have
become exhausted by her analytical process and focused only on the most significant findings.
Her conclusion chapter reflects the same level of potential researcher fatigue. The conclusions
were solid and well supported by her findings, but given the enormity of the research agenda, a
reader might have expected a more lengthy set of conclusions. The brevity of her conclusion
chapter, however, should not diminish the major outcomes that she presented. Within this
121
chapter, the author presented three major by-products including: (1) knowledge of how to
measure white faculty members’ response to American Americans in a higher education
environment, (2) knowledge of what factors are likely to influence a white faculty member’s
evaluation of African American students academic performance, and (3) findings that suggest
that commonly held assumptions regarding how faculty are likely to respond to diversity issues
may not be accurate assumptions. Following the presentation of these major outcomes, the
author of Dissertation E provided a brief section that reminded readers of the limitations of the
study and a brief set of suggestions for future research.
Dissertation F
The author of Dissertation F allocated fifteen pages to his discussion chapter. The
sections were titled as follows: summary, discussion, limitations, research conclusions,
implications for research, implications for practice and concluding thoughts. The first two pages
of this chapter were dedicated to restating the initial purpose of the dissertation and his rationale
for conducting the study. Next, the author moved into his discussion section and stated that his
results indicated that there was a strong predictive relationship between the two primary
variables in his study. Given that he focused on only one specific dimension of leadership, he
argued that research is needed to explore the other dimensions of organizational effectiveness.
The author spent several pages in this chapter demonstrating how his results support the
findings of previous researchers providing greater legitimacy to their findings. However, the
author was careful to temper his conclusions by explaining how his study was very limited and
should not be generalized to similar studies on the dimensions of leadership. Time-frame
constraints along with his cross sectional design placed constraints on his results and together
they limited the generalizability of his results.
122
The author did provide ample space to discuss implications for research and practice
given the results of his study. The implications were reasonable and followed logically from his
results and conclusions.
123
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
Introduction
Gall, Gall and Borg (2003) state that education research should fulfill one of four
purposes: to describe, to predict, to improve or to explain a natural or socially occurring
phenomena. The explanation of natural or socially occurring phenomena can be accomplished
through application of differing research methodologies including quantitative, qualitative,
mixed or historical (Gall, Gall & Borg, 2003). The purpose of this mixed-methodology study
was to examine a set of award winning dissertations (a socially occurring phenomenon) to
determine what factors (descriptions) may have led to their receiving recognition by the
Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE).
This study addressed seven specific research questions which were answered via two
different research designs: (1) a survey administered to the 27 recipients of the dissertation
award, and (2) through the qualitative assessment of a sample of the winning dissertations. Data
generated by both research designs produced descriptive information which resulted in a set of
conclusions for each of the following seven research questions.
Discussion of Research Question 1
1.
What attributes and demographic factors describe past winners of the Association for the
Study of Higher Education Dissertation of the Year from 1979 through 2004?
The recipients of the ASHE dissertation of the year award would not be described as an
average group of doctoral students in education. The recipients of the ASHE dissertation of the
year award would be described as follows:
• The data revealed that a majority were less than 38 years of age when they completed their
dissertations (65%). Hoffer (2004) reported a majority of doctoral students today are 43.8
years of age and have waited ten years to begin doctoral programs.
124
• The survey data revealed that the ASHE winners, as a group, completed their dissertations in
less than six years. Hoffer’s 2004 report states that most education students took almost 13
years to complete their degrees.
• The data revealed that 50% of the winners were male and 50% were female. Hoffer (2004)
reported that 66% of those attending doctoral programs in education are female.
• The results indicate that, as a group, the ASHE dissertation winners were full-time students
(70%) that 55% had assistantships and 45% had fellowships. The Council of Graduate
Schools reports that 61% of the students enrolled in graduate programs in education are
attending school on a part-time basis, and Hoffer (2004) states that only 27% of the doctoral
students have assistantships or fellowships.
Clearly, the ASHE winners are not typical doctoral students in education and future researchers
should explore why this group of distinguished authors are not more representative of the
average American doctoral student in education. Perhaps there is a connection between an
institution’s ability to provide financial support (assistantships and fellowships) for full-time
study and the institution’s ability to produce a recognized scholar. More specifically, future
researchers should explore (1) the attributes and characteristics that define a superior doctoral
student scholar, and (2) the curricular experiences or pedagogies that help generate students
capable of producing winning dissertations.
These conclusions also suggest that the full-time doctoral experience may better prepare
students to become scholars allowing greater time and access to faculty, their research and their
mentorship. Full-time doctoral study, over part-time study, has a tendency to put students on a
faster track toward graduation. Full-time study also allows students to move through the
coursework at a faster pace retaining more information for both the written/oral qualification
exams and the dissertation experience. Full-time students, and especially those with
assistantships and fellowships, have greater opportunities to practice their research skills
throughout their doctoral program by assisting faculty with their research agendas and by
working with other full-time students on class projects and assignments.
125
While full-time status appears to have contributed to these authors receiving recognition
by the Association for the Study of Higher Education, this factor also suggests that full-time
students may be less likely to withdraw from doctoral programs. Future researchers should
examine the relationship between the status of a doctoral student (full-time versus part-time) and
the likelihood of withdrawing from a doctoral program. Other factors should be considered
including the type of institution (research intensive versus teaching intensive), financial
assistance (assistantships and fellowships) and degree type (PhD versus EdD). Doctoral
programs, as indicated by Smallwood (2004) and Leatherman (2000) only graduate about half of
the students that enroll in doctoral programs, and most of the attrition occurs during the
dissertation phase. Understanding and further studying those factors that could potentially
reduce doctoral attrition rates, including those identified by this study could positively impact a
national attrition epidemic in doctoral education.
The literature review chapter dedicated an entire section to 21st century challenges for
doctoral programs in education. One of the prominent challenges presented was the ongoing
debate regarding the credibility of the PhDs versus EdDs in education. The ASHE dissertation
winners do not necessarily reflect that debate, given that all but one of the recipients indicated
that they were PhD students. It is not clear whether the institutions that produced ASHE winners
offer EdD programs, but it is clear that PhD students do have some advantage over EdDs when it
comes to winning recognition by the Association for the Study of Higher Education. One
apparent advantage is that full-time PhD students tend to have greater access to faculty and
nominations for dissertation awards are often made by faculty. Faculty are more likely to
nominate a student when they have direct knowledge of their scholarly capabilities and when
they have worked directly with that student on research projects. Of the nineteen PhD ASHE
126
winners in this study, twelve worked with faculty on research projects, while the single EdD
winner did not.
The percentage of education doctorates awarded by major research institutions is not
specifically known, nor is it known how many education doctorates are awarded by other
institutional classifications. It is clear, however, that premier private and state universities, those
that are typically known as research-intensive institutions, have produced every ASHE
dissertation winner surveyed for this study. These findings suggest that those institutions are
more likely to have the financial wherewithal to award education doctoral students with needed
assistantships and fellowships. While it can not be substantiated statistically, there appears to be
a direct correlation between the likelihood of receiving the ASHE dissertation award and the type
of institution an education doctoral student attends.
Discussion of Research Question 2
2.
What factors had the greatest positive or negative impact on the dissertation completion
process for the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE) Dissertation of the
Year recipients?
As a group, the ASHE dissertation winners reported that the specific choice of their
dissertation topic, ease in writing the dissertation proposal, research knowledge gained through
the program, their dissertation chair, early collaboration with mentors and their spouse had the
greatest positive impact on the completion of their dissertation. Approximately half of the
winners reported that reference materials, the collegial nature of the doctoral environment and
assistantships or fellowships also positively affected their dissertation process.
On the contrary, ASHE winners reported that other dissertation committee members,
peers, friends, dissertation support groups, parents and peer review of their dissertation appeared
to have a very limited impact. These findings suggest that students who are positioned to
immerse themselves in the doctoral experience may find the dissertation completion process to
127
be less frustrating and disabling. It is obvious that full-time students are able to develop stronger
ties with their dissertation chairs because they are able to meet with them during the day, unlike
part-time students who have to take time off from work and who can not come to campus as
easily.
It is also interesting that ASHE dissertation winners indicated that peers, peer review of
their dissertation and dissertation support groups played virtually no part in their dissertation
completion process. Prior research has demonstrated that high attrition rates in doctoral program
have been connected to the isolating nature of the dissertation process. Given this, peer
interaction and dissertation support groups should be facilitated by the program coordinators and
doctoral students should be strongly encouraged to attend and to interact with other dissertation
students. Despite the involvement of peers and support groups, the ASHE winners benefited
from their full-time status, the increased number of assistantships and fellowships, and the ability
to work directly with faculty on faculty directed research initiatives.
Prior literature has also demonstrated the importance of the dissertation advisor in the
completion of a dissertation. The ASHE dissertation winners reported that they interacted with
their advisors on a regular basis, advisors were prepared and armed with accurate/useful
information, advisors were eager to mentor new scholars and that advisors followed through with
specific help or requested assistance. The role of the dissertation advisor is critical to the
completion of the dissertation and the dissertation advisors of the ASHE dissertation winners
appear to have provided quality assistance to their students. Faculty are not typically mentored
on how to direct dissertations and efforts must be made to insure that faculty provide quality
advice, frequent feedback and instruction to their dissertation students.
128
The ASHE dissertation winners also appear to have one significant additional factor that
may have contributed to their ability to win the dissertation award. Sixty-five percent of the
surveyed winners indicated that they received their dissertation topic from the chair of their
committee. It can be assumed that the dissertation topics proposed by the chairs were of
significant interest to the dissertation director engaging them at a higher level of interest than a
topic not proposed by a chair. It should also be noted that 55% of the ASHE winners also
reported that their dissertation chair was a full professor, with an additional 20% reporting an
associate professor. By the time a professor earns the rank of full professor they have probably
served on numerous doctoral committees. Thus, there appears to be a direct correlation between
the rank of a doctoral student’s dissertation chair and the likelihood of winning the ASHE
dissertation award.
Discussion of Research Question 3
3.
What factors had the greatest positive or negative impact on the quality of the doctoral
experiences for winners of the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE)
dissertation award?
Nyquist (2002) contends that doctoral programs should produce doctoral students who
exhibit a specific skill set including the following: disciplinary knowledge, informed career
choices, teaching competency, understanding of diversity, understanding mentoring, connecting
across disciplines, scholar-citizen perspective, working in teams and understanding ethics.
In terms of disciplinary knowledge, 90% of the survey respondents believed that their
program provided this component in a moderate to very strong manner. Given that 95% of the
ASHE dissertation winners became faculty may indicate a strong level of disciplinary confidence
on the part of the winners. This conclusion is somewhat supported by the fact that 60% of the
winners believed that their programs provided them with a moderate to strong understanding of
the career options. In fact, the conclusion can be drawn further to include that many of the
129
schools were more wholly focused on producing scholars as opposed to producing teachers
because when ASHE winners were asked to comment on the teaching competency component in
their program, 60% did not rate that component as either moderately strong or very strong.
Closely linked to teaching competency component is the diversity component. Twentyfirst century faculty are expected to appreciate and promote diverse perspectives inside and
outside in the classroom, with both faculty, staff and students. Fifty-five percent of AHSE
winners ranked the understanding diversity component in their doctoral program as weak to very
weak. While this appears to be bad news, the good news is that doctoral programs appear to be
improving in this regard because ASHE winners from the last 13 years ranked this component
stronger than winners from the late 70s and early-to-mid 80s.
Three additional doctoral components (scholar-citizen perspective, working in teams and
understanding ethics) in their doctoral programs were determined by ASHE winners to moderate
to very strong. This outcome should not be surprising, given that every ASHE winner surveyed
attended a research-intensive school with a large full-time doctoral program that focused on
producing scholars via group research projects and faculty research assistantships. Each of the
ASHE winners were not just honored scholars, but 90% acted as scholar-citizens after
completing their dissertation by presenting their findings at a conference. It should also be noted
that the scholar-citizen perspective was maintained after graduation with 75% going on to author
and publish four or more journal articles.
Some would argue that the world becomes a smaller place with each passing year. If this
old adage is true, then all academic programs should be mindful of the shrinking globe and the
importance of understanding other cultures and other perspectives. Doctoral programs in
education, according to the ASHE winners appear to lack a global perspective. Overall, only
130
35% of the ASHE winners thought that the global perspective component was moderate to very
strong. What is more revealing, however, is that over time this component has not improved.
Doctoral programs must be more conscious of this programmatic weakness and invest time to
improve the extent to which doctoral students appreciate and understand the entire globe.
Discussion of Research Questions 4 and 5
4.
What factors describe the career progression of past winners of the Association of the Study
of Higher Education (ASHE) Dissertation of the Year Award?
5.
What scholarly contributions have past winners of the Association of the Study of Higher
Education (ASHE) Dissertation of the Year Award made to the study of higher education?
The University of Michigan’s Website that promotes their PhD program in higher
education states that the goal of their program is “to develop leaders for institutions of higher and
postsecondary education who can lead institutions effectively, conduct scholarly research, and
contribute in a meaningful and distinctive way to the overall development of the profession”
(University of Michigan Website, 2006). These program goals reflect the accomplishments of
95% of the ASHE survey respondents, who all appear to have accomplished all of the goals set
for by one highly regarded program of higher education.
Regarding the goals set forth by the University of Michigan, the findings of this study
reveal that 95% of the ASHE winners assumed positions as academic leaders of institutions of
higher and postsecondary education, as either faculty or administrators. Three of the winners
went on to the highest administrative positions when they became college presidents. Secondly,
by winning recognition by the Association for the Study of Higher Education and by their
demonstrated ability to produce scholarly articles and publications, they have tackled the second
goal established by one higher education program – the goal to conduct scholarly research.
Thirdly, the ASHE dissertation winners have clearly demonstrated their ability to
contribute in a meaningful and distinctive way to the overall development of the profession with
131
their participation and membership in professional organizations and by their willingness to
assume leadership positions. Apparently, doctoral programs that produce ASHE winners are
quite likely to produce other academic rising stars. The problem, however, is that ASHE winners
come from a very select group of institutions that are not likely to be representative of the
majority of higher education doctoral programs in America. A few important questions can be
derived from this analysis:
• Are the leading research-intensive institutions emphasizing to their faculty and students the
importance of the ASHE award and insuring that their institutions nominate qualified
candidates each year?
• Are the faculty at leading research-intensive institutions less burdened (with lower class
loads, fewer administrative responsibilities, etc.) that they are more likely to be actively
involved in the activities of the Association for the Study of Higher Education?
• Are the faculty as lesser known institutions over-burdened to the point that the dissertations
generated by their school are not worthy of nomination?
• Are the members of the ASHE dissertation committee mainly faculty from researchintensive institutions and are they more likely to nominate and support dissertations from
these leading institutions?
• Does any bias exist in the dissertation review process that gives dissertations from these
institutions an advantage?
These are important questions that are worthy of further consideration. All higher education
doctoral programs need to produce doctoral students capable of producing a winning dissertation
and efforts should be made to insure that dissertations from all types of institutions are of worthy
of this type of recognition.
Discussion of Research Question 6
6.
What factors describe dissertations that were chosen as Dissertation of the Year by the
Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE) from 1979 through 2004?
The characteristics of the ASHE winning dissertations are probably not very unique. If
compared to all dissertations in higher education, this small sample of dissertations could
132
probably be representative of the total in terms of varied lengths, research methods,
organizational structures and statistics used. The lack of profound differences, however, does
not diminish the truly striking qualities of these winning dissertations. These dissertations were
well written and well organized. Clearly each dissertation represents an outstanding example of
scholarly work.
While the specific characteristics of these winning dissertations are not unique, there is
much to be learned by reading and studying the writing style, the organizational structure, the
problem statements, the methodology, the results chapters and the concluding sections of these
winning documents. It is clear that to be a good dissertation author; a doctoral student must be a
consumer of dissertation documents. The process of studying each acclaimed dissertations trains
an inexperienced dissertation author to think, plan and act like a scholarly writer and to approach
their own dissertation composition process with a very critical eye. By reading these documents,
the novice dissertation writer understands the uniqueness of every research project and that
despite the comfort associated with following a dissertation formula, there is no single
dissertation formula.
The value associated with studying a set of winning dissertations should not be
understated. The lessons learned by analyzing the content, studying the problem statements,
critiquing and thinking about the research methods and thinking about the concluding remarks
serves as a refresher course for every topic covered in a PhD or EdD program. The persistent
and constant perusing of these winning dissertations provides immediate and relevant examples
of how to apply research methods to study various phenomena. Reading and studying
dissertations eliminates the abstraction associated with some of the early doctoral coursework.
To understand the process of research while learning about research, could dramatically improve
133
the doctoral experience for students who are often frustrated by the abstract concepts and
assignments. Baird (1997) declared through his own research that creating a more specific link
between the coursework and the dissertation could potentially reduce the attrition rate for
doctoral programs and improve the overall quality of dissertation writing and research outcomes.
Discussion of Research Question 7
7.
Using Gall, Gall and Borg’s (2003) criteria for evaluating educational research, how would a
researcher describe a sample of the ASHE award-winning dissertations?
Gall, Gall and Borg (2003) argue that learning to evaluate educational research requires a
“great deal of skill” and that prior to producing your own research, one should “master the entire
research process” (Gall, Gall & Borg, 2003, p. 113). Faculty in every higher education program
would probably agree that mastering the educational research process is laborious, abstract and
time-consuming. To understand and to master the process, doctoral students must evaluate good
and bad research, and they must practice that process long before they are required to produce
any original research. It has often been said that practice makes perfect, and as the author of this
dissertation, I wonder to what degree and how often, the authors of these winning dissertations
were asked to evaluate educational research. I would surmise that these winning authors were
constantly tested and retested on their ability to evaluate educational reports, journal articles and
even dissertations.
Gall, Gall and Borg (2003) provide a simple framework for teaching doctoral students
this critical process. Their questions, while not always perfectly ordered and specifically
applicable, provide a reasonable process to help novice researchers to understand what
constitutes a quality educational research report (or dissertation). Doctoral students, unlike
faculty have not taken the entire doctoral journey; they have not fully appreciated the order and
structure of the doctoral curriculum and they have not developed an appreciation or
134
understanding of how a good researcher evolves. Gall, Gall and Borg’s process for evaluating
educational research, if used repeatedly, can help a novice researcher understand that to produce
quality research is to allow yourself to be changed by the process, to allow yourself to think
differently, to expect surprises and to be critical of everything. Once trained, a good researcher
can not remain the same. Therefore, a good researcher is one that has been changed by the
research experience.
With the majority of education doctoral students attending school on a part-time basis
and over a lengthy period of time, it is probably very difficult for faculty to fully immerse
students in the process of constantly evaluating research. But the complexities of the situation
should not deter faculty from making the effort. No doctoral student, including those that
authored these winning dissertations, understood fully the process for producing a dissertation,
until after the dissertation was complete and even then; they were not likely satisfied with the
outcome.
Using Gall, Gall and Borg (2003) to evaluate a set of winning dissertations reinforces the
notion that a dissertation is a doctoral student’s first attempt at original research. None of these
winning dissertations were perfect. None of them met every standard set forth by Gall, Gall and
Borg (2003) and none of them could withstand total scrutiny. Aside from their fine qualities and
their terrific distinctions, these acclaimed dissertations should stand as an important milestone
for a group of people that were changed by what they learned about their research problems and
more importantly what they learned about themselves. Many doctoral students would likely say
that they knew very little about how to create and write a dissertation when they began, but as
they typed the last words of their dissertations, they realized that the journey was less about what
they studied and more about how they arrived at the finish line. The critical purpose of the
135
dissertation process is probably not the production of original research, but learning how to
navigate the process of producing original research. We should be cautious and careful not to
over-scrutinize dissertations using any evaluative method, and we should remind ourselves that
the dissertation is the final requirement that prepares a doctoral student to become a qualified
scholar.
Additional Conclusions
The purpose of this dissertation was to understand more about what constitutes an awardwinning dissertation. The process began by framing seven research questions that would
eventually help to describe a specific set of dissertations that had been recognized as exemplary
by the Association for the Study of Higher Education. The research process appears to have
served every purpose outlined in chapter one. While the answers to the original seven research
questions are interesting and revealing, this dissertation appears to have served one additional
purpose that remained unrecognized until the final chapter. The unrecognized purpose was to
determine whether or not a summative evaluation process could be used to evaluate a
dissertation. As previously stated, each research problem is unique and requires a unique process
that can not and should not be structured or mandated in any fashion. The dissertation is a
formative exercise to help a doctoral student become a legitimate and qualified researcher. To
create a summative evaluation process for a formative educational task would undermine the
entire purpose of the dissertation experience. To standardize or generate a checklist that helps
faculty determine a good dissertation from a bad one would result in manufactured and canned
research, void of any of the derivations that make good research valuable and interesting.
Recommendations for Further Research
The outcomes of this research study have resulted in a variety of additional research
questions that should be explored further by others.
136
• How is the higher education curriculum at the research-intensive institutions different from
non research-intensive institutions?
• What is the career path of higher education doctoral students at research-intensive
universities versus other types of universities?
• How does a research intensive institution train scholars?
• How does the research based curriculum differ in EdD programs versus PhD programs at
research-intensive institutions?
• Is the curriculum in 21st century higher education programs ordered properly?
• Are research courses in higher education programs providing ample opportunities for
doctoral students to practice evaluating educational research?
• Do those seeking a practitioner-based doctorate really benefit from learning how to conduct
and evaluate research?
• Should the dissertation continue as a requirement for both higher education doctoral
degrees?
While these questions provide opportunities for further research, it is clear to this
dissertation author, that minimal time should be invested in trying to further understand or
explain the dissertation as a requirement for the doctoral degree. The American dissertation has
changed considerably since the James Morris Whiton finished his six page dissertation and
received his PhD from Yale University. Today’s lengthier dissertations, while logged into a
national dissertation databases, are not routinely published like nineteenth century dissertations.
While the characteristics that describe an American dissertation have evolved, it appears
that the process for completing the dissertation has changed very little. In 145 years only those
that have completed the dissertation journey can fully explain the process and the reasons for the
intellectual expedition. While some may see this as a failure to improve or evolve, those that
have undertaken the journey and survived the experience, see the process as a rite of passage,
proof that they have obtained academic respectability – what Rudolph said was the original
purpose of the dissertation. To complete a dissertation is to arrive at a new intellectual
137
destination, armed and ready for the next research adventure. As Council of Graduate Schools
has succinctly stated, the dissertation is the beginning of one's scholarly work, not its
culmination.
138
APPENDIX A
RECIPIENT QUESTIONNAIRE
139
ASHE Dissertation of the Year Recipient Survey
Personal Attributes
Gender: (circle or bold answer)
Male
Female
Ethnicity (circle or bold answer):
Caucasian
African American
Asian
Hispanic (Latino)
Native American
Other
Undergraduate Degree:
Undergraduate Degree Institution:
Masters Degree:
Masters Degree Institution:
Masters Major Area of Study:
Doctoral Degree Type: (circle or bold answer)
EdD
PhD
Doctoral Degree Institution: (circle or bold answer)
Public
Private
Doctoral Degree Institution:
Doctoral Degree:
(Be sure to state the higher education emphasis area. Examples: PhD in Academic Administration, PhD in Higher Education,
EdD in Academic Leadership, EdD in Student Affairs, EdD in Student Development)
Concentration: (Please circle either cognate or minor, and complete blank beside your choice)
Cognate:
or
Minor:
Age when dissertation was completed:
140
Did you consider yourself a full-time (solely focused on classes or focused on classes and an
assistantship/fellowship) or part-time (fully employed outside the university and taking classes nights
and/or weekends) student? (circle or bold answer)
Full-time
Part-time
Were you awarded a graduate assistantship during your doctoral study? (circle or bold answer)
Yes
No (skip to next bolded question)
If yes, how much per year?
If yes, how many hours a semester?
If yes, how many semesters did you have an assistantship?
Were you awarded a fellowship during your doctoral study? (circle or bold answer)
Yes
If yes, how much were you awarded?
No (skip to next bolded question)
$
Were you required to teach any courses during your doctoral study? (circle or bold answer)
Yes
No
Did you assist faculty with their research projects during your doctoral study? (circle or bold answer)
Yes
No
Doctoral Experience
The following list of doctoral experience attributes have been identified in the literature as factors
affecting the overall quality of the doctoral experience. Please rate the strength of the following list
of doctoral experiences as they relate to your own doctoral experience?
1. Disciplinary knowledge – what is known, plus creative and adventurous ways of
discovering new knowledge, the foundation of the PhD. (circle or bold number)
Not strong
Some strength
Very Strong
1
2
3
4
5
2. Commitment to an informed career choice based on exposure to a broad array of
opportunities and paths. (circle or bold number)
Not strong
Some strength
Very Strong
1
2
3
4
5
141
3. Teaching competency, broadly considered, in one-to-one interactions in the classroom;
preparedness to be a leader, a faculty member, a project manager, a motivator and an
evaluator of others’ learning in the government, nonprofit, corporate, or academic
sectors. (circle or bold number)
Not strong
1
2
Some strength
3
4
Very Strong
5
4. Understanding the diversity of present and future students and present and future
workforces. (circle or bold number)
Not strong
1
2
Some strength
3
4
Very Strong
5
5. Understanding of the mentoring process necessary to provide leadership for future
generations in either academia or the workplace. (circle or bold number)
Not strong
1
2
Some strength
3
4
Very Strong
5
6. Ability and preparedness to connect one’s work to that of others within and across
disciplines, within and across institutions, and within and across private and public
sectors outside the university. (circle or bold number)
Not strong
1
2
Some strength
3
4
Very Strong
5
7. Global perspective – the importance of doctoral work in relation to a global economy,
sensitivity to cultural differences. (circle or bold number)
Not strong
1
2
Some strength
3
4
Very Strong
5
8. Ability to see oneself as a scholar-citizen who will connect his or her expertise to the
needs of society. (circle or bold number)
Not strong
1
2
Some strength
3
4
Very Strong
5
9. Ability to communicate and work in teams and explain work to public audiences and to
those who set policies. (circle or bold number)
Not strong
1
2
Some strength
3
142
4
Very Strong
5
10. Understanding of ethical conduct as researchers, teachers, and professionals, including
issues of intellectual property. (circle or bold number)
Not strong
1
Some strength
3
2
4
Very Strong
5
Dissertation Characteristics
Dissertation Length:
(total number of pages including all appendices)
Which of the following best describes your research method? (circle or bold choice)
Quantitative
Qualitative
Both Quantitative and Qualitative
Historical
Was your dissertation topic related to the research interest of your committee chair?
(circle or bold answer)
Yes
No
What broad topic area would best describe your dissertation research?
(Example: attrition effectiveness, residential life programs, teaching and learning, etc.)
What method of data analysis was used for your dissertation research?
_________________________________________________________________________
If quantitative, what types of statistics did you utilize for your dissertation research?
(t-test, chi-square, cross-tabs, regression, ANOVA, etc.)
Total time to complete dissertation:
Total Years:
Total Months:
Grand Total:
(Note: count from time coursework was completed until dissertation was defended)
Total time to complete entire doctoral program:
Total Years:
Total Months:
Grand Total:
143
Did you receive any funding for your dissertation research? (circle or bold choice)
Yes
No
Did you publish any articles that resulted from your dissertation research?
(circle or bold answer)
)
Yes (If yes, how many
No
Did you make any conference presentations that resulted from your dissertation research?
(circle or bold answer)
Yes
Gender of Dissertation Chair:
(circle or bold answer)
No
Male
Female
Dissertation chair’s rank when dissertation was completed: (circle/bold one)
Assistant Professor
Associate Professor
Full Professor
Adjunct
Lecturer
Unknown
Number of Individuals Who Served on Your Committee:
How would you classify your doctoral institution during the time when you were completing your
dissertation? (circle or bold answer)
Research Intensive
Teaching Intensive
Both
Dissertation Completion Process
To what degree did these factors impact your ability to complete and defend your dissertation?
(circle or bold answers)
Not at all
1
2
Some
3
4
To a great extent
5
Reference Manuals/Materials
1
2
3
4
5
Choice of Topic
1
2
3
4
5
Ability to Generate Proposal
1
2
3
4
5
144
Knowledge of Analysis Procedures
1
2
3
4
5
Major Professor
1
2
3
4
5
Other Committee Members
1
2
3
4
5
Influence of Peers
1
2
3
4
5
Friends
1
2
3
4
5
Dissertation Support Group
1
2
3
4
5
Collegial Nature of Doctoral Environment
1
2
3
4
5
Spouse
1
2
3
4
5
Parents
1
2
3
4
5
Research coursework
1
2
3
4
5
Peer Review of Dissertation
1
2
3
4
5
Early Collaboration with Mentors
1
2
3
4
5
Assistantship or Fellowship
1
2
3
4
5
Other Factors
Please specify the factor on the line and rate the item.
Not at all
1
2
Some
3
4
To a great extent
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Please rate the quality of your relationship with your dissertation advisor as indicated by each of
the following characteristics of successful advisors? (circle or bold answers)
Never
Sometimes
1
2
3
4
Frequency of advisor/advisee interaction
1
145
2
3
4
Often
5
5
Being prepared for advising sessions
1
2
3
4
5
Being armed with accurate information
1
2
3
4
5
Willingness to make relevant disclosure to advisors
1
2
3
4
5
Advising timeliness
1
2
3
4
5
Follow through by advisee and advisor
1
2
3
4
5
Being willing and able to ask quality questions
1
2
3
4
5
Were you married while working on your dissertation? (circle or bold answer)
Yes
No
Did you have responsibility for caring for young children while completing your dissertation?
(circle or bold answer)
Yes
No
Did you have responsibility for caring for an elderly parent while completing your dissertation?
(circle or bold answer)
Yes
No
Were you experiencing unexpected sources of stress while working on your dissertation?
(circle or bold answer)
Yes
No
If yes, please explain
Career Progression
After completing your doctoral degree, how would you classify your overall career progression?
Please complete either section A or section B as it applies to you.
Section A – Academic Career
1. Academic:
Circle/Bold One:
please check this line if you followed an academic track
Faculty
Administrator
146
Other:
Circle/Bold One:
Private
Public
Circle/Bold One:
Tenure Track
2. Have you earned tenure? (circle or bold)
Instructor/Adjunct
Yes
No
NA
3. If you have not earned tenure, do you expect to earn tenure? (circle or bold)
Yes
No
NA
4. What was the title of your last academic position?
Section B – Non Academic Career
1. Non-academic:
please check this line if you followed a non-academic track
Please circle or bold one of the four options below.
Not for profit
Entrepreneur
Corporate
Other: please specify
2. What was the title of your last non-academic position?
If you followed an academic track, please indicate below the number of each that you have authored,
coauthored or presented since you were awarded a doctorate. (circle or bold answer)
Journal articles
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 or more
On line articles
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 or more
Books (academic)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 or more
Book reviews
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 or more
Conference
Presentations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 or more
Please list, up to five journals, that have published your research? Circle NA if not applicable.
NA
(Circle or bold if not applicable to you)
147
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
How many academic professional organizations do you belong to currently? (circle or bold answer)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 or more
How many leadership positions (officer or board positions) in professional organizations have you
had since you completed your dissertation? (circle or bold answer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 or more
Miscellaneous
Name: (optional)
Maiden Name:
Current Age:
Current or Last Job Title:
Current or Last Job Description:
Please choose one of the following categories to classify how long it has been since you were
awarded the ASHE Dissertation of the Year award.
Less than 3 years ago
4 to 6 years ago
7 to 10 years ago
11 to 15 years ago
16 to 20 years ago
21 or more years ago
148
Please indicate if you would like to receive the aggregate results from this study:
Yes
No
Mailing address where results can be sent:
Thank you for completing this survey.
Please forward your completed survey to XXXXXXX as an attachment to an email message.
The completed survey can also be mailed to the following address:
XXXXXXX
149
APPENDIX B
DISSERTATION QUESTIONNAIRE
150
Survey Instrument to Collect Data from Dissertations
Dissertation Title:
Dissertation Author:
Dissertation Year:
Award-winning Year:
Research Design:
Quantitative
Qualitative
Historical
Mixed
Is the dissertation:
Descriptive
Predictive
Improvement
Explanation
If quantitative use the following questions (Gall, Gall & Borg, 2000) to gather information. Skip over
quantitative section is it is a qualitative study.
Introductory Section
1.
Are the research problems, or findings unduly influenced by the researcher’s institutional
affiliations, beliefs, values, or theoretical orientation?
2.
Do the researchers demonstrate undue positive or negative bias in describing the subject of the
study?
3.
Is the literature review section of the report sufficiently comprehensive? Does it include studies
that you know to be relevant to the problem?
4.
Is each variable in the study clearly defined?
5.
Is the measure of each variable consistent with how the variable was defined?
6.
Are research hypotheses, questions, or objectives explicitly stated, and if so, are they clear:
7.
Do the researchers make a convincing case that a research hypothesis, questions, or objective
was important to the study?
Methods Section
8.
Did the sampling procedures produce a sample that is representative of an identifiable population
or your local population?
9.
Did the researchers form subgroups to increase understanding of the phenomena being studied?
151
10.
Is each measure in the study sufficiently valid for its intended purpose?
11.
Is each measure in the study sufficiently reliable for its intended purpose?
12.
Is each measure appropriate for the sample?
13.
Were the research procedures appropriate and clearly stated so that others could replicate them if
they wished?
Results Section
14.
Were appropriate statistical techniques used, and were they used correctly?
Discussion of the Results Section
15.
Do the results of the data analyses support what the researchers conclude are the finings of the
study?
16.
Did the researchers provide reasonable explanations of the findings?
17.
Did the researchers draw reasonable implications for practice and future research from their
findings?
If qualitative use the following questions to gather information.
Introductory Section
1. Are the research problems, or findings unduly influenced by the researcher’s institutional affiliations,
beliefs, values, or theoretical orientation?
2. Do the researchers demonstrate undue positive or negative bias in describing the subject of the study?
3. Is the literature review section of the report sufficiently comprehensive? Does it include studies that
you know to be relevant to the problem?
Research Procedures
4. Did the sampling procedure result in a case or cases that were particularly interesting and from which
much could be learned about the phenomena of interest?
5. Was there sufficient intensity of data collection?
6. Is each measure in the study sufficiently valid for its intended purpose?
7. Is each measure in the study sufficiently reliable for its intended purpose?
8. Is each measure appropriate for the sample?
152
9. Were the research procedures appropriate and clearly stated so that others could replicate them if they
wished?
Results Section
10. Did the report include a thick description that brought to life how the individuals responded to interview
questions or how they behaved?
11. Did each variable in the study emerge in a meaningful way from the data?
12. Are there clearly stated hypotheses or questions? And do they emerge from the data that were
collected?
13. Were appropriate statistical techniques used, and were they used correctly?
Discussion of the Results Section
14. Were multiple sources of evidence used to support the researcher’s conclusions?
15. Did the researchers provide reasonable explanations of the findings?
16. Was the generalizability of the findings appropriately qualified?
17. Did the researchers draw reasonable implications for practice and future research that the researchers
drew from their findings?
153
APPENDIX C
RECIPIENT COVER LETTER TO ACCOMPANY SURVEY
154
May 22, 2006
Dear ASHE Dissertation of the Year Recipient:
Please let me take this opportunity to introduce myself. My name is Monica Powell, and I am a doctoral student at
the University of North Texas. I have recently completed all the required PhD coursework and have also
successfully completed my written and oral qualifying exams.
I have now begun the all-consuming task of completing my dissertation which is the reason that I am writing you
today. At the suggestion of one of the higher education faculty at UNT, I am focusing my dissertation research on
both the award winning dissertations and past winners of the ASHE Dissertation of the Year award. My dissertation
is titled:
A descriptive analysis of the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE)
Dissertation of the Year award winners and dissertations from 1979 through 2004.
Since 1979, the award has been given twenty-seven times. Of the twenty-seven winners, one is deceased and I have
fortunately been able to locate the remaining twenty-six winners. Given that my total survey population is very
small, it is critically important to secure completed surveys from all living winners.
Attached to this email message is the survey instrument. It will take approximately 30 minutes to complete. Please
complete the attached survey which can be returned in one of two ways: either as an attachment to an email
message or through the regular mail (using the address below). Also attached is a notice regarding informed
consent. Please read this statement before completing the survey.
The results of this study will only be reported in aggregate form protecting the identity of individual recipients. At
the conclusion of this survey, you can indicate whether or not you would like to receive a copy of the results of this
research. This research project has been reviewed and approved by the UNT Institutional Review Board (940) 5653940. Contact the UNT IRB with any questions regarding your rights as research subject.
Thank you very much for taking the time to support my dissertation research. Should you have any questions,
please feel free to contact me or Dr. Newsom at the numbers and emails addresses listed below our names.
Best Regards,
Best Regards,
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
Ron W. Newsom, PhD
Major Professor
University of North Texas
940-565-2722
[email protected]
155
APPENDIX D
ASHE DISSERTATION AWARD WINNERS
156
ASHE - BOBBY WRIGHT DISSERTATION OF THE YEAR AWARD
2004-2005 Liang Zhang
"How College Affects Students: Toward the Reconciliation of Theory with Empirical Evidence"
2003-2004 Toni E. Larson
"Decentralization in U.S. Public Higher Education: A Comparative Study of New Jersey,
Illinois, and Arkansas"
2002-2003 Joni Mini Montez
"Developing and Piloting the Higher Education Leadership Instrument" (HELI)
2001-2002 Michael K. McLendon
"Setting the Agenda for State Decentralization of Higher Education: Analyzing the Explanatory
Boundaries of Alternative Agenda Models"
2000-2001 David Weerts
"Understanding Differences in State Support for Higher Education: A Comparative Study of
State Appropriations for Research Universities"
1999-2000 Marvin Dewey
"An Exploratory Study of the Relationship Between Cognitive Complexity of Administrative
Teams in Private Liberal Arts Colleges and Organizational Health as One Dimension of
Organizational Effectiveness"
1998-1999 Deborah Faye Carter
"A Dream Deferred? Examining the Degree Aspirations of African-American and White College
Students"
1997-1998 Joseph Berger (Co-awardee)
"Organizational Behavior at Colleges and Student Outcomes: Generating a Quantitatively
Grounded Theory"
Cynthia Sabik (Co-awardee)
"(Re)Writing Metaphor and Form: Auto ethnographic Enactments From the Postmodern
Classroom"
1996-1997 Lisa Rose Lattuca
"Envisioning Interdisciplinary: Processes, Contexts, Outcomes"
1995-1996 Teresa Isabelle Daza Campbell
"Protecting the Public's Trust: A Search for Balance Among Benefits and Conflicts in
University-Industry Relationships"
1994-1995 Robert A. Rhoades
"Institutional Culture and Student Subculture: Student Identity and Socialization"
157
1993-1994 Rebecca R. Kline
"The Social Practice of Literacy in a Program of Study Abroad"
1992-1993 Martha Lillian Ann Stassen
"White Faculty Members' Responses to Racial Diversity at Predominantly White Institutions"
1991-1992 Julie Neururer
"Decency and Dollars Invested: Case Studies of South African Divestiture"
1990-1991 Kenneth D. Crews, J.D.
"Copyright Policies at American Research Universities: Balancing Information Needs and Legal
Limits"
1989-1990 Roger L. Williams
"George W. Atherton and the Beginnings of Federal Support for Higher Education"
1988-1989 Patricia Gumport
"The Social Construction of Knowledge: Individual and Institutional Commitment to Feminist
Scholarship"
1986-1987 Dolores L. Burke
"Change in the Academic Marketplace: A Study of Faculty Mobility in the 1980s"
1986-1987 Irvin Lee (Bobby) Wright
"Piety, Politics and Profit: American Indian Missions in the Colonial Colleges"
1985-1986 Janet Kerr-Tener
"From Truman to Johnson: Ad Hoc Policy Formulation in Higher Education"
1984-1985 Lois A. Fisher
"State Legislatures and the Autonomy of Colleges and Universities: A Comparative Study of
Legislation in Four States, 1900-79"
1983-1984 Jeffrey Bartkovich
"Designing an Empirically Derived Taxonomy of Organization Structures in Higher Education"
1982-1983 Catherine Marienau
"Bridging Theory and Practice in Adult Development and Planned Change"
1981-1982 Ellen Chaffee
"Decision Models in Budgeting"
1980-1981 Paul Duby
"An Investigation of the Mediating Role of Causal Attitudes in School Learning"
1979-1980 Kenneth Bradley Orr
"The Impact of the Depression Years 1929-1939 on Faculty in American Colleges and
Universities"
158
1979-1980 William Zumeta
”The State and Doctoral Programs at the University of California: Academic Planning for an
Uncertain Future:
Retrieved from the Association for the Study of Higher Education Website on January 15 , 2006
http://www.ashe.ws/awards.htm#bobby
159
APPENDIX E
ASHE DISSERTATION WORKSHEET
160
ASHE Dissertation Worksheet
Author Full Name:
Author’s Gender:
male
female
unknown
female
unknown
Author’s Ethnicity (if identifiable):
Degree Earned:
Institution:
Advisor:
Advisor’s Gender:
male
Year of Dissertation:
Title:
Number of Pages:
Number of Citations in Bibliography:
Quantitative: yes
no
Qualitative: yes
no
Historical:
yes
no
Mixed:
yes
no
Methods Employed: (i.e. survey, ethnography, etc.)
Audience Studied if Applicable: (ex: freshman, graduate students, faculty)
Sample Size if Applicable:
Statistics Used: (chi square, Pearson’s r, Spearman Rho)
161
Dissertation Organization:
5 chapter method
Later Publications by this author:
Contact with author:
162
other
APPENDIX F
ASHE DISSERTATION CRITERIA
163
BOBBY WRIGHT DISSERTATION OF THE YEAR
Bobby Wright Dissertation of the Year Award
Named in memory of Irvin Lee (Bobby) Wright, this award recognizes one or more dissertations
that serve as exemplary models of the methodology employed. Criterion also include the
significance of the dissertation topic.
Nomination Deadline: June 15, 2005
Since 1979, ASHE has given special recognition to outstanding dissertations that contribute new
knowledge to the field of higher education. Faculty are invited to nominate dissertations
addressing significant issues and/or professional practice. These studies may use either
qualitative or quantitative methods and adopt a disciplinary or multidisciplinary perspective.
While nominees are usually from higher education programs, the process is open to all doctoral
degree recipients whose dissertations explore significant concerns in higher or post-secondary
education.
Nomination Guidelines
1. Qualifications: To be considered, the dissertation should have been successfully defended
and the degree granted between July 2004 and June 2005. No dissertations that were nominated
for the 2004 Year Award can be considered.
2 Nominations should come from the Chair of the Dissertation. The nomination letter should
provide information needed to render a valid judgment regarding the relevance of the topic,
research contribution and significance. Attached to the letter of nomination, 5 copies of the
dissertation summary chapter should be provided. The summary chapter should give enough
information to assess the dissertation using the following criteria:
A. Research question
B. Brief literature review which would help the committee judge depth of knowledge
C. Conceptual framework
D. Methods/Data sources
E. Conclusions and results
F. Significance of the results to Higher Education
G. Style. Degree to which writing is clear, concise, unambiguous and interesting.
All correspondence must be received by the committee chair no later than June 15, 2005.
Individual faculty members are requested to nominate no more than two candidates.
During the summer and early fall, a committee comprised of ASHE faculty, administrators and
researchers will review submissions and select semifinalists who will be invited to submit full
dissertations. The faculty member should be prepared to submit five copies of the full
dissertation if his or her nominee is selected as a semifinalist. These copies will facilitate the
review process and allow one copy to be retained for ASHE archives.
The committee will announce the Bobby Wright Dissertation of the Year award winner and any citations for
excellence at the Association’s Annual Meeting. Compensation for the winner will include waiving the conference
registration fee or assistance with travel and lodging arrangements, if not handled by the winner’s institution
Additionally, winners receive a substantial gift of books from Jossey-Bass Publishers, which over the years has
generously acknowledged the contributions of these winners. Finally, the recipients will be added to the
164
distinguished list of previous winners noted in ASHE’s annual program. Nominations and inquiries should be
addressed to:
James Coaxum, III, Chair of the Bobby Wright Dissertation Award, 2005
Educational Leadership Department
Rowan University
201 Mullica Hill Road
Glassboro, NJ 08028-1701
Ph: 856-256-4779
Fax: 856-256-4918
E-mail: [email protected]
For information about all past award recipients, visit: www.ashe.ws/awards.htm
165
REFERENCE LIST
Anderson, D. G. (1983). Differentiation of the EdD and PhD in education. Journal of Teacher
Education, 34(3), 55-58.
Antony, J. S. (2002). Re-examining doctoral student’s socialization and professional
development. Moving beyond the congruence and assimilation orientation. In J.C. Smart
(Ed.) Higher education handbook of theory and research, 17, [Higher Education Series].
New York: Agathon Press.
Association of American Universities. (1998). AAU Graduate Education Report. Washington
D.C.
Austin, A. E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty. The Journal of Higher Education,
73(1), 94-122.
Bair, C. R., Haworth, J. & Sandfort, M. (2004). Doctoral student learning and development: A
shared responsibility. NASPA Journal (Online), 41(4), pp. 709-727. Retrieved February
2, 2006, from http://publications.naspa.org/naspajournal/vol141/iss4/art7
Baird, L. L. (1997). Completing the dissertation: Theory, research and practice. New Directions
for Higher Education, Fall(99), 99-105.
Berkenkotter, C., Huckin, T., & Ackerman, J. (1991). Social context and socially constructed
texts. In C. Bazerman and J. Paradis (Eds.), Textual dynamics of the professions. (pp.
191-215). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organizational and
leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bjorksten, O., Sutherland, S. Miller, C. & Stewart, T. (1983). Identification of medical student
problems and comparison with those of other students. Journal of Medical Education, 58,
759-767.
Boote, D. H., & Beile, P. (2005) Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the
dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 315.
Bowman, R.L., Bowman, V.E. & DeLucia, J.L. (1990). Mentoring in a graduate counseling
program: Students helping students. Counselor Education and Supervision, 30, 58-65.
Brown, L.D. (1966). Doctoral graduates in education. An inquiry into their motives, aspirations,
and perceptions of the program. Bloomington: Indiana University Foundation.
Brown, L.D. (1990). A perspective on the PhD – EdD discussion in schools of education. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Boston.
166
Brown, L.D. & Slater, J.M. (1960). The doctorate in education. Volume I: The graduates.
Washington D.C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
Brown, H. A. (2005). Graduate enrollment and degrees: 1986 to 2004. Washington D.C.:
Council of Graduate Schools.
Brubaker, J. S., & Rudy, W. (1976). Higher education in transition: A history of American
colleges and universities, 1636-1976. New York: Harper & Row.
Busch, J.W. (1985). Mentoring in graduate schools of education: Mentors’ perceptions.
American Educational Research Journal, 22(2), 257-265.
Caffarella, R. S., & Barnett, B. G. (2000). Teaching doctoral students to become scholarly
writers: The importance of giving and receiving critiques. Studies in Higher Education,
25(1), 39-53.
Campbell, J. (1995). Understanding John Dewey: Nature and cooperative intelligence. Chicago:
Open Court.
Carpenter, D.S. (1987). Ongoing dialogue: Degrees of difference. Review of Higher Education,
10(3), 281-86.
Clifford, G. J. & Guthrie, J.W. (1988). Ed school: A brief for professional education. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Cone, J. D. & Foster, S. L. (2001). Dissertations and theses from start to finish: Psychology and
related fields. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Council of Graduate Schools. (1990). The role and nature of the doctoral dissertation: A policy
statement. Retrieved January 8, 2006, from
http://www.cgsnet.org/PublicationsPolicyRes/role2.htm
Creswell, J.W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, G. A. (1997). Research methodologies and the doctoral process. New
Directions for Higher Education, 99, 33-46.
Cremin, L.A. (1978). The education of the educating professions. New York: Horace MannLincoln Institute, Teachers College, Columbia University.
D’Andrea, L. M. (2002). Obstacles to completion of the doctoral degree in colleges of education:
The professor’s perspective. Educational Research Quarterly: 25(3), 42-58.
de Rosenroll, D., Norman, T. & Sinden, S. (1987). The development of a support seminar for
entering graduate level students in school counseling/counseling psychology programs.
Canadian Journal of Counseling, 21, 157-161.
167
Deering, T.E. (1998). Eliminating the doctor of education degree: It’s the right thing to do.
Educational Forum. 62(3), 243-48.
Delfin, P.E. & Roberts, M.C. (1980). Self-perceived confidence and competence as a function of
training in the beginning graduate student in clinical psychology. Teaching of
Psychology, 7, 168-171.
Dill, D.D. & Morrison, J.L. (1985). The EdD and the PhD research training in the field of higher
education: A survey and a proposal. Review of Higher Education, 8, 169-86.
Gall, M.D., Gall, J.P. & Borg, W.R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction. (7th ed.).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Gerholm, T. (1990). On tacit knowledge in academia. European Journal of Education. 25(3),
263-271.
Gilman, D. C. (1876, February 22). Inaugural Address for Johns Hopkins University. Retrieved
on September 13, 2006, from http://www.jhu.eud/125th/links/gilman.html
Girves, J.E. & Wemmerus, V. (1988). Developing models of graduate student degree programs.
Journal of Higher Education. 32(4), 449-468.
Golde, C. M. (1998). Beginning graduate school: Explaining first-year doctoral attrition. New
Directions for Higher Education, Spring 101, 55-64.
Golde, C. M. (2000). Should I stay or should I go? Student descriptions of the doctoral attrition
process. Review of Higher Education, 23(2), 199-227.
Golde, C. M. (2005). The role of the department and discipline in doctoral student attrition:
Lessons from four departments. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(6), 669-700.
Green, K. E. (1997). Psychosocial factors affecting dissertation completion. New Directions for
Higher Education, 99, 57-64.
Hanson, T. L. (1992). The ABD phenomenon: The “at-risk” population in higher education and
the discipline of communication. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech
Communication Association. Chicago, IL. October 29 – November 1, 1992. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service, ED 351 732).
Hartnett, R.T. (1976). Environment for advanced learning. In J. Katz & R.T. Hartnett (Eds),
Scholars in the making: The development of graduate and professional students (pp. 4984). Cambridge: Ballinger.
Harty, H., Kormanyos, E.C. & Enochs, L.G. (1983). Students’ eye view of an external doctoral
program’s first-year summer residency functioning. Alternative Higher Education, 7, 8090.
168
Heinrich, K. T. (1995). Doctoral advisement relationships between women. Journal of Higher
Education, 66(4), 447-469.
Heiss, A.M. (1970). Challenges to graduate schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Heppner, P., & Heppner, M. J. (2004). Writing and publishing your thesis, dissertation and
research: A guide for students in the helping professions. Belmont: Brooks/Cole.
Hinchey, P., & Kimmel, I. (2000). The graduate grind. New York: Routledge Falmer.
Hoffer, T.B., V. Welch, Jr., K. Williams, M. Hess, K. Webber, B. Lisek, D. Loew, and I.
Guzman-Barron. (2005). Doctorate recipients from United States universities: Summary
report (2004). Chicago: National Opinion Research Center.
Holmes Group, I. (1995). Tomorrow’s schools of education: A report of the Holmes Group. East
Lansing, Michigan. Holmes Group Inc. (BBB24314).
Hurtado, S. (1994). Graduate school racial climate and academic self-concept among minority
graduate students in the 1970s. American Journal of Education, (102), 330-351.
Hutchinson, S. R., & Lovell, C. D. (2004). A review of methodological characteristics of
research published in key journals in higher education: Implications for graduate
research training. Research in Higher Education, 45(4), 383-403.
Jacks, P., Chubin, D.E., Porter, A.L. & Connolly, T. (1983). The ABCs of ABDs: A study of
incomplete doctorates. Improving College and University Teaching. (31)2, 74-81.
Jacobson, J. (2005). Report calls for abolition of EdD degree and overhaul of education schools.
The Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(29), p. A24.
Judge, H.G. (1982). American graduate schools of education. A view from abroad. New York:
Ford Foundation.
Katz, E. L. (1997). Key players in the dissertation process. New Directions for Higher
Education, Fall (99), 5-16.
Kerlin, S. P. (1995, November 8). Surviving the doctoral years: Critical perspectives. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 3(17). Retrieved February 8, 2006, from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v3n17.html
Kluever, R. C. (1997). Students' attitudes toward the responsibilities and barriers in doctoral
study. New Directions for Higher Education, Fall (99), 47-56.
Labaree, D.F. (1998). Educational researchers: Living with a lesser form of knowledge.
Educational Researcher. 27(8), 4-12.
Lagemann, E.C. (2000). An elusive science: The troubling history of education research.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
169
Leatherman, C. (2000, March 24). A new push for ABDs to cross the finish line. The Chronicle
of Higher Education. p. A18.
Levine, Arthur (2005). Educating school leaders. The Education Schools Project. New York.
Retrieved on February 24, 2006, from http://www.edschools.org/pdf/Final313.pdf
Long, J.B. (1987) Factors related to attrition and success in degree and non-degree doctoral
students in education. Unpublished EdD Dissertation. Northern Arizona University,
Flagstaff.
Lovitts, B. E. (2000, July). Making strides: Context and attrition. Research News on Graduate
Education, 2(3). Retrieved February 7, 2007, from
http://ehrweb.aaas.org/mge/Archives/6/context.html
Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Lovitts, B. E. (2005). How to grade a dissertation. Academe, 91(6), 18-23.
Madsen, D. (1992). Successful dissertations and theses (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Maher, M. A., Ford, M. E., & Thompson, C. M. (2004). Degree progress of women doctoral
students: Factors that constrain, facilitate, and differentiate. Review of Higher Education,
27(3), 385-408.
Malone, T. L. (1981) A history of the doctor of philosophy dissertation in the United States 1861
– 1930. Unpublished dissertation, Wayne State University. Detroit.
Marshall, H. & Jones, K. (1990). Childbearing sequence and the career development of women
administrators in higher education. Journal of College and Student Development, 31,
531-537.
McMillan, J. H. (2000). Educational research: Fundamentals for the consumer. (3rd ed.). New
York: Longman.
Merriam, S. (1983). Mentors and protégés: A critical review of the literature. Adult Education
Quarterly, 33(3), 161-173.
Miskel, Cecil G. (1996). Meeting the challenge of improving research education at the turn of
the 21st century. Proposal to the Spencer Foundation. Ann Arbor, MI: School of
Education, University of Michigan.
Mullins, G., & Kiley, M. (2002). It's a PhD, not a Nobel Prize: How experienced examiners
assess research theses. Studies in Higher Education, 27(4), 369-386.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Digest of education statistics (2001).
Washington, D.C.: Institute of Education Sciences. U.S. Department of Education.
170
Nelson, J. K., & Coorough, C. (1994). Content analysis of the PhD versus EdD dissertation.
Journal of Experimental Education, 62(2), 158-169.
Nerad, M. (1995). University of California, Berkeley: Beyond traditional modes of mentoring, In
N. A. Gaffney, (Ed.)., A conversation about mentoring: Trends and models. Washington
D.C.: Council of Graduate Schools, 18-24.
Nerad, M. & Cerny J. (1993). From facts to action: Expanding the graduate division’s education
role, In L. Baird, (Ed.), Increasing graduate student retention and degree attainment,
New Directions for Institutional Research, (80). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nerad, M. & Cerny J. (1999). From rumors to facts: Career outcomes of English PhD’s., results
from the PhD’s—ten years later study, In Council of Graduate Schools Communicator,
Vol. SSSII, No. 7. ( Special Edition). Washington, D.C.
Nerad, M. & Miller, D.S. (1996). “Increasing student retention in graduate and professional
programs” in Assessment in graduate and professional programs: Demand, processes,
outcomes. In J. G. Haworth, (Ed.), New Directions for Institutional Research, (92), 6176.
Neumann, A., A.M. Pallas, et al. (1999). Preparing education practitioners to practice education
research. In.E.C. Lagemann and L.S. Shulman (Eds.), Issues in education research:
Problems and possibilities. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass.
New Webster's dictionary and thesaurus (1991). New York: Ottenheimer.
Nyquist, J. D. (2002). The PhD. Change, 34(6), 12-20.
Nyquist, J. D. & Wulff, D.H. (2000). Re-envisioning the PhD: Recommendations from national
studies on doctoral education. Center for Instructional Development and Research,
University of Washington. Retrieved January 11, 2006, from:
http://www.grad.washington.edu/envision/project_resources/national_recommendations.h
tml
Nyquist, Jody D. & Woodford, B. J. (2000). Re-envisioning the PhD: What are our concerns?
Center for Instructional Development and Research, University of Washington. Retrieved
January 8, 2006, from
http://www.grad.washington.edu/envision/project_resources/ConcernsBrief.pdf
Osguthorpe, R.T. & Wong, M.J. (1993). The PhD versus the EdD: Time for a decision.
Innovative Higher Education, 18(1), 47-63.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Petress, K. C. (1993). Are doctorates really needed for non-research faculty positions?
Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, 20(3), 321-322.
171
Petress, K.C. (2000). How to be a good advisee. Education. 120(3), 598-599.
Popham, W. J. (1993). Educational evaluation. (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
ProQuest Website. (2006). Dissertation lore. Retrieved June 13, 2006, from
http://www.umi.com/products_umi/dissertations/lore.shtml
Richardson, V. (2003). The PhD in education:. Carnegie Essays on the Doctorate. The Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Menlo Park, CA. Retrieved January 9,
2006, from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/CID/essays/CID_educ_Richardson.pdf
Rudd, E. (1986). The drop-outs and the dilatory on the road to the doctorate. Higher Education
in Europe, 11(4), 31-36.
Rudolph, F. The American college and university. Athens: University of Georgia.
Schoenfeld, A.H. (1999). The core, the canon, and the development of research skills. In E.C.
Lagemann and L.S. Shulman (Eds.), Issues in education research: Problems and
possibilities. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass.
Shulman. L.S. (1999). Professing educational scholarship. In E.C. Lagemann and L.S. Shulman
(Eds.), Issues in education research: Problems and possibilities. San Francisco. JosseyBass.
Smallwood, S. (2004, January 16). Doctor Dropout. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A10.
Smith, B. (1995, April). Hidden rules, secret agendas: Challenges facing contemporary women
doctoral students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association.
Smithsonian Institute Website. (2006). History of the Smithsonian. Retrieved January 21, 2006,
from http://www.si.edu/about/history/htm.
Sogunro, O.A. (2001). Selecting a quantitative or qualitative research methodology: An
experience. Educational Research Quarterly. 26(1). 3-10.
Spillett, M. A. & Moisiewicz, K.A. (2004). Cheerleader, coach, counselor, critic: Support and
challenge roles of the dissertation advisor. College Student Journal, 38(2), 246-256.
Storr, R. J. (1969). The beginnings of graduate education in America. New York: Arno Press &
New York Times.
Storr, R. J. (1973). The beginning of the future: A historical approach to graduate education in
the arts and sciences, (Fourteenth of a series of profiles sponsored by the Carnegie
Commission on Higher Education). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tierney, W. G. (1997). Organizational socialization in higher education. Journal of Higher
Education, 68(1), 1-16.
172
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: The causes and cures of student attrition. (2nd ed.). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1988). Stages of student departure: Reflections on the longitudinal character of student
leaving. Journal of Higher Education, 59, 438-455.
Tluczek, J. L. (1995). Obstacles and attitudes affecting graduate persistence in completing the
doctoral dissertation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, Detroit.
Toma, J. (2002, November). Legitimacy, differentiation, and the promise of the EdD in higher
education. Paper presented at the meeting of the Annual Meeting of the Association for
the Study of Higher Education, Sacramento, CA.
Ulku-Steiner, B., Kurtz-Costes, B., & Kinlw, C. (2000). Doctoral student experiences in genderbalanced and male-dominated graduate programs. Journal of Educational Psychology,
92(2), 296-307.
University of Michigan Website. (2006). School of Education. Retrieved June 28, 2006, from
http://www.soe.umich.edu/highereducationhttp://www.soe.umich.edu/highereducation/ph
d/index.html/phd/index.html
University of Michigan Rackham Graduate School Website. (2006). Graduate degree programs.
Retrieved June 30, 2006, from
http://www.rackham.umich.edu/Programs/social.sci/educ.html#PhD.
Vanderbilt University. Peabody College Website. (2006). Doctoral programs for education
professionals. Retrieved June 30, 2006, from
http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu:16080/lpo/edd/
Weidman, J. C., & Stein, E. L. (2003). Socialization of doctoral students to academic norms.
Research in Higher Education, 44(6), 641-656.
Weidman, J. C., & Twale, D. J., Stein E.L. (2001). Socialization of graduate and professional
students in higher education, a perilous passage? ASHE ERIC higher education report
(3rd ed., Vol. 28). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Weiss, C.S. (1981). The development of professional role commitment among graduate students.
Human Relations, 34(1), 13-31.
Williams, E.E., Gallas, J.A. & Quiriconi, S. (1984). Journal of College Student Personnel, 25,
173-174.
Westmeyer, P. (1997). An analytical history of American higher education. (2nd ed.).
Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.
Zhao, C.-M., Golde, C. M., & McCormick, A. C. (2005, April). More than a signature: How
advisor choice and advisor behavior affect doctoral student satisfaction. Paper presented
at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
173