Thesis advisor: Heather Rowan-Kenyon / This study's purpose was to compare the lived experiences of doctoral women studying Education, a prototypically female field, with women studying Engineering, a prototypically male field to illustrate the phenomenon of doctoral degree progress in the two fields. Using critical feminist theory and Valian's (1999) concept of gender schemas, this study examined doctoral education culture in Education and Engineering and how these cultures influence women's doctoral student experiences and in turn their degree progress (Tong, 2009). Although women represent over 50% of doctoral student enrollment and degrees earned, gender disparities exist in Education and Engineering. Once enrolled, women are proportionally more likely to complete Education doctorates and less likely to complete Engineering doctorates (Council of Graduate Schools, 2008; Gonzales, Allum, and Sowell, 2013; Nettles and Millett, 2006). This trend is important because it implies there is something about Education and Engineering doctoral environments that make them more and less conducive for women's success, respectively (Gardner and Mendoza, 2010). This study used a qualitative interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) approach to capture the essence of women's doctoral degree progress by interpreting the lived experiences of 10 Education and 11 Engineering doctoral women (Smith, Flowers, and Larkin, 2009). After 63 in-depth interviews and two focus groups, four themes emerged. Overall, the Education women reported fewer positive doctoral experiences and more barriers to degree progress than the Engineering women due to the funding and research assistantship structure, the faculty advisor relationship, and the department environment. Both groups of women described doctoral education culture as proactive, independent, and competitive - characteristics more consistent with masculine gender schemas. Doctoral education culture also reflected the feminine gender schemas of flexibility and collegiality/collaboration, which were more apparent in the prototypically masculine Engineering field than in the prototypically feminine Education field. Implications for how doctoral education can be re-conceptualized, delivered, and researched are provided, calling for the incorporation of more feminine gender schemas into doctoral education culture in order to promote and achieve gender equity. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2014. / Submitted to: Boston College. Lynch School of Education. / Discipline: Educational Leadership and Higher Education.

Thesis (Ph.D.), Faculty of Humanities, School of Education, University of the Witwatersrand, 2009 / People who hold doctoral degrees are considered valuable national resources able to produce knowledge to address pressing problems, and important sources of labour for the higher education sector. However, in 2006, only 1100 people graduated with doctoral degrees in South Africa. This limits the potential for research and improvements in higher education. In addition, 618 of those graduates were white, making it difficult to address equity concerns. Within the higher education sector there are debates about how to increase enrolments in doctoral education and the best way to run PhD programmes for effective learning, high quality research results and for efficiency. But there is little South African-based empirical research into what makes people undertake PhDs, how the programmes work and what learning and knowledge result. This study explores how different stakeholders – national and institutional policymakers, academic staff and doctoral people – understand the PhD; how these understandings influence the practice of doctoral education; and how different practices affect the PhD experience and the learning and knowledge produced. The primary research question I address is: “How do existing models and pedagogies of doctoral programmes shape the learning of doctoral people and the outcomes of doctoral programmes in South Africa?” The origins of the Doctor of Philosophy degree are often traced back to the nineteenth century reforms of German universities when the idea emerged that all scholars should be actively involved in research. But this is a simplistic view. By examining the evolution of the PhD in greater depth, it becomes clear that it has undergone continuous change and has always served both the high-minded pursuit of knowledge and the more prosaic pursuit of skills for employment. The literature reflects ongoing tension between the scholarly view of the PhD as knowledge generation by an emerging scholar, and the labour market view of the PhD as developing high-level research skills. In the South African context both of these views can be observed, but I also identified a view of the PhD as ongoing personal development through an engagement with knowledge. The three views of the PhD are underpinned by different discourses which inform the practice of doctoral education. In South Africa, the traditional model of individual supervision dominates, and it varies by discipline, department and supervisor. But patterns of practice can be discerned and I identify four of these and discuss how supervisors construct their individual supervision practice. Doctoral education is also a function of the people who do PhDs. Much of the research undertaken in the overdeveloped world focuses on younger people who are starting out on academic careers. However, in South Africa, many people doing PhDs are older and midway through careers which are often not academic. This leads me to propose a model of intersecting contexts, as an alternative to McAlpine and Norton‟s nested context model of doctoral education, which more accurately reflects the local situation. I discuss the PhD experience and make use of the intersecting contexts model to develop the notion of congruence between the PhD, the contexts and the PhD person with more positive experiences being related to higher degrees of congruence. Finally, I consider how the outcomes of doctoral education, the learning and knowledge which result, relate to the expectations of the different stakeholders. The research took the form of a qualitative study with a multiple case-study design employing theoretical replication. I examined doctoral education in four academic units at three South African universities with the units selected to represent different disciplines. All four units were in previously advantaged universities from the English-speaking tradition and all were successfully producing PhD graduates. These rich pictures of how doctoral education takes place contribute empirical evidence to current debates about the PhD in South Africa. At a conceptual level I identify the competing discourses about what a PhD is. I provide a more nuanced understanding of the practice of doctoral education within the overarching model of individual supervision. The intersecting contexts model provides a way to understand the expectations and circumstances of doctoral people and the notion of congruence illuminates their varied experiences. Finally, the study confirms that the outcomes of doctoral education, in terms of learning and knowledge generated, meet at least some of the expectations of policy-makers, supervisors and people who do PhDs.

Thesis advisor: Karen Arnold / Student affairs models exist on every United States college and university campus and serve as an integral part of the undergraduate student experience. However, very little research has been conducted on students in Higher Education Administration doctoral programs and the preparation of Senior Student Affairs Officers (SSAOs) for leadership in student affairs. This study investigated the perceptions of mentoring relationships between faculty mentors and doctoral student protégés and the socialization of these students into becoming senior leaders in student affairs. Kram's (1985) theory, which identifies the psychosocial and career aspects of mentoring in organizational development, serves as the lens to examine these relationships. The participants in this study consisted of five faculty mentors and eight of their former students who are now current Senior Student Affairs Officers. Results included four major themes, identified by both the mentors and the SSAOs, comprising the major aspects of the mentoring relationships. In addition, the faculty mentors felt that they did not particularly prepare students for these senior level positions, as there were no specific or intentional discussions about the role itself. However, the former students believed their doctoral mentoring was good preparation for the SSAO role, as they learned about university structures, governance, political climates and other aspects of senior leadership. Given these findings, it is recommended that there be a stronger emphasis be placed upon the SSAO socialization component of the doctoral program. Recommendations such as the addition of "mentors of practice," a student apprenticeship component similar to Arts & Sciences doctoral programs, and an increased faculty awareness of their impact upon students as mentors are suggested to enhance the doctoral student experience. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2011. / Submitted to: Boston College. Lynch School of Education. / Discipline: Educational Leadership and Higher Education.

Calls for reform in doctoral education are not new. However, the past decade has experienced renewed interest and discussion in preparing the future professoriate. Whereas most studies of graduate student socialization and preparation for faculty roles have focused on doctoral students or new faculty, this study examined the perceptions of senior faculty members involved in doctoral education. All senior faculty (n=4970) in biological sciences, English, mathematics, and non-clinical psychology from a stratified sample of 69 research universities nationwide were invited to participate. More than 1150 faculty completed a web-based survey. Respondents rated the importance of 18 competencies (based on a framework by Austin and McDaniels) and 24 roles during 1) the first three years of faculty work and 2) doctoral education. Additionally, participants identified persons having primary responsibility for introducing doctoral students to each competency or role. Faculty respondents rated general competencies and research roles as more important than teaching and service roles for both new faculty and doctoral students. Whereas nearly all items were rated higher in importance for faculty than students, mean difference scores showed great variability. Results also varied by discipline. In general, most respondents viewed the doctoral student advisor or all faculty members in the academic unit as having primary responsibility for introducing specific roles and competencies to doctoral students; other common responses included the student and nobody. Results of the study have important implications for doctoral education at the national, institutional, and unit levels. First, consideration of disciplinary differences in priorities for doctoral training and new faculty development programs is vital. Additionally, multiple stakeholders can impact the preparation of future faculty. Training institutions, hiring institutions, and students can play a role in narrowing the gap between doctoral student preparation and the work required of new faculty. Suggestions for future research include expanding the sample to include a broader array of academic disciplines and incorporating qualitative methods to discern reasons for disparities in the importance assigned to specific competencies and roles. Research should also explore the perceptions of senior faculty concerning the worth and feasibility of recent recommendations aimed at better preparing future faculty.

abstract: This action research study is a mixed methods investigation of doctoral students’ preparedness for multiple career paths. PhD students face two challenges preparing for multiple career paths: lack of preparation and limited engagement in conversations about the value of their research across multiple audiences. This study focuses on PhD students’ perceived perception of communicating the value of their research across academic and non-academic audiences and on an institutional intervention designed to increase student’s proficiency to communicate the value of their PhD research across multiple audiences. Additionally, the study identified ways universities can implement solutions to prepare first-generation PhD students to effectively achieve their career goals. I developed a course titled Preparing Future Scholars (PFS). PFS was designed to be an institutional intervention to address the fundamental changes needed in the career development of PhD students. Through PFS curricula, PhD students engage in conversations and have access to resources that augment both the traditional PhD training and occupational identity of professorate. The PFS course creates fundamental changes by drawing from David Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory and the Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) developed by Robert Lent, Steven Brown, and Gail Hackett. The SCCT looks at one’s self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations, goal representation, and the interlocking process of interest development, along with their choice and performance. I used a concurrent triangulation mixed methods research model that included collecting qualitative and quantitative data over 8 weeks. The results of the study indicated that PhD students’ career preparation should focus on articulating the relevancy of their research across academic and non-academic employment sectors. Additionally, findings showed that PhD students’ perception of their verbal and non-verbal skills to communicate the value of their research to both lay and discipline specific audiences were not statistically different across STEM and non-STEM majors, generational status, or gender, but there are statistical differences within each group. PhD programs provide students with the opportunity to cultivate intellectual knowledge, but, as this study illustrates, students would also benefit from the opportunity to nurture and develop practical knowledge and turn “theory into practice.” / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation Leadership and Innovation 2016

This quantitative study utilized surveys to explore how science doctoral students receive support from their dissertation advisors and its relationship to graduate student success outcomes. The survey was distributed to active doctoral students majoring in the sciences at one large, public, Southeastern University. Within examining how the support science doctoral students receives relates to graduate student success outcomes, the study also examined additional factors that could influence graduate student success such as the participant size of the laboratory group, experience with undergraduate research, and time in program. Findings revealed that on average science doctoral students report receiving more psychosocial support than career support. Students who reported higher levels of satisfaction with their laboratory group and those who had female advisors, were more likely to report receiving higher levels of psychosocial support. Also, students who reported higher levels of satisfaction with their laboratory group and having a female advisor, were more likely to report receiving higher levels of career support. Those students who had been the program longer, reported receiving less career support. This was also true for identification. The longer students were in the program, the less likely they would report identifying or wanting to emulate their advisor. There was a statistically significant relationship between overall level of satisfaction with the advisor relationship and receiving career and psychosocial support. There was also a significant relationship between reporting high levels of satisfaction with the advisor relationship and reporting high levels of satisfaction with the laboratory group. Lastly, there was significance found between students reporting identifying with the advisor and expressing high levels of satisfaction with the advisor relationship. No statistically significant relationship was found between the levels of support received and number of academic benchmarks or scholarly works. There was also no statistically significant relationship found between levels of support or graduate student success outcomes with the number of participants in a laboratory group. The study results indicated science doctoral students who have been the most successful at meeting graduate student success outcomes receive more psychosocial support from their advisors than career support. However, the more science students felt that their advisor was assisting them with career support, the more satisfaction they experienced with the overall advisor relationship. Advisors from other disciplines can look to increase the amounts of career support they provide to their students. Time in program was the only significant predictor of number of academic benchmarks met for science doctoral students. This needs to be explored in other disciplines given that most students in the sciences are only in the program for five to six years. The variable, scholarly works, was found to have two significant predictors, which were experience with undergraduate research and having had started the dissertation project. Undergraduate advisors and program directors from all disciplines should look to encourage their students who are interested in pursuing doctoral education to engage in undergraduate research as it will help them to progress more successfully through a graduate program. Doctoral advisors and program directors from all disciplines should look to create a curriculum that encourages students to start their research project as early as possible. The level of satisfaction with the laboratory group was a significant predictor to the satisfaction with the advisor relationship, to receiving more career and psychosocial support, and to identifying the advisor more. Therefore, more research is needed regarding the influence of the laboratory group and graduate student success outcomes in the sciences. Overall, the results of the study provide insight as to how other disciplines and programs may improve their student success outcome rates by understanding some mechanisms that are contributing to the success of science doctoral students.

Thesis (Ed.D.)--Boston University / Purpose The purpose of the study was to identify those factors which are related to success in the doctoral program, to analyze the relative importance and frequency of factors identified, and to draw implications and conclusions from the findings. Procedures The population of 327 subjects in five groups were all applicants to the doctoral program at Boston University School of Education, some of whom graduated, some of whom did not. Information for the study was obtained from the records of the School of Education, from responses to a questionnaire and data sheet, and from interviews. A group of graduates were first compared with a group of non-graduates to see if there were significant differences between the groups on four screening variabless undergraduate grade point average, graduate grade point average, score on the Boston University General Association Test, and recommendations in seven areas (taken individually and as a total). There was a difference on total recommendations in favor of the graduates significant at the .05 level. On the other variables there were no significant differences between the groups. [TRUNCATED]

Philosophiae Doctor - PhD / This study explores practices that enable African doctoral students to manage their experiences in order to make progress and eventually complete their doctoral study at the University of the Western Cape in South Africa. The study is informed by previous research into doctoral education, which enumerates barriers to doctoral study completion and students’ completion strategies, as well as by Bourdieu’s theory of practice. It places a focus on students’ academic achievement practices, and how these are informed by students’ dispositions, cultural capital and experiences during their studies. The conceptual-analytical framework developed for the study attempts to bring together existing findings of research into the field of doctoral study and insights from Bourdieu’s theory of practice. It posits that students who seek to attain completion of their doctoral study have agency and resources that they strategically employ within their social and academic environment and, specifically, within the field of doctoral study. It foregrounds doctoral students’ ‘resources’ such as motivation, work ethic, tenacity, and other personal characteristics, and their personal and familial backgrounds, as well as their relevant skills and competences, which all help to shape and inform their learning and completion practices. The study focuses on African doctoral students at the University of the Western Cape. It employs a qualitative design using a case study approach that involves in-depth, semi-structured interviews with students to collect relevant data. The sample consists of 18 African doctoral students from across all faculties of the university. For the purpose of the study, African students are identified as students who self-identify as African, whether they are South African nationals (irrespective of official population group) or students from the African continent (international students). They are purposefully selected to enable the study of a group of students that continues to be under-represented in doctoral studies in South Africa. The analysis of the qualitative data involves narrative analysis and critical interpretation. The study finds that using Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus, cultural capital, and field can help us to establish and better understand the practices that doctoral students employ as strategies to overcome barriers that they encounter during their studies. The study shows that African doctoral students’ completion practices are strongly influenced by specific aspects of their habitus and cultural capital, which are determined as relevant by the field. The study focuses on aspects of habitus such as motivation, level of family education and status, cultural beliefs, values and home language, as relevant sources of academically relevant habitus. It also shows that the socio-economic class, status and occupation of core family members provide a bigger motivation for completion of their doctoral study than cultural capital. In relation to cultural capital in particular, the study thus emphasises matters such as prior academic learning; attitudes, skills and competences learnt in the academic workplace (with particular reference to lecturer-participants of the study); an understanding of the university and of the nature of doctoral study; and learning from the supervisor, other academic and research colleagues, peers and role models. Three attributes of the field of doctoral study are shown to be most relevant to completion: (1) the ‘nature of doctoral study’ and related aspects such as the choice of the research topic, thesis writing, the use of the English language, and writing and presentation of work in progress; (2) the relationship with the supervisor and aspects of the supervision process; and (3) funding. By focusing on the practices of lecturer-participants in particular, the study argues for a model of doctoral study that conceives of doctoral candidates as ‘junior staff members’ rather than merely as students, and thus employs them in a contractual relationship that involves elements of work and study. Finally, it is argued that there is much complexity in the dynamic interaction of the concepts in Bourdieu’s ‘mathematical model’. In particular, it is shown that there are dynamics by which deficiencies in the field and in the resources embodied by participants are being compensated by means of other aspects of the field, cultural capital and habitus and with new learning and adaptation to generate practices that are beneficial to completion. A number of findings also diverge from Bourdieu’s arguments. In particular, the study notes that African doctoral students’ habitus is derived from a wider influence than primarily the nuclear family (especially parents), since sibling influence, the influence of extended family members (especially well-educated ones) and a wider social network are important factors

No description available.

No description available.