Faculty Advising: are doctoral students and faculty on the same page? NACADA Annual Conference 2017 Amanda J. Fairbanks Kansas State University

Background Literature 40-60% of students in American doctoral programs do not complete degrees (Council of Graduate Schools, 2008; Lovitts, 2005) Non-completers: one third drop out the first year, another third before candidacy, final third post- candidacy (Golde, 1998) Rates vary across disciplines Faculty advisor/advisee relationship is one of the most important relationships (Barnes & Austin, 2009; Barnes, Williams, & Archer, 2010)

Background Literature Cont… Degree completion requires overcoming challenges, including navigating the faculty advisor/doctoral student relationship (Barnes & Austin, 2009) Advisors and students have conflicting perspectives on the roles and characteristics of the faculty advisor and the advisor/advisee relationship (Barnes & Austin, 2009; Barnes et al., 2010; Harding-DeKam, Hamilton, & Loyd, 2012; Schlosser, Knox, Moskovitz, & Hill, 2003)

Statement of the Problem Doctoral student attrition has been identified as a major problem in graduate education, which has led to the need for examination of the impact of the faculty advisor/doctoral student relationship on the doctoral student experience.

Theoretical Framework for Study Model of Graduate Student Degree Progress (Girves and Wemmerus,1988) Professional Socialization (Gardner, 2010; Weidman, Twale, & Stein, 2001) Involvement Theory (Astin, 1984) Tinto’s Theory of Graduate Student Persistence (Gardner & Barnes, 2007; Tinto, 1993)

Purpose of the Research To explore various aspects of the faculty advisor/doctoral student relationship as identified in the literature: Two Constructs: Relationship and Success Factors Attributes and Characteristics Roles and Functions Relationship Behaviors Academic Success Professional Socialization Engagement

Research Question RQ: How do faculty perspectives of characteristics of the faculty advisor/doctoral student relationship differ from student perspectives within and across disciplines? RQ.a: What are student perceptions about the three relationship constructs that characterize the advisor/student relationship (attributes, roles and behaviors)? RQ.b: What are advisor perceptions about the three relationship constructs that characterize the advisor/student relationship (attributes, roles and behaviors)? RQ.c: What are student perceptions about the three success factors related to the advisor/student relationship (academic success, professional socialization and engagement)? RQ.d: What are advisor perceptions about the three success factors related to the advisor/student relationship (academic success, professional socialization and engagement)? RQ.e: What are the differences between advisor versus student perceptions on the relationship constructs and success factors? RQ.f: What are the differences between perceptions of STEM advisor versus social science advisors on relationship constructs and success factors? RQ.g: What are the differences between the perceptions of STEM students versus social science students on relationship constructs and success factors?

Research Setting and Participants Faculty advisors and doctoral students at a four year public institution in two discipline areas: Science, Technology, Engineering, Math (STEM) Social Science

Methodology Survey development Survey pre-tested and piloted Utilized Dillman’s Total Design Method (Dillman et al., 2009) Items based on the existing literature. Survey pre-tested and piloted Survey revised Survey populated using Qualtrics survey population tool Survey launched using Qualtrics

Survey Respondents Surveys were sent to 501 faculty advisors and 554 doctoral students in selected departments Faculty Advisors (501): 137 completed surveys (27.3% response rate) 119 from STEM, 20 from SS Students (554): 131 completed surveys (23.6% response rate) 96 from STEM, 36 from SS

Data Analysis Data were analyzed using three methods: Descriptive statistics, including mean scores and standard deviations: (RQa, RQb, RQc, RQd) T-Tests: (RQe, RQf, RQg)

RQ1: How do faculty perspectives of characteristics of the faculty advisor/doctoral student relationship differ from student perspectives within and across disciplines?   Positive Attributes and Characteristics Negative Attributes and Characteristics Roles and Functions Relationship Behaviors Faculty M 58.047 8.97 75.90 58.36 Students M 56.47 10.12 71.42 56.09 p .05* .001* .027* Academic Success Professional Socialization Engagement 38.50 50.13 17.53 37.23 46.21 17.85 .036* .000* .54 Note. Asterisk (*) indicates a significant difference between groups

Relationship Construct 1 Attributes and Characteristics: Top three Attributes and Characteristics for advisors and students: honest, helpful, and professional Significant differences found between advisors and students for positive and negative attributes of an advisor Faculty agreed with positive descriptors more than students (p = .05) Students agreed more with negative descriptors than faculty (p = .001)

Relationship Construct 2 Roles and Functions: Students strongly perceived: advisors encouragement to present at and attend professional conferences and scholarly meetings; helping students learn behaviors appropriate to their discipline Faculty advisors perceived their role as helping students become independent in their ability to plan, conduct, and execute research projects Less faculty agreement with role in encouraging student involvement, specifically outside of the department Significant differences between all faculty and all students (p = .001)

Relationship Construct 3 Relationship Behaviors: Students perceived advisors should have regularly scheduled meetings with their advisees Faculty perceived mentoring as part of advising Faculty and students indicated difficulty with discussing personal conflicts within the advisor/advisee relationship. Significant differences between faculty and students (p = .027)

Success Factor 1 Academic Success: Students perceive regularly scheduled meetings with their advisor are important Advisor perceptions emphasize assessing individual needs, and supporting student progress through feedback Advisors did not perceive it as being their responsibility to initiate meetings with their advisees

Success Factor 2 Professional Socialization: “An advisor serves as a mentor” was the highest scored item for both students and faculty Student and faculty both agreed less with “advisors help prepare students for careers after graduation by allowing them to practice job talks, and helping them with their curriculum vitae”

Success Factor 3 Engagement: Students and faculty both agree advisors plays a role in student engagement Overall lowest score for both groups: “advisors prompt student engagement less than peers of the student prompt engagement” Students perceived advisors to support student involvement in departmental groups and activities, advisors perceive they encourage involvement in departmental groups and activities

Limitations Limitations Include: The time when the survey was deployed The number of participants Limitations with analyses Lack of generalizability of results

Significance of the Research Contributions to existing body of literature on the topic: Used a quantitative approach while utilizing qualitative research as a basis Examined students at three stages in their program and in two different disciplines. Examined the faculty advisor/doctoral student relationship from both perspectives

Implications Future Research: Practice: The advisor/advisee relationship including the roles of the advisee Examination of university and departmental policies and procedures which help to define the role of the advisor and the advisor/advisee relationship Research using a national sample so findings may be generalized to a larger audience Practice: Need for formal guidelines Development of training for doctoral advisors

References Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308. Barnes, B. J., & Austin, A. E. (2009). The role of doctoral advisors: A look at advising from the advisor’s perspective. Innovative Higher Education, 33, 297-315. Barnes, B. J., Williams, E. A., & Archer, S. A. (2010). Characteristics that matter most: Doctoral students’ perceptions of positive and negative advisor attributes. NACADA Journal, 30(1), 34-46. Council of Graduate Schools. (2008). Ph.D. completion and attrition: Analysis of baseline demographic data from the ph.d. completion project. (Executive Summary). Crede, E., & Borrego, M. (2012). From ethnography to items: A mixed methods approach to developing a survey to examine graduate engineering student retention. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, XX(X), 1-19. Dillman, D.A., Smyth, J.D. & Christian, L.M. (2009). Internet, phone, mail and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fink, A. (2009). How to conduct surveys (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fowler, F. J. (1988). Survey research methods (Vol. 1). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Gardner, S. K. (2005). “If it were easy, everyone would have a Ph.D.” Doctoral student success: Socialization and disciplinary perspectives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington State University, Pullman. Gardner, S. K. (2010). Faculty perspectives on doctoral student socialization in five disciplines. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 5, 39-53. Gardner, S. K., & Barnes, B. J. (2007). Graduate student involvement: Socialization for the professional role. Journal of College Student Development, 48(4), 1-19. Girves, J.E., & Wemmerus, V. (1988). Developing models of graduate student degree progress. Journal of Higher Education, 59(2), 163-189. Golde, C. M. (1998). Beginning graduate school: Explaining first-year doctoral attrition. New Directions for Higher Education, 101, 55-64. Harding-DeKam, J. L., Hamilton, B., & Loyd, S. (2012). The hidden curriculum of doctoral advising. NACADA Journal, 32(2), 5-16. Lovitts, B. (2005). Being a good course-taker is not enough: A theoretical perspective on the transition to independent research. Studies in Higher Education, 30(2), 137- 154. doi: 10.1080/03075070500043093. Schlosser, L.Z., Knox, S., Moskovitz, A.R., & Hill, C.E. (2003). A qualitative examination of graduate advising relationships: The advisee perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50(2), 178-188. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Weidman, J. C., Twale, D. J., & Stein, E. L. (2001). Socialization of graduate and professional students in higher education: A perilous passage? San Fransisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.