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

2. 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)

3. 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)

4. 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.

5. 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)

6. 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

7. 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?

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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)

12. 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

13. 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)

14. 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)

15. 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)

16. 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

17. 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”

18. 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

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

20. 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

21. 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

22. References
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25,
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,
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),
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,
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),
Golde, C. M. (1998). Beginning graduate school: Explaining first-year doctoral attrition. New Directions for Higher Education, 101,
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), doi: /
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),
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.