1. Nurturing a Culture of Effective Supervision of Doctoral Students Maureen Grasso, Michael Carter North Carolina State University Laura Lunsford, University of Arizona

2. Effective Supervisors Are great mentors (Johnson, 2007; Lunsford, 2012, 2014; Rose, 2003) Have the best interests of their students at heart. Have as their primary goal to assist students to create a pathway to success.

3. Mentoring Is an important factor for doctoral completion (Council on Graduate Schools (nd); Lovitts, 2001; Lunsford, 2012) Occurs when students form productive working relationships with faculty and peers (Schlosser et al., 2003)

4. Effective Supervisors Provide Career Support: Prompt feedback on performance Acculturation into a the discipline Psychosocial Support: Access to their attention and time Encouragement, self-confidence, and emotional support, especially when there are obstacles

5. Nurturing a Culture of Effective Supervision Begins with strategic plans that integrate mentoring with institutional goals (Zachary, 2006) NC State University : The Pathway to the Future “Enhancing the success of our students” The Graduate School Plan Enhancing success through better mentoring Initial focus on improving faculty

6. Visibility & Value: Reinforcing Messages, Enhancing Student Success – Mentoring Consistent message from the dean Working with senior associate deans to begin discussions in their units –College of Sciences –College of Humanities and Social Sciences –College of Education

7. How Can We Improve Mentoring? Recognize limits for improving mentoring at the institutional level Need to work with units and individual mentors But…. apart from anecdotes, we had no source of information about mentoring at the individual or unit levels Institution Unit Dyads

8. Institutional Context 10 academic colleges (emphasis on engineering and sciences) Total students: 33,898 Graduate students: 8,681 Doctoral students: 3,267 Doctoral programs: 62 Graduate faculty: 2,805

9. Guiding Questions How can we identify excellent supervisors or units to be used as models and sources of best practices? How can we identify supervisors or units that may benefit from focused intervention? How can we benchmark and track our efforts to improve mentoring?

10. Answering Our Guiding Questions Development of metrics to improve supervisory mentoring (Created by Michael Carter, David Edelman, Richard Liston, and Joseph Perez)

11. Questions About Supervising Students How effective are supervisors and units in contributing to graduate student research? How effective are supervisors and units in advancing students in a timely manner? How effective are supervisors and units in enabling students to complete their degrees? How effective are supervisors and units in contributing to student research in interdisciplinary programs?

12. Effectiveness in Contributing to Student Research? Number of doctoral committees faculty have chaired or co-chaired Number of master’s committees Number of committees other than chair/co-chair Number of research assistants supported

13. Effectiveness in Advancing Students in a Timely Manner? Time to doctoral student’s initial plan of work for faculty serving as chair or co-chair Time to passing doctoral prelims Time to doctoral degrees Time to master’s degrees

14. Effectiveness in Enabling students to Complete Degrees? 6-, 8-, and 10-year doctoral completion rates Rates of doctoral students not graduated after 8 years Number of students who left after years 1-5 and 6-10

15. Effectiveness in Contributing to Interdisciplinary Education? Number of advisory committees served on outside the home department Number of advisory committees chaired or co-chaired outside home department Number of advisory committees served on in interdisciplinary programs

21. Strategies for Identifying Mentoring Role Models and Sources of Best Practices For faculty who have supervised the most doctoral committees, identify those with the lowest time to degree For departments that have among the lowest overall times to degree, identify faculty in those departments with the lowest TTD For faculty who have supervised 10 or more doctoral students, Identify those with the highest 6-year completion rates

22. AdvisorsCommitteesTime to PrelimTime to Degree A494.05.1 B325.66.9 C272.94.0 D254.97.6 E243.35.8 F232.55.7 G222.44.4 H223.44.6 I213.710.0 J214.75.8 K192.34.7 L192.36.0 M182.14.8 Most Doctoral Committees with TTD

23. References Council on Graduate Schools. (nd). PhD Completion Project. Retrieved from: http://www.cgsnet.org/phd-completion-project Johnson, W. B. (2007). Transformational supervision: When supervisors mentor. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38(3), 259-267. Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure from doctoral study. Rowman & Littlefield. Lunsford, L.G. (2012). Doctoral advising or mentoring? Effects on student outcomes. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 251-270. Lunsford, L. G. (2014). Mentors, tormentors, and no mentors: mentoring scientists. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 3(1), 4-17. Rose, G.L. (2003). Enhancement of mentor selection using the ideal mentor scale. Research in Higher Education, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 473-494. 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. Zachary, L. J. (2006). Creating a Mentoring Culture: The Organization’s Guide. Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, 20(4).

24. Questions?