Rose September
Conceptualizing Success in Doctoral Education: Perspectives of Faculty in Seven Disciplines Gardner, Susan K . Review of Higher Education ; Baltimore Vol. 32, Iss. 3, (Spring 2009): 383-406.
ProQuest document link
ABSTRACT
[...] competencies related to the professional realm are also mentioned in the literature in regard to doctoral
student success.\n One example might be the concept of balance in the English faculty members'
conceptualizations of success. [...] from the perspective of research, this study advanced the exploration of
cultural constructions of success in doctoral education; however, it had four limitations. FULL TEXT
The term "success" in higher education has been used widely to describe multiple outcomes including models to
better understand how students can succeed (e.g., Girves &Wemmerus, 1988; Padilla, Trevino, Gonzalez, &Trevino,
1997), the practices best suited for success (e.g., Frost, 1991; Williams, 2002), the influence of particular variables
upon success over time (e.g., Burton &Wang, 2005; Decker, 1973; Fordham &Ogbu, 1986), and even the relationship
between specific variables and success (e.g., Hirschberg &Itkin, 1978; Nettles, 1990; Wilson &Hardgrave, 1995).
Indeed, a search of the 2006 conference program of the Association for the Study of Higher Education identified
more than 20 different papers and sessions that utilized the term "success."
In doctoral education, the study of success is also prevalent. To be sure, understanding doctoral student success
is particularly important as only 50% of those students who enter doctoral education actually complete the degree
(e.g., Council of Graduate Schools, 2004; Nettles &Millett, 2006). To this end, scholars have sought to understand
how factors such as advising (e.g., Baird, 1972; Schroeder &Mynatt, 1993), student characteristics (e.g., Cook
&Swanson, 1978; Nettles, 1990), and particular measures such as grades and test scores (e.g., Burton &Wang,
2005; Girves &Wemmerus, 1988; Lannholm &Schrader, 1951) influence the concept of success in doctoral
education. In each of these cases, "success" can mean anything from year-to-year persistence and high grade
point averages to degree completion. Therefore, although multiple scholars have studied the concept of success
from nearly every imaginable angle, its definition remains elusive. What is success? How does one differentiate a
successful student from one who is unsuccessful? Does the definition of success vary by disciplinary culture?
Without a coherent view of what it means to be successful in doctoral education, the measurements and
outcomes expected of students remain ambiguous. This study sought to understand the concept of success as
defined by 38 faculty members in seven disciplines at one research-extensive institution through in-depth
interviews about their experiences in doctoral education. The paper begins with a brief overview of relevant extant
literature and the conceptual framework guiding the study. I then provide a description of the methods used,
summarize the findings, and provide implications for future policy, practice, and research.
SUCCESS IN DOCTORAL EDUCATION
To better understand conceptualizations of success in doctoral education, a comprehensive understanding of the
dimensions of the term is needed. In the study of doctoral education, the concept of success has been used widely
to explain several outcomes including retention, academic achievement, completion or graduation, and
professional socialization. I briefly discuss each of these topics below in relation to success in doctoral education.
Throughout the doctoral education experience, students are measured according to several outcomes as
indicators of their success. Beginning with coursework, students are assessed in their academic achievement,
resulting in the standard measure of grade point average (GPA). GPA is a common variable used to analyze
student success in undergraduate education (Pascarella &Terenzini, 1991/2005); however, for doctoral education,
GPA is generally not widely used in studies of success. Doctoral student achievement in coursework is typically
expected to remain high, therefore making it difficult to measure differences (Girves &Wemmerus, 1988; Nettles
&Millett, 2006), although some differences have been measured among underrepresented populations (Nettles,
1990; Nettles &Millett, 2006). Furthermore, coursework may last only for several semesters for many students,
thereby providing an inaccurate long-term measure of student success. Exceptions are studies based upon
predictor variables, such as the Graduate Record Examination (GRE), and their relationship to grades in particular
coursework (Feeley, Williams, &Wise, 2005; House, 1999).
Retention is another widely used indicator of success in doctoral education. Also described as persistence
(Lovitts, 2001), retention "refers to a student's continued enrollment" (Isaac, 1993, p. 15), a definition similar to that
used to measure undergraduate student success (Pascarella &Terenzini, 1991/2005). In this way, retention is
related to doctoral student success, accounting for the students who persist from year to year in the graduate
program. Previous studies have cited varying retention rates. Golde (1998) and Bowen and Rudenstine (1992) have
documented that, of all the students who will leave their doctoral programs, about one third leave after the first
year, another third before candidacy, and a final third during the dissertation phase, a finding also confirmed by
Nerad and Miller (1996). Reasons for retention (or its lack) among doctoral students are generally related to issues
of integration into the program or department (Girves &Wemmerus, 1988; Lovitts, 2001; Tinto, 1993), feelings of
psychological and cognitive inadequacy (Golde, 1998; Katz &Hartnett, 1976), lack of financial support (Abedi
&Benkin, 1987; Bowen &Rudenstine, 1992; Girves &Wemmerus, 1988), and dissatisfaction with the program or
department (Girves &Wemmerus, 1988; Lovitts, 2001; Perrucci &Hu, 1995).
Degree completion is another obvious indicator of doctoral student success. Completion rates in doctoral
education, as previously stated, have been cited as averaging 50% (Bair &Haworth, 2005; Bowen &Rudenstine,
1992; Council of Graduate Schools, 2004; Nettles &Millett, 2006). Different disciplines, however, have varying rates.
Those in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) generally complete at higher
rates than those in the social sciences or humanities (Bair &Haworth, 2005; Bowen &Rudenstine, 1992; Council of
Graduate Schools, 2004; Nettles &Millett, 2006). Moreover, degree completion and its relation to such
sociodemographic variables as gender and race vary (Bair &Haworth, 2005; Bowen &Rudenstine, 1992; Council of
Graduate Schools, 2004; Nettles &Millett, 2006). Similar to influences upon retention, it is apparent that many
different variables influence degree completion (Lovitts, 2001) and time-to-degree rates certainly vary by both
discipline (Bowen &Rudenstine, 1992) and by socio-demographic status (Bair &Haworth, 2005; Ferrer de Valero,
2001).
Finally, competencies related to the professional realm are also mentioned in the literature in regard to doctoral
student success. The individual enrolled in doctoral education is, of course, also a burgeoning professional (Golde,
1998), learning the skills, knowledge, habits of mind, values, and attitudes of his or her chosen field (Soto Antony,
2002; Weidman, Twale, &Stein, 2001). Therefore, while quantifiable measures such as GPA, test scores, retention,
and graduation rates may indicate success, professional and attitudinal competencies, such as a student's
disposition toward the subject matter or professional development, are also desirable but are typically more
qualitative measures of success (Hagedorn &Nora, 1996).
Undergirding all of these conceptualizations of success is the involvement of faculty members in the doctoral
program and with the doctoral student (Austin, 2002; Clark &Corcoran, 1986; Lovitts, 2001; Weidman &Stein, 2003;
Wulff &Austin, 2004). They serve as teachers, advisors, committee members, mentors, role models, and future
colleagues. Despite their important role, however, no known studies have sought to determine how faculty
members in doctoral education would define success. In other words, if faculty play such an integral role in the
multitude of success outcomes for doctoral students, how they conceptualize success is key to understanding
how to best structure programs, services, and experiences for this success.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
An important caveat must be made, however: The doctoral education experience is not monolithic. Doctoral
education is experienced differently within and among different disciplines. Disciplines have their own particular
qualities, cultures, codes of conduct, values, and distinctive intellectual tasks (Austin, 2002; Becher, 1981) that
ultimately influence the experiences of the faculty, staff, and, most especially, the students within their walls.
Therefore, while studies of the undergraduate experience as related to success often occur at the institutional level
(e.g., Tinto, 1993), the discipline and the department become the central focus of the doctoral experience, rather
than the larger institution (Berelson, 1960; Bowen &Rudenstine, 1992; Golde, 2005; Nerad &Miller, 1996).
Much of the common understanding about disciplinary differences and categorizations is based on Biglan's
(1973a) work, which identified the cultural and social structures of academic disciplines, resulting in their
classifications as hard/soft, pure/applied, and life/nonlife systems. While not the first research conducted on
disciplinary differences (see Braxton &Hargens, 1996 for a comprehensive discussion), Biglan's work is a
testament to the concept that studies of academic cultures and contexts cannot be generalized across disciplines.
Work done by Becher (1981) expounded on the understanding of disciplinary differences. The disciplinary
groupings developed by Becher and Trowler (2001) included the (a) pure sciences, akin to Biglan's hard-pure
grouping; (b) the humanities, similar to Biglan's hard-applied disciplines; (c) technologies, much like the hard-
applied disciplines in Biglan's model; and (d) applied social sciences, like Biglan's soft-applied areas. Becher also
contributed to the common understanding of "rural" and "urban" fields, further explaining the social structures
within disciplinary cultures. Whereas in rural fields, many researchers will focus upon relatively few research
problems, urban researchers are generally fewer in number with more problems to be investigated.
These disciplinary groupings and organizational systems allow for a better understanding of the contrasting
identities and characteristics of particular fields of study. Becher (1981) commented, "Disciplines are cultural
phenomena: they are embodied in collections of like-minded people, each with their own codes of conduct, sets of
values, and distinctive intellectual tasks" (p. 109). These cultures within disciplines, therefore, greatly influence the
faculty and, consequently, the doctoral students within the departments (Golde, 2005).
For example, Biglan (1973b) described differences among disciplines resulting in discernible paradigmatic
assumptions, concern with practical application, and concern with life systems. In addition, he studied the
variation of social connectedness within disciplines, or the measure of "the informal relations among colleagues"
(p. 204). He found, in particular, that social connectedness was important among the sciences since much of the
research is conducted in team-based lab settings. Another measure of disciplinary culture for Biglan was that of
commitment to teaching, research, administration, and service. Biglan remarked, "What evidence exists indicates
that the emphasis on, and significance of, teaching differs in physical and social science fields. Scholars in social
sciences emphasize educating the whole student and evidence a more personal commitment to students than do
those in physical sciences" (p. 205).
Finally, Biglan measured scholarly output as a characteristic of disciplinary differences, including the quantity and
quality of publications produced. Biglan demonstrated that faculty in hard areas, such as those in the sciences,
technology, engineering, and mathematics, are generally rated higher in social connectedness for both their
research and teaching activities, while those in the soft areas (e.g., humanities and social sciences) generally work
more in isolation but indicate a higher commitment to teaching. Biglan's explanation for these differences was
based on the paradigmatic assumptions particular to the disciplines, in which the single paradigm of the hard
sciences allows for more collaboration while the multiple paradigms of the soft social sciences may impede
common understandings and frameworks.
Further differentiation from Biglan (1973b) and Becher and Trowler (2001) included the distinction of pure versus
applied disciplinary cultures. Pure fields are those in which results are focused on discovery, explanation,
understanding, and interpretation-for example, physics in the hard sciences and history in the soft sciences.
Applied fields, on the other hand, are those in which research results in products, techniques, protocols, or
procedures, such as engineering in the hard sciences and education in the soft sciences. This pure/applied
distinction allows for a better understanding of the type of training graduate students receive in these disciplines,
particularly in regard to social connectedness, as well as the methods and modes of research conducted within the
discipline (Biglan, 1973b). Moreover, a higher commitment to application is indicative of more social
connectedness in service activities and more applicable publications such as research reports.
Finally, Biglan (1973b) distinguished between life and nonlife disciplines. Disciplinary areas focused on life
systems, such as the study of botany and agriculture in the hard sciences and psychology and education in the
soft sciences, are those which are also more socially connected. These faculty members are generally more
interested in collaborative teaching activities and graduate training in these areas is characterized by a more team-
oriented approach to advising. Nonlife disciplines, including computer science and engineering in the hard
sciences and communications and economics in the soft sciences, generally have faculty members who spend
more time on teaching activities but who more independently work and advise graduate students (Biglan, 1973b).
While both Biglan's (1973a, 1973b) and Becher's (1981) models are widely used, neither has been widely tested
beyond their initial conceptualization; and many would argue that not all of the components of the Biglan model
can be validated (Braxton &Hargens, 1996). My study therefore uses a conceptualization encapsulating the four
general areas of disciplinary classification that are shared by both Biglan's and Becher's models, including the
classifications of (a) pure sciences or hard-pure disciplines, (b) humanities or soft-pure disciplines, (c)
technologies or hard-applied disciplines, and (d) applied social sciences or soft-applied disciplines. This
conceptualization therefore uses disciplinary culture and context as a guiding framework to understand how
success is defined in doctoral education in the seven different disciplines studied.
RESEARCH METHODS
This study was guided by the question: How does disciplinary context and culture influence understandings of
success in doctoral education? I interviewed 38 faculty members actively involved in doctoral education in seven
departments at one institution. I chose the seven disciplines for two reasons. First, it was important to examine
doctoral education from multiple disciplinary perspectives representing disciplinary diversity (Becher &Trowler,
2001; Biglan, 1973a). Second, a previous study had determined that these seven disciplines represented both the
highest and lowest completion rates over a 20-year period at their institution.
The seven disciplines were English, communication, psychology, mathematics, oceanography, electrical and
computer engineering, and computer science. Departments in the soft-applied fields (e.g., educational fields) had
mid-range completion rates or a large number of part-time students and were excluded from this study. Therefore,
not only were disciplinary context and culture important in understanding conceptualizations of success by the
faculty members working in them, but the specific context of completion and attrition in these departments was
also significant. Participants in the study by department and completion rate are further described in Table 1.
The institution at which this study was conducted is classified as a research-extensive (McCormick, 2001)
institution or a research university with very high research productivity (Carnegie Foundation, 2005). Located in the
southern United States, this institution annually enrolls more than 30,000 students, including over 4,000 graduate
and professional students. In relation to its peers, this institution is ranked as a third-tier institution among
national universities, although many of its individual programs and colleges are rated in the very top (U.S. News
and World Report, 2007).
I interviewed the 38 faculty members for the study in the winter and spring of 2007. I first contacted each
department's chairperson, received permission to conduct the study, then used the institution's graduate school
records to identify the individuals who most often served as chair/committee member on doctoral student
committees. Thus, the interviewees had been in the department the longest and worked with the most students. I
considered them representative of faculty who worked most intensively with doctoral students, and whose
students had actually completed their programs. This sampling method is similar to that of Lovitts (2001) in her
examination of doctoral student attrition and allowed for a deeper examination of the existing cultures. Many of
these departments generally did not allow untenured faculty members to chair doctoral committees. The
interviewees chaired a mean 8.9 dissertations and had served 18.5 mean years at the institution. Table 1 provides
further details of faculty members in each department.
I next contacted the prospective interviewees by email. Given the fact that I was granted access through the
Graduate School and had the cooperation of the department chairs, all individuals eventually agreed to be
interviewed. I conducted in-person interviews using a loosely structured protocol that allowed participants to
diverge from the main topics and to further explore concepts and ideas. (See Appendix.) Questions focused on the
faculty member's experiences as advisors to doctoral students and specifically asked them to identify the
characteristics of students whom they considered successful and unsuccessful. The audio-taped interviews lasted
for approximately 45 to 60 minutes and were transcribed verbatim.
I analyzed the data through the constant comparative method, "a research design for multi-data sources, which is
like analytic induction in that the formal analysis begins early in the study and is nearly completed by the end of
data collection" (Bogdan &Biklen, 2003, p. 66). According to Glaser (1978), the steps of this method are: (a) Begin
collecting data; (b) Find key issues, events, or activities in the data that become main categories for focus; (c)
Collect data that provide many incidents of the categories of focus; (d) Write about the categories explored,
keeping in mind past incidents while searching for new; (d) Work with the data and emerging model to discover
relationships; and (e) Sample, code, and write with the core categories in mind.
The steps of the constant comparative method occur simultaneously during data collection until categories are
saturated and writing begins. I used Glaser's steps in data analysis, which allowed themes to emerge from the data
and provided a means for compressing large amounts of data into meaningful units for analysis. As stated earlier, I
also used concepts of disciplinary culture and organization (Becher, 1981; Becher &Trowler, 2001; Biglan, 1973a) in
analysis to better understand the dimensions along which disciplinary responses varied. The departments, defined
by their Biglan classification, are listed in Table 2.
I assured trustworthiness of the data collected and its subsequent analysis through peer debriefing (Maxwell,
1996), having a colleague analyze the transcripts and verify the themes. I also triangulated the data sources
(Bogdan &Biklen, 2003; Maxwell, 1996) since my study was a part of a larger study in which numerous
departmental administrators and doctoral students were interviewed. After the larger study was completed in the
fall of 2007, the reports for each department were distributed and verified by each department; faculty members
who had been interviewed provided member checking (Maxwell, 1996) of the existing themes.
FINDINGS
From the analysis of the interviews conducted, it was evident that disciplinary culture and context greatly
influenced the faculty members' conceptualizations of success in doctoral education. There was a clear distinction
among disciplinary constructions of success and among departments with the highest and lowest completion
rates. I discuss these findings below by highest-to-lowest completion rate for the departments included in the
study, also differentiating by the Biglan (1973b) disciplinary classification.
High Completion Departments
In this study three departments had very high doctoral completion rates: communication at 76.5%, oceanography
at 72.7%, and psychology at 70.7%. These rates are considered high by both national and disciplinary standards
(Bowen &Rudenstine, 1992; Council of Graduate Schools, 2004; Nettles &Millett, 2006). Although quite different in
culture, research mode, and disciplinary culture, these departments nevertheless shared certain attributes. The
English Department, with a 56.4% doctoral student completion rate, may not be as high as the other three
departments but represents high completion in comparison to other humanities departments, which generally
have the lowest completion rates nationally (Bowen &Rudenstine, 1992; Council of Graduate Schools, 2004).
Communication. The discipline of communication is classified as soft pure nonlife in the Biglan (1973b)
classification. This Communication Department's doctoral student completion rate of 76.5% is high by any
measure but certainly very high for a discipline in the social sciences (Council of Graduate Schools, 2005). The
department has at any one time approximately 50 doctoral students enrolled in the program; its 24 faculty
members serve both as graduate faculty and also teach in a large undergraduate program. The vast majority of
doctoral students in the program are fully funded through teaching assistantships in the department.
Interviews with the faculty members largely responsible for doctoral education and doctoral advising quickly
identified a culture of cohesion, mutual respect, and caring. Indeed, these very words were often uttered, both in
the interviews with the faculty members and by the 10 doctoral students interviewed as part of the larger study.
Thus, it is perhaps not surprising that, when asked about their doctoral students, one faculty member responded,
"We're lucky. They're a very bright group," adding, "You're going to hear a lot of affection [from faculty] about the
students." These faculty members used two main themes to define success for their doctoral students:
selfdirection and research dissemination. Thus, the attributes of success were characteristics inherent in the
student's personality along with his or her accomplishments after entering the program.
These faculty members frequently spoke to successful graduate's student need for self-direction and self-
motivation. One faculty member pointed out that a successful student is "one who is able to work independently,"
while another commented that successful students are "pretty strong and self-directed. They have a sense of
vision in what they want when they come in." A third defined a successful student as "a person "who initiates [his
or her] own research agenda and is able to work individually and collaboratively. They take their own initiative." In a
sense, these faculty members are echoing the need for independent thinking and original scholarship, which is
very much a focus of doctoral education in general (Council of Graduate Schools, 2005; Gardner, 2008; Lovitts,
2005).
The second theme for the communication faculty members was the dissemination of research findings,
particularly through publications and participation as conference presenters. The faculty and the administrators of
this department mentioned the growing emphasis on this attribute of success for their students and described
how they pushed students to turn papers into presentations and publications. They recognized the connection
between this activity and their students' ability to negotiate the academic job market. One faculty member noted,
"They put out many papers and try to be on many panels because they understand that quantity is going to mark
them as involved." Faculty, however, understood that this was not an explicit requirement of their program;
therefore, students who achieved success in this area were exerting effort above and beyond their program's
minimal criteria. Indeed, one faculty member was dismissive about required coursework: "I could care less about
the student's grades. It's productivity that comes through conference papers, which leads to publications and
grant proposals."
Oceanography. The Oceanography Department, a hard-applied life discipline in the Biglan (1973) classification,
represents faculty efforts to bring coherence to what had once been an unstructured, interdisciplinary program.
The department's high completion rate of 72.7% is characteristic of a faculty whose members are very supportive
of their students and a department that is markedly cohesive. In these characteristics, it closely resembles the
Communication Department. The Oceanography Department offers only graduate programs and typically enrolls
about 13 new students annually. Much like other science fields, all students in the Oceanography Department are
funded on individual faculty research grants.
Oceanography faculty and students represent a generally affable and innovative group. Like their communication
colleagues, oceanography faculty expect their students to demonstrate high levels of independence and
selfdirection. One faculty member remarked that successful doctoral students, in his opinion, are "self-motivated.
They complete their task from start to finish with minimal supervision." Unlike communication faculty, however,
when speaking of their students, the four faculty members in oceanography used phrases like "nice people,"
"happy," and "helpful" to describe their students. Indeed, the faculty interviewed expressed these characteristics as
integral qualities of successful students. One faculty member commented, when asked about the definition of a
successful student, "Well, one that's happy. One that's comfortable with what they're doing. We don't want people
to go out and have a job that they're not happy with."
All faculty members interviewed, however, commented about the need to ask for and to offer assistance as a
characteristic of success. For example, one faculty member stated, "They would know when to ask for help; that
seems to be what trips up some students," while another defined a successful student as "someone who helps
other students when an opportunity comes." In this manner, this department represents the collaborative nature of
work in the sciences, one that depends highly on teamwork in laboratory settings and research teams (Golde,
1998).
Psychology. The Psychology Department represents the third highest completion rate at this institution, with
70.2% of its admitted students graduating with their Ph.D. From a disciplinary culture perspective, psychology falls
in the soft-pure life classification of Biglan (1973). Much like other psychology programs, this department serves a
large undergraduate population of majors; it also offers master's and doctoral degrees in several concentrations.
The Psychology Department typically admits 23 new doctoral students each year. These students often receive
what amounts to full funding: a combination of teaching assistants for undergraduate classes and some research
assistantships through individual faculty projects.
In meeting with the faculty members in this department, I got a distinct sense of a culture with highly demanding
expectations for its students and its faculty. Faculty are very aware that the time and effort required for students
to be successful often make it difficult for all students to meet these demands. Therefore, for these faculty
members, successful students had characteristics external to the program-inherent characteristics that students
brought with them. Foremost among them were natural talent and self-direction.
One faculty member, when asked about the department's students, described: "They're highly intelligent and they
come in with really good GRE scores." Another faculty member echoed that successful students "are exceedingly
bright. We have the highest GRE scores on campus." A third remarked that successful doctoral students in
psychology are "bright, so they're good at coursework but they're also good at their research because they're so
bright." The implied relationship between intelligence and GRE scores is noteworthy, particularly as this
relationship has not generally been documented by the existing research on this topic (e.g., Kuncel, Hezlett, &Ones,
2001; Nettles &Millett, 2006; Rubio, Rubin, &Brennan, 2003).
Like the communication faculty, the psychology faculty identified selfdirection as the students' second attribute of
success. One commented, "A successful student is organized, knows what they're supposed to do, communicates
well with their mentor, reads the guidelines and follows them." Another faculty member adamantly asserted, "A
successful student has two things: natural talent and self-discipline." Similarly, a third faculty member observed,
"The folks who are extremely hard-working and extremely selfdisciplined- they do better. The kind of people who
work on Saturday and work on Christmas break. They go back to work before anyone tells them they need to be
back at work."
The faculty members in psychology resoundingly agreed that the main reason their completion rate was so high
was because they could be highly selective in admissions. Only psychology and English faculty mentioned high
selectivity as the underlying reason for their above-average completion rates, and their highly selective admissions
were, in turn, the result of increased funding from the university, something only a handful of departments on
campus have received. One psychology faculty member maintained, "I think our students are successful because
we get good students from the get-go. Psychology is so highly competitive to get in. So, I think one of the reasons
we have a high graduation rate is because we pick the cream of the crop from the beginning." Another psychology
member insisted, "The single most important factor, bar none, factor of 10-if you do an experiment around a
regression it would account for at least 90% of the variance-is admissions. Poor admissions decisions are
unfixable." This shared recognition by psychology faculty may be an acknowledgement that their students'
ultimate success has little to do with the program itself.
English. The English Department in this study has a completion rate below that of communication, oceanography,
and psychology, but its 56.4% completion rate is considered high when compared to other humanities disciplines,
in which completion rates nationally range from 13% to 37% (e.g., Nerad &Cerny, 1993; Zwick, 1991). English, as a
discipline, is classified as another soft pure nonlife discipline by Biglan (1973). Because the English Department
receives additional university funding for student recruiting, it can fully fund most of its students for four years.
This funding comes in the form of one teaching assistantship per semester, a nationally competitive arrangement
particularly attractive to prospective students. On average, the English Department admits 17 new doctoral
students each year and also serves a large undergraduate population. Ultimately, while considered middle-of-the-
road in terms of completion rates for this study, English faculty nevertheless exude pride in their students' success
and their program. During interviews, they frequently alluded to their department's national ranking and reputation.
Indeed, the characteristics these faculty members defined as the keys to success for their doctoral students
included ranking and reputation. They conceptualized success as their students' ability to secure employment, a
goal reached through presenting and publishing. One faculty member commented, "A successful doctoral student
is one who, from the very first seminar paper, is attempting not to write seminar papers but publishable articles.
They also do other kinds of professional things. They're on panels and give papers." In fact, the majority of the
faculty members mentioned publishing in one form or another in their definitions of successful English students.
The highest mark of success, in one faculty member's view, was that the student "not only makes it through the
program but gets placed- you know, gets the job, a good job." In other words, these faculty members viewed
success as something external to the program, much like other highcompleting departments. One individual made
this view explicit: "The real test of success is on the outside-employment or publication."
A major part of finding "a good job" is learning how to balance the many duties of a faculty member including, in
particular, teaching. One individual observed that successful students "have a handle on their teaching. They've
developed strategies to manage the demands of undergraduate courses and learned how to deal with grading and
so forth so that they'll have time for their own work." Taken together, these faculty members are highlighting the
many aspects of professional socialization, certainly a necessary part of finding and securing academic positions
(Austin, 2002; Clark &Corcoran, 1986). Illustrating this idea, one faculty member asserted, "A successful graduate
student is one who functions as and sees herself or himself as not simply a student but a candidate member, an
apprentice member of this profession."
Low-Completion Departments
In contrast, are the three lowest completing departments in this study: mathematics, engineering, and computer
science. Significantly, these disciplines in other national studies are generally among those with the highest
completion rates. This institution's Mathematics Department had a 37.6% completion rate, computer science had
38.4%, and engineering had 17.6%. In contrast, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
departments' completion rates in national studies range from 50% to 82% (Bowen &Rudenstine, 1992; Nerad
&Cerny, 1993; Zwick, 1991). Biglan's (1973) model of academic disciplines classifies all three disciplines as hard
nonlife disciplines, with computer science and engineering as applied fields and mathematics as a pure field.
Computer science and engineering. Computer science and engineering at this institution share many traits. A high
percentage of its students and faculty are from Asia and India; thus, doctoral students in these departments must
often deal with language barriers and the need to secure funding to remain in the country. Many faculty members
in both departments attribute their low completion rates to two things: (a) a comparative lack of university funding,
which translates into few teaching assistantships for graduate students and few grants for faculty; and (b) a
highly competitive global job market, which means that international students who are struggling financially can
frequently be lured into industrial jobs.
Over the past 20 years, the Engineering Department has typically admitted approximately 15 new doctoral
students each year, and the Computer Science Department has admitted, on average, 18 new doctoral students
annually. When discussing the concept of student success, however, faculty members in these departments
frequently diverged from the topic to speak about the difficulty experienced by faculty members. Faculty members
were, in general, more inclined to talk about their own issues and concerns than those of students.
To the extent that the discussion could focus on students, however, success for doctoral students in these two
departments equated to having high intelligence and ambition. One engineering faculty member, identified
"intelligence" as the most essential characteristic. "They have the preparation and background to do the research."
He similarly continued, "They're sharp. They're motivated. If they're not sharp, it's very hard for them to get into the
level of research needed. If they're not motivated, even if they get a Ph.D., they will not be really willing to go even
further." Another faculty member in engineering remarked, "These are students that are self-driven. They work very
hard; but I think more, they are very smart."
Computer science faculty saw similar traits in their successful doctoral students. One faculty member
commented, "'Successful' probably meets several qualities: intelligence, preparation, required background of
training, knowledge, the desire and motivation to get it done, and the academic skill." A second faculty member
echoed: "I would say a successful student by our department's standards is someone with a strong background in
a traditional core computer science." Like other departments in this study, then, success in engineering and
computer science was equated to traits inherent in students before they entered the program, rather than traits
they acquired in the program.
Mathematics. The Mathematics Department, in contrast, painted a different but important picture from the
engineering and computer science departments. While certainly a lower-completing department when compared to
others at this institution and nationally, Mathematics Department faculty did not depict a culture of low
completion. Rather, it more closely resembled the culture of the English Department in being very focused on
rankings and status and on placing its students at "good" institutions. The Mathematics Department at this
institution awards its students full funding for several years, always in the form of teaching assistantships, and
admits approximately 18 new doctoral students each year.
For the mathematics faculty, success for their doctoral students meant securing a good position in academia after
graduation. Key traits were publishing and having the drive to "work very hard." It is interesting to note, however,
that the only faculty member in the entire study who equated success to actual degree completion was in the
Mathematics Department. He remarked, "I would say the most successful student is the one who gets the
doctorate, I think."
In regard to publishing and the job market, one mathematics faculty member commented that a successful
student is "someone who is actually able to get a publication," which would then lead to a "good post-doc and a
good position at a university." The department chair summarized: "There are different kinds of success and the
definition for success for the department changes to some extent based on what the pressure is from the
departmental competition. The kind of success this department is looking for most today is a successful research
career after graduation. We would like to see all placed into nationally competitive groups or at least post-docs."
As for the ability and drive to "work hard," these faculty members agreed, though phrased variously, that "it takes,
number one, the desire to succeed and the corresponding ability to work hard in the program." Another commented
that the most successful students "have to be willing to work very, very hard." In this way, this department's faculty
attributed success to an innate ability to work hard-which is a trait inherent in the admitted student's personality-
paired with the external element, after the program's completion, of the job placement.
CONCLUSIONS
I interviewed 38 faculty members in seven departments at one researchextensive institution to better understand
their conceptualizations of success in doctoral education. I chose the academic department, which is "where the
imperatives of the discipline and the institution converge" (Clark, 1987, p. 64), as the focus of the exploration.
Analysis of the faculty members' comments made it evident that both disciplinary and institutional contexts
significantly influence how they understand and articulate success for their doctoral students.
Clark (1987) also remarked, "The disciplines have their own histories and trajectories, their own habits and
practices" (p. 25). In this study, disciplinary culture was apparent in faculty perceptions of doctoral student
success. For instance, differences between the disciplines of communication and oceanography in how they
organized themselves and their research (i.e., individual versus collaborative) were evident in their responses
about doctoral student success. While the analysis of the study was guided by the concept of disciplinary culture
(Becher, 1981; Biglan, 1973a), the conceptualizations of success in this study discussed by the faculty members
often shared not only their disciplinary grouping but their completion rate as well. For example, both
communication and psychology faculty discussed the need for self-direction in successful doctoral students while
both computer science and mathematics faculty mentioned the ability to work hard as a key to success. It is
perhaps the difference between tangible and intangible qualities that defines these departments'
conceptualizations and, therefore, their completion rates. In other words, it may be more difficult to define what
constitutes "intelligence" or "working hard" than to define being independent or self-directed. Independently
structuring and managing a study is much more clearly definable than "working hard" on the research. It may be
that the students in these low-completing departments are struggling to meet undefined and intangible
conceptualizations of success.
Conversely, some of the commonalities found in this study between departments owed a great deal to institutional
influence. For example, while both English and mathematics faculty interviewees discussed the importance of
securing a good job after graduation as "success," this commonality may have more to do with the institution's
focus on rankings and status than any disciplinary influence. Further, the almost-mirror responses in computer
science and engineering departments reflected not only completion rates but also the faculty's view that the
institution was failing to meet crucial needs for funding and support. This finding is particularly important when
contrasted with the English Department which receives additional funding from the university for its graduate
students. Certainly funding does not tell the whole story of completion and non-completion at this institution (or at
any other), but the faculty's perception of the importance of funding raises the question of whether every
department could have "successful" students if only it received more institutional resources.
Another consideration is the cultural differences among the responses given by the faculty members. The
affection for students manifest by faculty interviewees in the Communication Department, the university's highest
completing department, contrasts with the almost dismissive comments by computer science and engineering, the
lowest completing departments. Of course, these differences may arguably characterize the paradigmatic
assumptions of these disciplinary cultures (Biglan, 1973b); but, interestingly, only oceanography faculty articulated
the need to help others and seek help from them, even though other departments such as engineering and
computer science often also involve high levels of what Biglan referred to as "social connectedness" or the need
for collaborative cultures for laboratory and group-focused research.
Finally, the disciplinary differences in regard to Biglan's (1973b) and Becher's (1981) classifications were also
noteworthy. As Table 2 shows, the majority of the high completing departments at this institution were in soft pure
while the low completing departments were all hard nonlife disciplines. The only exception was oceanography, a
department with one of the highest completion rates but which is categorized as a hard-applied life discipline.
While difficult to attribute differences in completion rates merely to disciplinary cultures, it is nevertheless
remarkable to see the hard/soft differentiation in completion rates at this institution. Unlike Biglan, however, the
analysis of these departments did not result in a clear demarcation by pure and applied in regard to completion or
concepts of success, nor between nonlife and life disciplines. Perhaps it is merely the orientation of the faculty
members toward their students that ultimately resulted in the differences in completion and in departmental
definitions of success; certainly, those in the highest completing departments were the most vocal about their
students' well being and personal success. For example, in the Communication Department, faculty spoke very
highly and warmly of their students, often referring to a sense of "family" and "camaraderie" in the department. In
the Oceanography Department, the faculty talked about fostering a sense of "wholeness" in their students and
helping them find their life's "passion" rather than simply completing a degree.
IMPLICATIONS
Taken together, the responses from the faculty members in these seven departments represent not only
disciplinary but institutional views of success. It is therefore important to consider that much of the research
conducted on doctoral education has been based on what occurs in the most prestigious and elite U.S. institutions
(e.g., Bowen &Rudenstine, 1992; Nerad &Cerny, 1993; Nettles &Millett, 2006). This is not to say that such studies
are unimportant or invalid but rather that they do not paint a complete picture of doctoral education in the United
States. Known as Tier 3 and Tier 4 institutions, institutions like the one examined in this study are generally not
ranked among institutions in the top 100 of U.S. News and World Report (2007) or among the Ivy League
institutions. These rankings, however, should not diminish these institutions' role in graduate education in the
United States. Indeed, these third and fourth-tier institutions accounted for 8,502 of the doctorates conferred in
2005, nearly 20% of the total conferred that year (Hoffer et al., 2006). Therefore, by not considering the voices of
those within these lesser-ranked institutions, the literature has failed to address the holistic nature and
institutional diversity of doctoral education in this country.
The findings from this study are important in several ways. First, from a policy and practice standpoint, it is
important to understand how attrition and completion may be influenced by the department's cultural perspectives
of what it takes to succeed. This finding was particularly evident in discussions of admissions procedures and
expectations of students in each area. Departments and institutions must engage entering students in explicit
discussions about these expectations. In addition, faculty and administrators should ensure that coursework and
research opportunities align with these expectations. For example, if students are expected to be self-directed as a
measure of success, structuring research opportunities to allow them to experience this self-directedness is
important. Similarly, if students are expected to publish their work, aligning course assignments and research
opportunities so that students engage in the publication process is also necessary. Another strategy may be
matching incoming students in a mentoring-type relationship with more advanced students who exhibit these
traits and habits.
Second, it is important to better understand the structure and procedures that may facilitate or impede students'
success in a particular discipline. Certainly, if departments expect their students to obtain "good jobs" upon
graduation, orienting professional development opportunities and mentoring toward the job search process and
job market is imperative. Moreover, if faculty members expect particular behaviors from students, then faculty
members, as mentors and role models for these students, should exhibit these behaviors themselves. One
example might be the concept of balance in the English faculty members' conceptualizations of success. If
students can observe successful examples of balancing teaching with research, they may be better able to
demonstrate it themselves.
Third, the concept of funding must be explored in both institutional and departmental contexts. Psychology and
English faculty members were adamant about the relationship of funding and high completion, much as computer
science and engineering faculty members were in regard to low completion. Certainly, funding makes a difference
in a student's stability throughout the graduate program, and opportunities to conduct and therefore disseminate
research may be linked to his or her funding (Abedi &Benkin, 1987; Bowen &Rudenstine, 1992); but the link
between funding and student success must be considered on more comprehensive levels. For example, one
psychology faculty member made it clear that her department's high completion rates stemmed from the fact that
they had more money to offer and therefore could choose the "best" students. Does success in doctoral education
rely more on the department or on the individual student? Put another way, would this institution's psychology
doctoral students be "successful" anywhere? For institutions like this one, which are not among the most elite or
most selective, funding can be a slippery slope. If the institution's mission is to serve its state (in the case of a land
grant university) or to serve particular populations (in the case of a historically Black university), does institutional
selectivity really equal successful students? Aligning funding and resource allocation to institutional mission in
this regard would be particularly important, although none of the faculty interviewees mentioned it.
Finally, from the perspective of research, this study advanced the exploration of cultural constructions of success
in doctoral education; however, it had four limitations. My status as a faculty member may have played several
conflicting roles in the study's limitations. My disciplinary and departmental affiliations were different from those
included in the study, which may have impeded a true disciplinary understanding of the cultures at work and
limited my access to a true account of these cultures. Second, this study was limited to a few departments at one
institution. While the socio-cultural make-up of the department's students was part of the larger study, the faculty
interviewees were those with whom the majority of students in the department worked. Future research, therefore,
should explore how faculty and student perceptions of success align. Third, comparisons among other institutions
and other disciplines should also be explored, as should differences among race, gender, and socioeconomic
status. Fourth, this institution's completion rates were quite different from those cited in national studies (Council
of Graduate Schools, 2008), meriting further exploration of the intersection between discipline and institutional
setting. With these understandings of success in doctoral education, higher education may be better able to
structure for success among all of its students in the future.
References
REFERENCES
Abedi, J., &Benkin, E. (1987). The effects of students' academic, financial, and demographic variables on time to
the doctorate. Research in Higher Education, 27(1), 3-14.
Austin, A. E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socialization to the academic
career. The Journal of Higher Education, 73, 94-121.
Bair, C. R., &Haworth, J. G. (2005). Doctoral student attrition and persistence: A meta-synthesis of research. In J. C.
Smart (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 19, pp. 481-534). Dordrecht, the Netherlands:
Springer.
Baird, L. L. (1972). The relation of graduate students' role relations to their stage of academic career, employment,
and academic success. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7, 428-441.
Becher, T. (1981). Towards a definition of disciplinary cultures. Studies in Higher Education, 6, 109-122.
Becher, T., &Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Berelson, B. (1960). Graduate education in the United States. New York: McGraw- Hill.
Biglan, A. (1973a). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 57, 195-203.
Biglan, A. (1973b). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university
departments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 204-213.
Bogdan, R. C., &Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bowen, W. G., &Rudenstine, N. L. (1992). In pursuit of the Ph.D. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Braxton, J. M., &Hargens, L. L. (1996). Variation among academic disciplines: Analytical frameworks and research.
In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 11, pp. 1-46). New York: Agathon.
Burton, N. W., &Wang, M. (2005). Predicting long-term success in graduate school: A collaborative validity study.
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. The Carnegie Foundation. (2005). The Carnegie classification of
institutions of higher education. Retrieved September 12, 2007, from http://www.carnegiefoundation.
org/classifications/index.asp.
Clark, B. R. (1987). The academic life: Small worlds, different worlds. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation.
Clark, S. M., &Corcoran, M. (1986). Perspectives on the professional socialization of women faculty: A case of
accumulative disadvantage? The Journal of Higher Education, 57, 20-43.
Cook, M. M., &Swanson, A. (1978). The interaction of student and program variables for the purpose of developing
a model for predicting graduation from graduate programs over a 10-year period. Research in Higher Education, 8,
83-91.
Council of Graduate Schools. (2004). Ph.D. completion and attrition: Policy, numbers, leadership, and next steps.
Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools.
Council of Graduate Schools. (2005). The doctor of philosophy degree: A policy statement. Washington, DC:
Council of Graduate Schools.
Council of Graduate Schools. (2008). Ph.D. completion and attrition: Analysis of baseline program data from the
Ph.D. completion project. Washington, DC: Author.
Decker, R. L. (1973, Spring). Success and attrition characteristics in graduate studies. The Journal of Economic
Education, 130-137.
Feeley, T. H., Williams, V. M., &Wise, T. J. (2005). Testing the predictive validity of the GRE exam on communication
graduate student success: A case study at University of Buffalo. Communication Quarterly, 53(2), 229-245.
Ferrer de Valero, Y. (2001). Departmental factors effecting time-to-degree and completion rates of doctoral
students at one land grant research institution. Journal of Higher Education, 72, 341-367.
Fordham, S., &Ogbu, J. U. (1986). Black students' school success: Coping with the "burden of 'acting white.'" The
Urban Review, 18(3), 176-206.
Frost, S. H. (1991). Academic advising for student success: A system of shared responsibility. Washington, DC:
The George Washington University
Gardner, S. K. (2008). "What's too much and what's too little?": The process of becoming an independent
researcher in doctoral education. The Journal of Higher Education, 79, 326-350.
Girves, J. E., &Wemmerus, V. (1988). Developing models of graduate student degree progress. Journal of Higher
Education, 59(2), 163-189.
Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA:
Sociology Press.
Golde, C. M. (1998). Beginning graduate school: Explaining first-year doctoral attrition. In M. S. Anderson (Ed.), The
experience of being in graduate school: An exploration (pp. 55-64). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Golde, C. M. (2005). The role of the department and discipline in doctoral student attrition: Lessons from four
departments. Journal of Higher Education, 76, 669-700.
Hagedorn, L. S., &Nora, A. (1996). Rethinking admissions criteria in graduate and professional programs. In J. G.
Haworth (Ed.), Assessing graduate and professional education: Current realities, future prospects (pp. 31-44). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hirschberg, N., &Itkin, S. (1978). Graduate student success in psychology. American Psychologist, 33(12), 1083-
1093.
Hoffer, T. B., V. Welch, J., Webber, K., Williams, K., Lisek, B., Hess, M., et al. (2006). Doctorate recipients from United
States universities: Summary report 2005. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center.
House, J. D. (1999). Predictive validity of the Graduate Record Examination for grades in graduate chemistry
courses. Psychological Reports, 85(1), 41-44.
Isaac, P. D. (1993). Measuring graduate student retention. In L. L. Baird (Ed.), Increasing graduate student retention
and degree attainment (pp. 13-25). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Katz, J., &Hartnett, R. T. (Eds.). (1976). Scholars in the making: The development of graduate and professional
students. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Kuncel, N. R., Hezlett, S. A., &Ones, D. S. (2001). A comprehensive meta-analysis of the predictive validity of the
Graduate Record Examinations: Implications for graduate student selection and performance. Psychological
Bulletin, 127, 162-181.
Lannholm, G. V., &Schrader, W. B. (1951). Predicting graduate school success: An evaluation of the effectiveness
of the Graduate Record Examinations. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure from doctoral study.
Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Lovitts, B. E. (2005). Being a good course-taker is not enough: A theoretical perspective on the transition to
independent research. Studies in Higher Education, 30, 137-154.
Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McCormick, A. C. (2001). The Carnegie classification of institutions of higher education. Menlo Park, CA: The
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Nerad, M., &Cerny, J. (1993). From facts to action: Expanding the graduate division's educational role. In L. L. Baird
(Ed.), Increasing graduate student retention and degree attainment (pp. 27-39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nerad, M., &Miller, D. S. (1996). Increasing student retention in graduate and professional programs. In J. G.
Haworth (Ed.), Assessing graduate and professional education: Current realities, future prospects (pp. 61-76). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nettles, M. T. (1990). Success in doctoral programs: Experiences of minority and white students. American Journal
of Education, 98(4), 494-522.
Nettles, M. T., &Millett, C. M. (2006). Three magic letters: Getting to Ph.D. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University
Press.
O'Meara, K. (2007). Striving for what? Exploring the pursuit of prestige. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education:
Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 22, pp. 121-179). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
Padilla, R. V., Trevino, J., Gonzalez, K., &Trevino, J. (1997). Developing local models of minority student success in
college. Journal of College Student Development, 38(2), 125-135.
Pascarella, E. T., &Terenzini, P. T. (1991/2005). How college affects students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Perrucci, R., &Hu, H. (1995). Satisfaction with social and educational experiences among international doctoral
students. Research in Higher Education, 36(4), 491-508.
Rubio, D. M., Rubin, R. S., &Brennan, D. G. (2003). How well does the GRE work for your university? An empirical
institutional case study of the Graduate Record Examination across multiple disciplines. College and University,
78(4), 11-17.
Schroeder, D. S., &Mynatt, C. R. (1993). Female graduate students' perceptions of their interactions with male and
female major professors. The Journal of Higher Education, 64(5), 555-573.
Soto Antony, J. (2002). Reexamining doctoral student socialization and professional development: Moving beyond
the congruence and assimilation orientation. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of theory and
research (Vol. 17, pp. 349-380). New York: Agathon Press.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
U.S. News and World Report. (2007). America's Best Graduate Schools. U.S. News and World Report. Special issue.
Weidman, J. C., &Stein, E. L. (2003). Socialization of doctoral students to academic norms. Research in Higher
Education, 44, 641-656.
Weidman, J. C., Twale, D. J., &Stein, E. L. (2001). Socialization of graduate and professional students in higher
education: A perilous passage? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Williams, T. E. (2002). Challenges in supporting student learning and success through student services. In T. H.
Bers &H. D. Calhoun (Eds.), Next steps for the community college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wilson, R. L., &Hardgrave, B. C. (1995). Predicting graduate student success in an MBA program: Regression
versus classification. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(2), 186-195.
Wulff, D. H., &Austin, A. E. (2004). Paths to the professoriate: Strategies for enriching the preparation of future
faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Zwick, R. (1991). Differences in graduate school attainment patterns across academic programs and demographic
groups. Princeton, NJ: Minority Graduate Education Project, Educational Testing Service and Graduate Record
Examinations.
AuthorAffiliation
SUSAN K. GARDNER is Assistant Professor of Higher Education at the University of Maine. She gratefully
acknowledges the support of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation for funding this study. Address queries to her at 5749
Merrill Hall, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469-5749; telephone (207) 581-3122; fax: (207) 581-3120; email:
susan.k.gardner@ maine.edu.
Appendix
APPENDIX
1. Tell me a little bit about yourself-your background, how you came to academe, how you became a faculty
member.
2. When and where did you complete your doctorate? How long did it take you at the time?
3. What do you feel your role is in relation to graduate studies in the department?
4. What type of training or orientation did you receive to advise doctoral students?
5. How are faculty informed about department and graduate school requirements, deadlines, guidelines, etc.? Do
you feel these guidelines are followed?
6. What are your departmental standards for milestones such as the program of study, comprehensive exams, and
the dissertation phase?
7. Tell me about a "typical" doctoral student in your department. How does he or she begin, what is the general
course followed, etc.?
8. How would you describe a "successful" doctoral student in this department? Would that description change in
other departments, and if so, how?
9. What about the opposite? What exactly do you see as the issue or problem for students who did not complete
the program? What made them "unsuccessful"? Do you feel that the result would have been the same if the
student were in another department?
10. In what ways does your department assist graduate students in being successful?
11. In your opinion, what else could be done to assist graduate students that isn't already being done?
12. Do you have anything else to add about your impressions of graduate students in your department? DETAILS
Subject: College students; Higher education; Studies; Variables; Success; Resource
allocation; Psychology; Influence; Historically Black Colleges &Universities;
Computer science; Councils
Publication title: Review of Higher Education; Baltimore
Volume: 32
Issue: 3
Pages: 383-406
Number of pages: 24
Publication year: 2009
Publication date: Spring 2009
Publisher: Johns Hopkins University Press
Place of publication: Baltimore
Country of publication: United States, Baltimore
Publication subject: Education--Higher Education
ISSN: 01625748
Source type: Scholarly Journals
Database copyright 2018 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions Contact ProQuest
Language of publication: English
Document type: Feature
Document feature: Tables References
ProQuest document ID: 220855890
Document URL: https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/2208558
90?accountid=7374
Copyright: Copyright Johns Hopkins University Press Spring 2009
Last updated: 2015-11-07
Database: ProQuest Central
- Conceptualizing Success in Doctoral Education: Perspectives of Faculty in Seven Disciplines