Matching Items (10)
Filtering by
- Genre: Doctoral Dissertation
Description
The current research examines the influence of disciplines, advisors, committees, language, culture, and previous experiences in students' search and selection of dissertation topics, as well as whether and how students react to those influences during this process. Invention has been an area of research for rhetoricians for centuries, but most modern research focuses exclusively on the pre-writing process in first composition classrooms (Young, 1976). The current research collected survey and interview data from second- and third-year Ph.D. students in natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities at a large research university in the United States. 80 second- and third-year Ph.D. students completed an online survey; 11 students and four of their advisors participated in a semi-structured interview. The results demonstrate that the majority of students spent over three months in the selection of dissertation topics, and the humanities students tended to spend longer time in this process than social sciences or humanities students. Additionally, students have much in common in their perception of the criteria they would use in the selection of dissertation topics, and those criteria are similar to what previous researchers (Isaac, Koenigsknecht, Malaney, & Karras, 1989; Kozma, 1997; Sessions, 1971) have identified. However, when it comes to the actual selection experiences, the interviews show that students do not necessarily apply those criteria rationally. Moreover, disciplines appear to have an overarching effect on students' topic selection. Natural sciences advisors appeared to have more direct involvement in students' topic choice than advisors in social sciences or humanities. The linguistic and cultural backgrounds of the eleven doctoral participants were not found influential in their selection of dissertation topics. Finally, although Ph.D. advisors generally have a good understanding of students' academic progress, their knowledge of the students' personal and professional concerns may differ, and the latter knowledge is crucial in their advising on students' dissertation topic choice. The current study suggests invention in the scholar and researcher level is significantly different from that of first-year composition classrooms. The successful invention of dissertation topics is indispensable of the influence of disciplines, programs as well as the intellectual and practical support students can receive.
ContributorsXia, Jing (Author) / Matsuda, Paul K (Thesis advisor) / James, Mark (Committee member) / Renaud, Claire (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
Description
The purpose of this study is to explore the lived experiences of African American women in pursuit of doctoral degrees in the southwest, their challenges and motivations, and plans for the their next chapter. Drawing from critical race theory and a sociocultural framework, this qualitative study uses Dan McAdams' Life Story Interview (McAdams, 2005) to explore the journeys of these high achieving minority women and how achievement is conceptualized in their stories. Particular emphasis is placed on their critical events, challenges, and alternative futures. Seven separate themes (parental support and advocacy in early education, improved experiences among other African American students, perseverance through struggles/experiences led to purpose, poor department support, family support, impact of spirituality, and relocation and desire to give back) emerged that address three main research questions. Implications for findings and suggestions for future research are offered.
ContributorsManning, Linda (Author) / Nakagawa, Kathryn (Thesis advisor) / Moore, Elsie (Committee member) / Arzubiaga, Angela (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
Description
Every year, potential graduate students hunt through websites and promotional materials searching for the perfect program to fit their needs. The search requires time and patience, especially for those future scholars who seek a doctoral program in Education Policy Studies (EPS) with a focus on interacting with the policymaking process. The primary objective of this project was to explore the promotional materials of EPS doctoral programs in order to better understand how these programs promote formalized training for students to engage with education policy and the policymaking process. I selected the top 10 EPS programs in the nation along with my own institution (Arizona State University) as the sample for this study. By reviewing their websites, I found that programs provide a comparable training description for similar careers as well as upholding similar goals in the subfield of EPS. Ultimately, the program materials revealed that while these programs advertise significant formalized training in research methods and scholarly pursuits, opportunities to actively engage with policymaking were missing from the materials. Instead, it is more likely that such opportunities occur in informal settings such as apprenticeships and working at research centers. This study provides a detailed discussion of how programs promote training opportunities to students, the types of careers that programs claim to prepare students for, and the important role that faculty projects and additional resources play in the student experience related to engagement with policy and the policymaking process.
ContributorsLong-Genovese, Stacey (Author) / Garcia, David R. (Thesis advisor) / Ott, Molly (Committee member) / Hinchey, Patricia (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2014
Description
The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to understand the key constructs and processes underlying the mentoring relationships between doctoral students and their mentors. First, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to evaluate the measurement structure underlying the 34-item Ideal Mentor Scale (IMS; Rose, 2003), followed by an examination of factorial invariance and differences in latent means between graduate students differing by gender, age, and Master's vs. Doctoral status. The IMS was administered to 1,187 graduate students from various departments across the university at Arizona State University (ASU); this sample was split into two independent samples. Exploratory factory analysis on Sample 1 (N = 607) suggested a new four-factor mentoring model consisting of Affective Advocacy, Academic Guidance, Scholarly Example, and Personal Relationship. Subsequent confirmatory factor analysis on Sample 2 (N = 580) found that this four-factor solution was superior to the fit of a previously hypothesized three-factor model including Integrity, Guidance, and Relationship factors (Rose, 2003). Latent mean differences were evaluated for the four-factor model using structured means modeling. Results showed that females placed more value on factors relating to Affective Advocacy, Academic Guidance, and Scholarly Example, and less value on Personal Relationship than males. Students 30 and older placed less value on Scholarly Example and Personal Relationship than students under 30. There were no significant differences in means for graduate students pursuing a Master's versus a Doctoral degree. iii Further study qualitatively examined mentoring relationships between doctoral students and their faculty mentor using the Questionnaire on Supervisor Doctoral Student Interaction (QSDI) coupled with semi-structured interviews. Graduate support staff were interviewed to gather data on program characteristics and to provide additional context. Data were analyzed using Erickson's Modified Analytical Inductive method (Erickson, 1986). Findings showed that the doctoral students valued guidance, advocacy and constructive, timely feedback but realized the need to practice self-reliance to complete. Peer mentoring was important. Most of the participants valued a mentor's advocacy and longed to co-publish with their advisor. All students valued intellectual freedom, but wished for more direction to facilitate timelier completion of the degree. Development of the scholarly identity received little or no overt attention.
ContributorsGarrett, Pamela S (Author) / Smith, Mary Lee (Thesis advisor) / Potts, Shelly A. (Thesis advisor) / Thompson, Marilyn S. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012
Description
Research has revealed that familial concerns and obligations do impact the career decision making of people who shift their career goal away from the research academy and towards careers that are perceived as less intensive in terms of time and productivity demands. However, this same research line does not explain whether or not those who persist in a research professorship career aspiration experience the same familial concerns and obligations as those who shift or compromise on that goal. In line with the theory of circumscription and compromise (TCC), the current study examined specific accessibility concerns, or perceptions of barriers associated with implementing a preferred career, that contribute to doctoral student career decision making. More specifically, two groups including those who shifted their career path away from the research professorship (compromisers) and those whose career paths remain geared towards the research professorship (persisters) were examined by multivariate analysis of variance with a covariate (MANCOVA) to determine how accessibility concerns differ according to group membership. Accessibility concerns were also examined for gender differences. Results from multivariate and between-subjects follow up tests point to significant differences between the two groups on two accessibility concerns, planning for a career and family and some components of work-time flexibility preferences. Compromisers reported significantly higher preferences for work-time flexibility and scored higher on the planning for a career and a family measure when compared to persisters. No gender differences in accessibility concerns were found but female persisters were less likely than male persisters to indicate plans for children/presence of children. This study provides support for the TCC as applied to doctoral student career development and provides evidence that doctoral student persisters and compromisers do not experience accessibility concerns in the same way.
ContributorsDawson, Amy, Ph.D (Author) / Bernstein, Bianca L (Thesis advisor) / Dawes, Mary E (Committee member) / Kurpius, Sharon R (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
ABSTRACT
This study examines the experiences of five women doctoral students in music education. The goal was to gain insight into the important experiences and concerns they encountered during their studies. While the literature on women in other fields indicates that socialization of women to the academy differs from that of their male counterparts, this concern has yet to be addressed in the field of music education.
Participants, selected to show maximum variation in personal and professional characteristics, were women who had previously taught in K-12 settings and who were enrolled in or recently graduated from a doctoral program in music education in the United States. Data were collected primarily through in-depth interviews and photo elicitation, and were analyzed through both individual case and cross-case analyses.
All of the women initially stated gender was not an issue that influenced their doctoral studies, but analysis showed that they had clearly internalized the socially constructed roles and expectations reflected in society, and that those roles and expectation did, indeed, impact their choices and behaviors prior to and during their doctoral studies. Three facets of gender were important, specifically socially constructed roles and expectations for women in both their families and in their doctoral studies, gender performativity related to the male-centered expectations in academia, and the importance of intersectionality. The participants’ doctoral experiences were contextualized not just by their gender, but also by their race/ethnicity, class, sexuality, religion, and age. Analysis supports other researchers’ findings that women doctoral students may have different experiences in their doctoral studies than their male counterparts.
Recommendations for doctoral programs in music education and music teacher educators are provided. This study’s findings suggest further research is needed to investigate the impact of gender balance in doctoral cohort and faculty, amount of teaching experience prior to studies, and educational background or prior research experience on women’s doctoral experiences, as well as the roles of intersectionality and performativity for women in an academic context.
This study examines the experiences of five women doctoral students in music education. The goal was to gain insight into the important experiences and concerns they encountered during their studies. While the literature on women in other fields indicates that socialization of women to the academy differs from that of their male counterparts, this concern has yet to be addressed in the field of music education.
Participants, selected to show maximum variation in personal and professional characteristics, were women who had previously taught in K-12 settings and who were enrolled in or recently graduated from a doctoral program in music education in the United States. Data were collected primarily through in-depth interviews and photo elicitation, and were analyzed through both individual case and cross-case analyses.
All of the women initially stated gender was not an issue that influenced their doctoral studies, but analysis showed that they had clearly internalized the socially constructed roles and expectations reflected in society, and that those roles and expectation did, indeed, impact their choices and behaviors prior to and during their doctoral studies. Three facets of gender were important, specifically socially constructed roles and expectations for women in both their families and in their doctoral studies, gender performativity related to the male-centered expectations in academia, and the importance of intersectionality. The participants’ doctoral experiences were contextualized not just by their gender, but also by their race/ethnicity, class, sexuality, religion, and age. Analysis supports other researchers’ findings that women doctoral students may have different experiences in their doctoral studies than their male counterparts.
Recommendations for doctoral programs in music education and music teacher educators are provided. This study’s findings suggest further research is needed to investigate the impact of gender balance in doctoral cohort and faculty, amount of teaching experience prior to studies, and educational background or prior research experience on women’s doctoral experiences, as well as the roles of intersectionality and performativity for women in an academic context.
ContributorsMeyers, Liza (Author) / Schmidt, Marg (Thesis advisor) / Holbrook, Amy (Committee member) / Stauffer, Sandra (Committee member) / Sullivan, Jill (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2017
Description
The quality of support provided to students in higher education can have a powerful impact on the student’s experience, their perceptions of challenges, and their overall academic success, particularly retaining in and completing their degree. Though many universities create robust services to support undergraduate students, existing literature and efforts by universities may be lacking when it comes to doctoral student support. The purpose of this action research, mixed methods study was to evaluate academic support to first year doctoral students in the School of Life Sciences (SOLS) at Arizona State University, specifically addressing the following concepts related to their doctoral study: development of self-efficacy, awareness of requirements and policies, and sense of belonging. With Communities of Practice and self-efficacy theory providing a framework for this study, first year doctoral students in SOLS were invited to participate in a twelve-week, two-condition study during their first semester. The two-condition study involved a Personal Support and a Social Support condition, wherein Personal Support participants (n=8) received 1:1 academic advising and biweekly newsletters, while Social Support participants (n=14) engaged in biweekly advising sessions within groups of 3-6 students and an academic advisor. Results suggest Social Support significantly impacted SOLS doctoral student self-efficacy scores (z = -1.96, p = .05), it created an avenue for students to cultivate community with doctoral student peers thus benefiting sense of belonging, and collaborating with peers influenced awareness to the point of Social Support participants becoming a resource for other students not participating in the study. In contrast, Personal Support appeared to have less of an impact on self-efficacy, sense of belonging, and awareness. For students with vulnerable needs to disclose, Personal Support has the potential to reinforce self-efficacy, sense of belonging, and awareness, but the impacts are nominal otherwise. Furthermore, by the end of their first academic year Social Support participants had retained their self-efficacy and sense of belonging scores. Ultimately, the findings suggest the need for reevaluating how doctoral students are supported in and outside SOLS, with a specific discussion about incorporating Social Support as a permanent model for academic support.
ContributorsFranse, Kylie Rae (Author) / Wylie, Ruth (Thesis advisor) / Vogel, Joanne (Thesis advisor) / Farmer-Thompson, Antoinette (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2023
Description
This qualitative study explores the socialization processes of doctoral students in engineering and technology Ph.D. accredited programs at Chilean universities and how these experiences may impact their success outcomes, particularly advancement, time to degree, completion, and preparedness for postgraduation success. I employed semi-structured interviews to learn from 23 current doctoral students representing ten unique doctoral programs at eight higher education institutions (HEIs). Findings showed increasing student diversity among programs. In addition, students’ socialization showed to be affected by individual and institutional, and program-related factors, which resulted in distinctive student experiences. These processes were also shaped by the larger context of national policies related to programs such as funding, accreditation, and the job market. This study also identified trends in the relationships between students and program faculty, staff, and peers at different times of the doctoral training, which also created common and distinctive socialization dynamics. Findings illustrated how students' socialization experiences facilitated their advancement throughout the program toward completion, meeting expected degree completion times and enhancing their preparedness for postgraduation success. This dissertation includes implications for practice and future research opportunities.
ContributorsParra Gaete, Ivet (Author) / Fischman, Gustavo (Thesis advisor) / Kim, Jeongeun (Thesis advisor) / Celis, Sergio (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2023
Description
This action research study is a mixed methods investigation of doctoral students’ preparedness for multiple career paths. PhD students face two challenges preparing for multiple career paths: lack of preparation and limited engagement in conversations about the value of their research across multiple audiences. This study focuses on PhD students’ perceived perception of communicating the value of their research across academic and non-academic audiences and on an institutional intervention designed to increase student’s proficiency to communicate the value of their PhD research across multiple audiences. Additionally, the study identified ways universities can implement solutions to prepare first-generation PhD students to effectively achieve their career goals.
I developed a course titled Preparing Future Scholars (PFS). PFS was designed to be an institutional intervention to address the fundamental changes needed in the career development of PhD students. Through PFS curricula, PhD students engage in conversations and have access to resources that augment both the traditional PhD training and occupational identity of professorate. The PFS course creates fundamental changes by drawing from David Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory and the Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) developed by Robert Lent, Steven Brown, and Gail Hackett. The SCCT looks at one’s self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations, goal representation, and the interlocking process of interest development, along with their choice and performance.
I used a concurrent triangulation mixed methods research model that included collecting qualitative and quantitative data over 8 weeks. The results of the study indicated that PhD students’ career preparation should focus on articulating the relevancy of their research across academic and non-academic employment sectors. Additionally, findings showed that PhD students’ perception of their verbal and non-verbal skills to communicate the value of their research to both lay and discipline specific audiences were not statistically different across STEM and non-STEM majors, generational status, or gender, but there are statistical differences within each group. PhD programs provide students with the opportunity to cultivate intellectual knowledge, but, as this study illustrates, students would also benefit from the opportunity to nurture and develop practical knowledge and turn “theory into practice.”
I developed a course titled Preparing Future Scholars (PFS). PFS was designed to be an institutional intervention to address the fundamental changes needed in the career development of PhD students. Through PFS curricula, PhD students engage in conversations and have access to resources that augment both the traditional PhD training and occupational identity of professorate. The PFS course creates fundamental changes by drawing from David Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory and the Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) developed by Robert Lent, Steven Brown, and Gail Hackett. The SCCT looks at one’s self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations, goal representation, and the interlocking process of interest development, along with their choice and performance.
I used a concurrent triangulation mixed methods research model that included collecting qualitative and quantitative data over 8 weeks. The results of the study indicated that PhD students’ career preparation should focus on articulating the relevancy of their research across academic and non-academic employment sectors. Additionally, findings showed that PhD students’ perception of their verbal and non-verbal skills to communicate the value of their research to both lay and discipline specific audiences were not statistically different across STEM and non-STEM majors, generational status, or gender, but there are statistical differences within each group. PhD programs provide students with the opportunity to cultivate intellectual knowledge, but, as this study illustrates, students would also benefit from the opportunity to nurture and develop practical knowledge and turn “theory into practice.”
ContributorsCason, Jennifer (Author) / Liou, Daniel (Thesis advisor) / Barber, Rebecca (Committee member) / Justice, George (Committee member) / Schugurensky, Daniel, 1958- (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2016
Description
ABSTRACT
This study identified the influences and processes of the dissertation completers, currently enrolled students, and non-completers of four cohorts (59 participants) in the Ed.D. administration program. The research questions sought answers as to why some students completed their dissertations and why some did not, the processes in completing a dissertation, and what should be included in a doctoral guide for completing the dissertation. The participants of this study were Ed.D. administration doctoral students in the field of educational leadership from a southwestern university. The job titles of the participants ranged from teacher to superintendent. The participants started the three-year doctoral program in the years 2004, 2005, 2006, or 2007. They were between the ages of 24 and 63. Survey Monkey provided the opportunity to request answers to different questions depending on the dissertation status—enrollee, completer, or non-completer.
This study entailed interviewing seven doctoral completers, five enrollees, and four non
completers. The significance of this mixed method study was to compare influences and
processes to determine suggestions for a study guide that could be used by future doctoral students, chairs, programs, and universities to help students complete their dissertations and become successful graduates. Recommendations are made (a) to recruit more African Americans and men into doctoral programs and the education field; (b) non-completers be invited to finish their dissertations with interventions and an accountable chair; (c) chairs provide his or her best help to meet the student half-way; (d) the department and university provide accountability measures and incentives for both the student and the chair; and (e) provide specific lessons that include finding a topic, researching a topic, and interacting with the chair; and (f) it was determined that non-completers were not timid as suggested in the literature but were found to have either changed their desire or fulfilled their desire by obtaining a promotion. In summary, a nurturing chair and a strong support system were found to be two major factors in determining the difference between doctoral completion and non-completion.
This study identified the influences and processes of the dissertation completers, currently enrolled students, and non-completers of four cohorts (59 participants) in the Ed.D. administration program. The research questions sought answers as to why some students completed their dissertations and why some did not, the processes in completing a dissertation, and what should be included in a doctoral guide for completing the dissertation. The participants of this study were Ed.D. administration doctoral students in the field of educational leadership from a southwestern university. The job titles of the participants ranged from teacher to superintendent. The participants started the three-year doctoral program in the years 2004, 2005, 2006, or 2007. They were between the ages of 24 and 63. Survey Monkey provided the opportunity to request answers to different questions depending on the dissertation status—enrollee, completer, or non-completer.
This study entailed interviewing seven doctoral completers, five enrollees, and four non
completers. The significance of this mixed method study was to compare influences and
processes to determine suggestions for a study guide that could be used by future doctoral students, chairs, programs, and universities to help students complete their dissertations and become successful graduates. Recommendations are made (a) to recruit more African Americans and men into doctoral programs and the education field; (b) non-completers be invited to finish their dissertations with interventions and an accountable chair; (c) chairs provide his or her best help to meet the student half-way; (d) the department and university provide accountability measures and incentives for both the student and the chair; and (e) provide specific lessons that include finding a topic, researching a topic, and interacting with the chair; and (f) it was determined that non-completers were not timid as suggested in the literature but were found to have either changed their desire or fulfilled their desire by obtaining a promotion. In summary, a nurturing chair and a strong support system were found to be two major factors in determining the difference between doctoral completion and non-completion.
ContributorsHardy, Linda (Author) / Appleton, Nicholas (Thesis advisor) / Spencer, Dee Ann (Committee member) / Duplissis, Mark (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2015