Although advising relationships are key for doctoral student success, little research has addressed how they form. Understanding the formation of advising relationships can help contextualize their later development and ultimately support a student’s decision to persist in the doctorate. To understand relationship formation, the purpose of this qualitative study is to identify and describe the types of advisor–advisee selection processes that exist in engineering, science, and math doctoral programs and examine patterns across disciplines within those fields. We conducted interviews with doctoral program directors and engaged in document analysis of graduate student handbooks from 55 doctoral programs in the aforementioned fields in high research institutions across the United States. Using principal–agent theory as a theoretical lens, our findings showed that engineering programs tend to decentralize the advisor selection process by funding students across different funding sources upon enrollment. Contrariwise, science and math programs tended to fund all students in a cohort from a common funding source, which allowed students to have more time to gather information, meet, and select an advisor. These findings also show important nuances when comparing graduate education in these programs that directly impact the doctoral student experience and reiterates the necessity to study these fields separately.
- Award ID(s):
- 1760894
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10327295
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Research in Science Teaching
- ISSN:
- 0022-4308
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
Doctoral advisor selection processes in science, math, and engineering programs in the United Statesmore » « less
Abstract -
Doctoral advisors are key to ensuring positive outcomes, especially for underrepresented students in STEM fields. In this study, graduate faculty and doctoral students with three or more years in their programs in the AGEP-NC Alliance were surveyed about the advising practices they engaged in (faculty) or received (students). Faculty were also asked about their confidence advising graduate students generally as well as students who are different from themselves demographically and culturally. Students were also asked about their relationship with their advisors. Findings show that faculty are significantly more confident advising students generally than they are advising students who are different from themselves. On all common measures of advising practices, faculty report that they engage in those practices significantly more often than students report experiencing the advising practice from their advisor. Black, Hispanic, and Native American U.S. citizen students report receiving research guidance from their advisors significantly less than White and Asian U.S. citizens or international students. International students are offered teaching opportunities significantly more often than White and Asian students. There was a significant difference in whether students understood their advisor’s expectations and Black, Hispanic, and Native American students were significantly less likely than international students to report that their advisor respects their contributions. We find that there is a clear lack of alignment between faculty confidence and student perceptions of faculty advising. This gap is especially clear in key advising behaviors like research and presentation guidance. Given that the goal of the AGEP program is to prepare underrepresented U.S. citizen students for the professoriate, both the lack of research guidance and lack of opportunity to build teaching experience for these students is troubling. Change is thus required at both the departmental level to improve the climate for all students as well as at the individual faculty advisor level to ensure that all students are treated equitably with high quality advising.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)A pilot inventory to develop measures of bias and discrimination experienced by engineering doctoral students asked if they have been treated unfairly by their primary advisor, secondary advisor, and other faculty. Analyses of pilot data (n = 250) revealed Women, Students of Color, and sexual minorities perceived experiences of unfair treatment in intricate patterns. Post hoc analyses show that Women experience more incidences of unfair treatment than men. Race/ethnicity identity groups report a different number of unfair treatment incidences, with Students of Color generally reporting more experiences than white students. Being a sexual minority contributed to reporting more incidences of unfair treatment. Unfair treatment from faculty significantly predicted students changing and considering changing research labs when controlling for gender, race/ethnicity, and sexuality. Unfair treatment from faculty significantly impacted engineering identity when controlling for gender, race/ethnicity, sexuality, lab changers, and change considerers. Analyses of pilot data demonstrated the negative impact of unfair treatment on students and their development as engineers.more » « less
-
One of the most important developmental relationships in the doctoral student experience is that of the faculty advisor, and yet we know little about whether and how advisor relationships vary between first-generation and continuing-generation doctoral students. Drawing on qualitative interviews with 83 late-stage doctoral students in biological sciences, we explore differences in student perceptions of their relationships with advisors. Narratives reveal a continuum of relationship types, including strained, evolving, supportive, and equal. In equal relationships, doctoral students feel more like collegial partners working alongside their advisors. While continuing-generation and first-generation students are similarly represented among strained and evolving relationships, first-generation students rarely attain equal relationship status. The presented findings offer implications for understanding how inequality shapes student–advisor relationships, the role of collegiality in doctoral education’s hidden curriculum, and the supports needed to foster equity for first-generation students in graduate programs.more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract Background Degree completion rates for doctoral engineering students remain stagnant at levels lower than necessary to meet national and global workforce needs. Increasing degree completion can improve opportunities for individuals and provide the human resources needed to address engineering challenges.
Purpose/Hypothesis In this work, we measure the association of engineering identity variables with degree completion intentions for students who have persisted in doctoral study. We add to existing literature that suggests the importance of advisor and peer relationships, and the number of years in the doctoral program.
Design/Method We use data collected via a national cross‐sectional survey of doctoral engineering students, which included measures of social and professional identities, graduate school experiences, and demographics. Surveys were collected from 1754 participants at 98 US universities between late 2017 and early 2018. The analyses reported here use multiple regression to measure associations with engineering doctoral degree completion intentions.
Results Research interest and scientist performance/competence are individually associated with degree completion intentions in students who are persisting in doctoral study. Overall, graduate engineering identity explains significant portions of variation in degree completion intentions (9.5%) beyond advisor and peer relationship variables and the number of years in graduate programs.
Conclusions Researcher interest and scientist performance/competence may be key opportunities to engage doctoral student engineering identity to improve degree completion rates. Accordingly, institutions can foster students' interest in research and build their confidence in their scientific competence to support students as they complete the doctoral degree.
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21761
