Prior literature has documented the importance of faculty advisors in the doctoral student socialization process, with a few studies describing negative advising relationships characterized by disengagement, disinterest, unsupportive behavior, and interpersonal conflict. We extend this research by exploring how negative advising relationships emerge and develop over time. Examining longitudinal interviews over four years with 15 doctoral students in biological sciences in the USA who experienced negative relationships with their advisors, we illuminate how negative advising relationships unfold over the course of graduate studies. We find two primary patterns in challenging relationships: some students show a gradual decline in relationship health over time, while others point to a single event altering their relationship trajectory. We also identify specific factors that shape each of these negative relationship types. By revealing the different social processes that underlie the emergence of negative advising relationships, our findings provide a valuable contribution to understanding the complex social landscape of doctoral education. The findings further the dialogue on how faculty advisors can craft successful pathways through graduate education, thereby supporting the academic and professional success of doctoral students.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on May 1, 2025
Support without Status: Inequities in Student–Advisor Relational Dynamics between First-Generation and Continuing-Generation Doctoral Students
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
- Award ID(s):
- 1760894
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10527544
- Publisher / Repository:
- MDPI
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Education Sciences
- Volume:
- 14
- Issue:
- 5
- ISSN:
- 2227-7102
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 441
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Background: Extensive research has documented the importance of faculty advisors for graduate students’ experiences and outcomes. Recent research has begun to provide more nuanced accounts illuminating different dimensions of advisor support as well as attending to inequalities in students’ experiences with advisors.Purpose: We extend the research on graduate student advisor relationships in two important ways. First, building on the concept of social capital, and in particular the work on institutional agents, we illuminate specific benefits associated with student-advisor relationships. Second, we advance prior work on inequality in advisor relationships by examining students’ experiences at the intersection of race and gender. Research Design: To illuminate the nuances of graduate students’ experiences with advisors, this study included interviews with 79 students pursuing PhD’s in biological sciences. Thematic coding revealed several important dimensions of benefits associated with advisor relationships. Corresponding codes were grouped into three categories, describing three groups of students with notably different experiences with advisors. Findings: The data revealed three distinct student-advisor relationship profiles which we term scholars, subordinates, and marginals. The three groups had vastly different experiences with access to knowledge and resources, access to networks, and cultivation of independence. Moreover, the distribution across these three groups was highly unequal with unique patterns observed at the intersection of race and gender. White men benefited from both racial and gender privilege and were notably overrepresented in the scholars group while White women and racial/ethnic minority (REM) students were more likely to be socialized as subordinates. REM men had the least favorable experiences with the majority of them being in the marginal category, along with a substantial proportion of White and REM women. Notably, even experiences of negative relationships with advisors were gendered and raced: REM men’s negative relationships with advisors were characterized by “benign neglect” while women primarily experienced conflictual relationships Conclusion and Recommendations: The findings illuminate important consequences of student-advisor relationships and pronounced inequalities in who has access to benefits accrued through those relationships. Creating more equitable experiences will necessitate substantial attention to improving mentoring and eliminating gender and racial/ethnic inequalities in faculty support.more » « less
-
Doctoral advisor selection processes in science, math, and engineering programs in the United Statesmore » « less
Abstract 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.
-
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.)Developing research self-efficacy is an important part of doctoral student preparation. Despite the documented importance of research self-efficacy, little is known about the progression of doctoral students’ research self-efficacy over time in general and for students from minoritized groups. This study examined both within- and between-person stability of research self-efficacy from semester to semester over 4 years, focusing on doctoral students in biological sciences ( N = 336). Using random intercept autoregressive analyses, we evaluated differences in stability across gender, racially minoritized student status, and first-generation student status. Results showed similar mean levels of self-efficacy across demographic groups and across time. However, there were notable differences in between-person and within-person stability over time, specifically showing higher between-person and lower within-person stability for racially minoritized and first-generation students. These findings indicate that racially minoritized and first-generation students’ research self-efficacy reports were less consistent from semester to semester. Such results may indicate that non-minoritized and continuing-generation students’ experiences from semester to semester typically reinforce their beliefs about their own abilities related to conducting research, while such is not the case for racially minoritized nor first-generation students. Future research should examine what types of experiences impact self-efficacy development across doctoral study to offer more precise insights about factors that influence these differences in within-person stability.more » « less
