Write a 1,000-1,500 word paper including the following headings and content:
Include at least two PCRs (
, Citation, and Reference) – one from this dissertation and one from one of your textbooks.
Factors that Enable or Inhibit Dissertation Completion
by
Gail E. Cugno, MLIS, MAWS
A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Claremont Graduate University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in Education
Claremont, California
2015
Approved by:
David Drew, Ph.D.
Committee Chair
© Copyright Gail E. Cugno, 2015
All Rights Reserved
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 – 1346
ProQuest 3718043
Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
ProQuest Number: 3718043
APPROVAL OF THE REVIEW COMMITTEE
This dissertation has been duly read, reviewed, and critiqued by the Committee listed below,
which hereby approves the manuscript of Gail Cugno as fulfilling the scope and quality
requirements for meriting the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Education.
David Drew, Ph.D. Chair
Claremont Graduate University
Mary Poplin, Ph.D.
Claremont Graduate University
Committee Member
Lourdes Arguelles, Ph.D.
Claremont Graduate University
Committee Member, Professor Emerita
Abstract
Factors Related to Dissertation Completion
by
Gail E. Cugno, MLIS, MAWS
Claremont Graduate University: 2015
Attrition among “all but dissertation” (ABD)/doctoral candidates (DCs) from different
disciplines is holding steady at alarming rates and PhD completion could take up to 12 years.
This study sought to find factors that enable or inhibit dissertation completion among current
ABD/DCs, and ABD/DCs that left studies before dissertation completion or recent PhD
graduates since 2009 to 2014. A thorough review of literature by federal, state, private
organizations, and researchers spanning 30 years was consulted on theoretical/conceptual
frameworks and factors related to attrition and factors that enable or inhibit dissertation
completion.
Study participants were recruited from five social media sites Facebook, LinkedIn,
Tumblr, Twitter, and Yahoo Groups to take an online survey consisting of Likert-style questions
and two-open ended questions. Primarily, descriptive statistics were employed in the analysis of
the quantitative questions and a correlation analysis was performed using 29 study variables with
Question 10c, “I felt confident I could finish my dissertation and graduate.” The correlation
analysis resulted in ten variables showing a significant relationship to this key variable. Five of
those significant variables reflected different forms of advisor support.
In the descriptive analysis, participants reported that a sense of caring by advisers/chairs
that stayed in touch and provided motivational support limited feelings of isolation or pessimism
about dissertation completion. Moreover, feeling connected to other writers or support
communities, feeling confident about completion, and maintaining a sense of control over the
process were important. Factors that inhibited completion were lack of socialization into the
dissertation process, distractions from writing, and pessimism fueled by lack of motivational or
emotional support.
Qualitative responses reported by ABD/DCs and recent Ph.D. graduates provided a
descriptive profile of factors that respondents felt facilitated or inhibited their success. Adviser
support/help, staying motivated, personal internal qualities such as perseverance, determination,
and belief in oneself facilitated completion. Factors inhibiting completion were issues with
advisers/chairs, university processes/procedures, the amount of work involved, a lack of
feedback or interaction about their dissertation topic, family issues, or personal issues such as
lack of self-discipline or procrastination. Overall, adviser/chair support or caring was a critical
success factor.
Dedication
To Bogie Cugno thank you for your 20 years of love and support.
vi
Acknowledgments
Dr. David Drew
David truly enabled completion of this dissertation. He stands alone among the 95
professors I had while pursuing a bachelor’s degree, two master’s degrees, a California State
Single Subject Teaching Credential, and this Ph.D. I am so lucky to have you as my dissertation
chair and champion via your support and wizardry with funding, deans, and negotiating a
multitude of things on my behalf. Thank you, for the dozens of phone calls you made to me
during the process. In addition, your support and confidence in my skills, abilities, dedication,
and integrity to produce quality work made the process less difficult to move through.
I would like to acknowledge Pitzer College for awarding me a New Resource Scholarship
so I could finish my junior and senior year at a four-year institution. The running head start
Pitzer gave me was monumental in my intellectual growth through discourse / debate, rigorous
academics, and in showing me ways to see the world from different perspectives.
From my bachelor’s work, Dr. Richard Stahler-Sholk (political studies) and Dr. Lourdes
Arguelles who taught me how to see the world from different perspectives through innovative
coursework that challenged preconceived and previously accepted notions about politics, culture,
spirituality, and sexuality. Dr. Sharon Snowiss my adviser in both of my undergraduate majors–
Political Studies and Gender & Feminist Studies. Sharon, taking that bioethics course you
recommended was critical because I gained insight into issues from different theoretical points of
view. Thank you.
Thank you to Dr. Mary Poplin (CGU), who made me want to excel as a scholar; you
challenged us in the pedagogies course and made me think about the loss of spirituality in higher
education. You contributed toward my rigorous approach toward my dissertation topic.
vii
In the Master of Applied Women’s Studies program at CGU, Dr. Lourdes Arguelles
provided continual insight on culture, community, and belief systems that helped me revisit my
view of the world and my place in it. Moreover, this amazing woman agreed to be on my
dissertation committee after retiring “Professor Emerita.” Thank you for taking the time away
from your other works to be on my committee. You said students write but do not always say
anything, I hope I did!
During the teacher-credentialing program at California State University, San Bernardino
(fall 2003 to fall 2005) I met Alex Aitcheson who taught courses that provided advice and
practical knowledge in K-12 teaching.
To Dr. Erin Lopez-Cadena–thank you for being a friend and accepting me into your
family. I gained professional confidence working with you but more importantly, you showed
me that family does not have to be blood-related; they just have to show love and care.
Mark Martin a good friend who gave me an ear when I needed one and was always
caring toward me. Jessica Martinez we share some of the same experiences and set backs; talking
to you has always been easy because you never judge and understand what it feels like to be
different.
viii
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1. Introductory Statement and the Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Importance of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Study Rationale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Previous Studies and their Limitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Definitions of Terms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Review of Literature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Delimitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Organization for the Remainder Dissertation Chapters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
CHAPTER 2. Review of Literature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Evolution of Doctoral Degrees and the Dissertation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
The German influence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
The Yale influence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
The Johns Hopkins University influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Progression of the doctorate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Research on and the Prevalence of Attrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Disciplines susceptible to attrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Time to degree completion/doctorate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Public versus private C&Us . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
CGS study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Institutions and attrition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Limitations of previous studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
The Institution: Enabling PhD Completion and Inhibiting Attrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
C&U recruitment, admissions policies, expectations, and fit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Institutional data gathering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Hierarchy marginalization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Institutional services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Financial factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Institutional policies and interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Creating peer interaction opportunities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
ix
Ways institutions can help students persist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Socialization and the dissertation process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Structure and transition to the independent dissertation process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Facilitating completion when students get stuck. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Sense of community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Community/ies of practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Connectedness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Emotional support. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Advisers/Advising Factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Advisers: chosen or assigned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Regular meeting or correspondence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Adviser workloads and time for students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Adviser-student relationship and exhibiting care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Student Issues Affecting Dissertation Completion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Choosing or agreement of a dissertation topic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Planning scheduling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Type or way of writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Ambiguity and self-direction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Feelings of isolation or alienation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Spouse/significant other/domestic partner and family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Personal Internal and Psychological Factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Self-efficacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Perfectionism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Procrastination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Self-handicapping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 81
Locus of control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Literature Review Closing Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
CHAPTER 3. Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Survey design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Research questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Survey instruments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
x
Survey instrument 1: Dissertation Completion Factors Survey (long survey) . . . . . . 89
Survey instrument 2: Dissertation Completion Factors Survey-2 (short survey) . . . . 90
Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Recruitment and survey distribution via social networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Social network sites chosen for recruitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Logging searches and results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Creation of a dedicated email address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Searches to locate and attract possible participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Recruitment texts employed to attract possible participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Protecting participant identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Coding created for survey participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Quantitative and Qualitative Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Quantitative Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Qualitative Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Data Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Concluding comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
CHAPTER 4. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Study demographics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Total participants for long survey and short survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Total ABD and PhD participants from both surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Gender of ABD and PhD participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Participant ethnicity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Type of college or university (CorU) and program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Employment status during the dissertation process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Social media results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Demographics summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Quantitative Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Quantitative survey question results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Question 1a to 1f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Question 2a to 2f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Question 3a to 3h. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Question 4a to 4e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Question 5a to 5i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
xi
Question 6a to 6d. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Question 7a to 7b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Question 8a to 8c. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Question 9a to 9d. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Question 10a to 10d. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Question 11a to 11c. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Correlation of questionnaire variables with the key variable Question 10c “I felt
confident I could finish my dissertation and graduate”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 161
Concluding quantitative remarks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Correlation results summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Qualitative Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Qualitative analysis of open-ended questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Most difficult factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Most difficult institutional policies, procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Most difficult adviser/chair factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Most difficult dissertation committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
Most difficult preparedness and transition dissertation process factors . . . . . . . . . . 179
Most difficult funding and finance factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
Most difficult marginalization factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
Most difficult personal skills. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Most difficult employment factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
Most difficult outside assistance factor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Most difficult environmental factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Most difficult time issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
Most difficult “diversion” factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Most difficult spouse/family factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Most difficult personal internal factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
Most difficult isolation factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Helped most factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Helped most institutional policies, procedures, and services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Helped most adviser/chair factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
Helped most dissertation committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Most helpful faculty factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
xii
Most helpful peer/cohort factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
Most helpful funding and finance factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
Most helpful dissertation writers not from the home campus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Most helpful outside help . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Most helpful SocNets and web sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Most helpful support from friends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Most helpful spouse/significant other, and family factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Most helpful structure/routine (personal) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Most helpful “diversion” factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Most helpful motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Most helpful personal internal comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
Qualitative results closing summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
CHAPTER 5. Findings, Limitations of the Study, Recommendations, and Conclusion . . . 200
Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Findings using research questions to corroborate hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Closing summary of RQs to corroborate this study’s hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
Study limitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
Recommendations for institutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
Maintain student contact information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
Create exit surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
Prepare departments and faculty to assist ABD/DCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
Recommendations for faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
Recommendations for ABD/DCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Recommendations for ABD/DC researchers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
Recommendations for social media recruitment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
Recommendations for future research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
Increasing the number of male participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
Closing Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
Appendix A. Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
Appendix B. Long Survey Consent Form. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
Appendix C. Long Survey 36 Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
xiii
Appendix D. Short Survey Consent Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
Appendix E. Short Survey 26 Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
Appendix F. Open-Ended Responses Placed in Four Groups then Categorized by
Topic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 253
Appendix G. Group Posts and Recruitment Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
Appendix H. Example of Search word/term checklist for SocNet sites and Types of
doctorates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 263
xiv
List of Tables
Table 1. Factor Grouping Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 2. Limitations Related to Sample or Participant Pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 3. Limitations Due to Research Methodology, Design, or Distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 4. Adviser Factors that Enable or Inhibit Dissertation Completion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 5. Factors that Enable Dissertation Completion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 6. Reasons Non-Completers Gave For Leaving Their Studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 7. Limitations of Previous Studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Table 8. Phases, Stages, or Levels in Doctoral Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Table 9. Ways that Socialization is Fostered or Accomplished. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Table 10. Results of Poor, Inappropriate, Inadequate, or Unsuccessful Socialization. . . . . . . 50
Table 11. Support Issues that Inhibit Dissertation Completion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Table 12. Support Issues that Enable Dissertation Completion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Table 13. Adviser Factors that Inhibit Dissertation Completion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Table 14. Adviser Factors that Enable Dissertation Completion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Table 15. Issues with Dissertation Topics that can Enable Completion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Table 16. Issues with Dissertation Topics that can Inhibit Completion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Table 17. Personal Structural Factors that Inhibit Dissertation Completion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Table 18. Attitude or Behavioral Factors Inhibiting Completion (Personal Internal) . . . . . . . 84
Table 19. Personal Internal Factors (Psychological) that Enable Completion. . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Table 20. Personal Internal Factors (Psychological) that Inhibit Completion. . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Table 21. Possible interventions implemented since 2009 benefiting ABD/DCs . . . . . . . . . . 91
Table 22. Educational Status of Participants in the long and short survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Table 23. Long and Short Survey Participant Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Table 24. Long and Short Survey Participants with Gender and Educational Status . . . . . . 110
xv
Table 25. Total Participants from Both Surveys Aggregated by Gender and
Educational Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 110
Table 26. Participant Ethnicity with Educational Status and Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Table 27. Participant Institution/Program Type with Educational Status and Gender . . . . . 112
Table 28. Participant Employment Status with Educational Status and Gender. . . . . . . . . . 114
Table 29. Example of Recruitment Efforts on SocNets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Table 30. Example of Responses to Recruitment Efforts on SocNets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Table 31. SocNet Tallies of how Participants Found Out About the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Table 32. Question 1a to 1f “I chose my dissertation topic. . . ” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Table 33. Question 2a to 2f “Who should be responsible for socialization /
enculturation into the dissertation process?” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 124
Table 34. Results for 2a “the student” by Educational Status and Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Table 35. Results for 2b “peers, peer groups, other dissertation writers” by
Educational Status and Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 125
Table 36. Results for 2c “faculty in discipline” by Educational Status and Gender . . . . . . . 126
Table 37. Results for 2d “adviser/dissertation chair” by Educational Status and Gender . . . 127
Table 38. Results for 2e “doctoral coursework” by Educational Status and Gender. . . . . . . 127
Table 39. Results for 2f “workshops/seminars” by Educational Status and Gender. . . . . . . 128
Table 40. Question 3a to 3h “My adviser. . . ”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Table 41. Question 4a to 4e “I felt my adviser / dissertation chair was caring because
he/she. . . ” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 130
Table 42. Results for 4a “made me feel less isolated because he/she stayed in touch
with me” by Educational Status and Gender” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 131
Table 43. Results for 4b “encouraged me to ask questions about my dissertation or the
process” by Educational Status and Gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 132
Table 44. Results for 4c “helped me set research & writing goals” by Educational
Status and Gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 132
Table 45. Results for 4d “was a mentor to me” by Educational Status and Gender . . . . . . . 133
Table 46. Results for 4e “got to know some things about me on a personal level” by
Educational Status and Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 134
xvi
Table 47. “I considered leaving school because adviser /chair made me feel
marginalized /oppressed. . . ”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 136
Table 48. Question 6a to 6d “I got stuck during the dissertation process. . . ” . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Table 49. Participant Responses Who Checked 6d and Question 2a – 2f by Educational
Status and Gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 138
Table 50. Participant responses to Question 2a to 2f and by participants that checked
6d (All Percentages based on 16 participants) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 139
Table 51. Question 7a to 7b “I was pessimistic about completing my dissertation
because. . . ”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 140
Table 52. Results for 7a “. . . I did not receive motivational or emotional support” by
Educational. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 141
Table 53. Results for 7b “. . . I let things distract me from my writing schedule (self-
handicapping)” by Educational Status and Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 142
Table 54. Question 8a to 8c “Being a perfectionist while writing my dissertation. . . ” . . . . 142
Table 55. Results for 8a “. . . became a handicap / barrier to my progress” by
Educational Status and Gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 143
Table 56. Results for 8b “. . . sometimes resulted in writer’s block” by Educational
Status and Gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 144
Table 57. Results for 8c “. . . sometimes gave me time to clear my mind” by
Educational Status and Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 145
Table 58. Question 9a to 9d “My self-esteem grew. . .” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Table 59. Results for 9a “. . . grew when I received emotional or motivational support”
by Educational Status and Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 147
Table 60. Results for 9b “. . . as I met my planned dissertation progress deadlines” by
Educational Status and Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 148
Table 61. Results for 9c “. . . grew when my adviser gave me positive feedback about
my progress” by Educational Status and Gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 149
Table 62. Results for 9d “. . . dipped when I felt isolated or alone during the
dissertation process” by Educational Status and Gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 150
Table 63. Question 10a – 10f “During the dissertation process. . . ”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Table 64. Results for 10a “. . . I felt I had control over my ability to complete tasks
involved in research and writing” by Educational Status and Gender. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 152
Table 65. Results for 10b “. . . I felt powerless about my progress at times” by
Educational Status and Gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 153
Table 66. Results for 10c “. . . I felt confident that I could finish my dissertation &
graduate” by Educational Status and Gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 154
Table 67. Results for 10d “. . . I felt rebellious sometimes due to the workload or stress
to meet deadlines” by Educational Status and Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 155
xvii
Table 68. Results for 10e “. . . I procrastinated about writing sometimes” by
Educational Status and Gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 156
Table 69. Results for 10f “. . . I made sure I had my materials & work area prepared
when I went to write” by Educational Status and Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 157
Table 70. Question 11a – 11c “During the dissertation process a sense of community
community/ies of practice, or feeling connected. . .”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 158
Table 71. Results for 11a “. . . made me feel less isolated” by Educational Status and
Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 159
Table 72. Results for 11b “. . . gave me a way to vent my frustration” by Educational
Status and Gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 160
Table 73. Results for 11c “. . . grew when my adviser gave me positive feedback about
my progress” by Educational Status and Gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 161
Table 74. List of twenty-nine Likert variables by their question number used in a
correlation with Question 10c “I felt confident I could finish my dissertation and
graduate” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 162
Table 75. Correlations with variable “[I felt] Confident I could finish my dissertation
and graduate” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 164
Table 76. Amount of Responses to Open-Ended Questions including Educational
Status and Gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .173
Table 77. Frequencies of Open-Ended Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Table 78. Most Difficult Processes, Procedures Factors by Gender and Educational
Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 177
Table 79. Most Difficult Adviser Factors by Gender and Educational Status. . . . . . . . . . . . 178
Table 80. Most Difficult Dissertation Committee Factors by Gender and Educational
Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 179
Table 81. Most Difficult Preparedness and Transition to the Dissertation Process
Factors by Gender and Educational Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 179
Table 82. Most Difficult Funding or Financial Factors by Gender and Educational
Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 180
Table 83. Most Difficult: Writing and Research Skills, Structure, and Routine Factors
by Gender and Educational Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 182
Table 84. Most Difficult Employment Factors by Gender and Educational Status. . . . . . . . 183
Table 85. Most Difficult Personal Environmental Factors by Gender and Educational
Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 184
Table 86. Most Difficult Spouse/Family Factors by Gender and Educational Status . . . . . . 186
Table 87. Most Difficult Personal Internal Factors by Gender and Educational Status. . . . . 187
xviii
Table 88. Helped Most Processes, Procedures Factors by Gender and Educational
Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 188
Table 89. Helped Most Adviser Factors by Gender and Educational Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
Table 90. Helped Most Dissertation Committee Factors by Gender and Educational
Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 189
Table 91. Helped Most Faculty Factors by Gender and Educational Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
Table 92. Helped Most Funding or Financial Factors by Gender and Educational
Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 191
Table 93. Helped Most Personal Environmental Factors by Gender and Educational
Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 193
Table 94. Helped Most Spouse/Family Factors by Gender and Educational Status . . . . . . . 194
Table 95. Helped Most Personal Writing, Research, Structure, Routine, and Skills
Factors by Gender and Educational Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 195
Table 96. Helped Most Personal Internal and Motivation Factors by Gender and
Educational Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 197
Table 97. Negative Effects of Personal Issues on Dissertation Writers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Table 98. Positive Effects of Personal Issues on Dissertation Writers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
xix
List of Graphs
Graph 1. Ten Year Attrition (Overall) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Graph 2. Support During Transitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
1
CHAPTER 1
Introductory Statement and the Problem
Attrition occurs in every year or phase of doctoral studies and often occurs after doctoral
students have reached “all but dissertation” (ABD) or doctoral candidacy (DC) status. ABD/DCs
who leave school prior to finishing their dissertation/Ph.D.s are a problem for institutions and
themselves. The extent of the problem is exacerbated because no single factor or combination of
factors has been found to be the most responsible for students leaving or staying until Ph.D.
(PhD) completion (Bair, 1999; Gardner, 2010; Katz, 1997; Lee, 2003). For example, between 17
and 25 factors have been found that enable or inhibit dissertation completion such as institution
services/policies, advisers/dissertation chairs, or personal student factors such as finances,
expectations or “fit” with a department (Lee, 2003), little or no mentoring (Lee, 2003), loss of
self-efficacy or self-esteem (Bandura, 1997; Gardner, 2009; Kiley, 2009; Pride, 2005), or lacking
writing and research skills or abilities (Katz, 1997).
In education research, attrition has been a primary research topic, but there are other
topics overlapping it that have factors that enable or inhibit dissertation/PhD completion such as
retention, intent to persist, persistence, persistence to degree, time to degree, dissertation
completion/non-completion, and degree or PhD completion/non-completion. These different
topic areas have been studied and researched extensively since the 1970s by researchers,
academic institutions, and educational organizations such as the University of California (UC),
Berkeley (for the UC network of universities), the United States Department of Education
(USDE), the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS), and the National Science Foundation (NSF)
(Bair, 1999; Nerad & Miller, 1997; Terrell, Snyder, & Dringus, 2009). Non-completion or
ABD/DC attrition rates in different disciplines are holding steady between 24 to 67% (Gardner
2
2008, p. 97) and are a problem for institutions and students (Allen & Dory, 2001; Gardner, 2008;
2010; Goodchild & Miller, 1997).
Students in previous studies gave factors why they withdrew, dropped out, or stopped-
out. A “stop out” is a student that leaves school for an undetermined amount of time and might
return to their studies later or change their area of study (Donoghue, 2010, para. 7). Not all
students view leaving doctoral studies as something negative; some leave to pursue other
avenues of career advancement that does not require a PhD, or they have determined that an
educational path is not in their best or financial interest. In any case, ABD/DC
attrition/dissertation non-completion is a particularly important topic for research.
Importance of the study.
The high rate of ABD/DC attrition has become known as the “ABD phenomenon”
(Kittell-Limerick, 2005; Kolman, 2001; Strite, 2007; Yeager, 2008) and some of the factors for
this group are different from attrition or persistence factors found for students in other years of
doctoral study. No discipline is immune to the ABD/DC phenomenon and although students are,
or may have been, successful completing doctoral coursework and other academic requirements,
it is not always an indicator of a successful dissertation outcome (Bridgmon, 2007; Kolman,
2001). For example, a University of California, Berkeley (UCB) study on students entering
doctoral studies from 1975-1977 showed lower completion rates in social sciences and
humanities (Nerad & Miller, 1997, pp. 77-78). Completion rates were 31% in the humanities and
45% in social sciences, whereas completion rates were 67% in physical sciences and 69% in
biology (Nerad & Miller, 1997, pp. 77-78).
Although the UCB study was decades ago, the results are nearly the same today, with
humanities still having higher non-completion rates and social sciences a close second for the
3
bottom rung of the completion rate scale. Students in the humanities and social sciences had
higher rates of ABD/DC attrition than physical or life sciences because students in the sciences
tend to establish working or collaborative relationships with faculty in labs or on research
projects (Baker & Pifer, 2011; Leatherman, 2000). Mentoring or faculty interaction could be an
issue in dissertation/PhD completion in certain disciplines. Other examples, of factors
contributing to dissertation completion/non-completion could be related to an ABD/DC being
unprepared to proceed with the research and writing required to complete a dissertation
(Gardner, 2009). Another factor is student employment requires a lot of their time (Allan &
Dory, 2001; Bair, 1999).
The different factors that enable or inhibit dissertation completion could intersect (Allan
& Dory, 2001) with some factors being institutional, adviser-related, or personal to the student.
Table 1 gives an abbreviated list (acronyms) of factor categories some researchers coined
or that mirror the list of factors below obtained from participants in previous studies
institutional structural (In-S):
(a) institutional funding or assistantship availability (Lee, 2003)
(b) student socialization/enculturation into graduate studies and/or disciplinary or
departmental standards or culture (In-S) (Allan & Dory, 2001; Cohen, 1998; Gardner,
2007, 2010; Golde, 2005; Good, 2002; Lenz, 1997; Robole, 2003)
(c) providing student services such as, workshops, and/or coursework that prepares or
trains a doctoral student in research and writing a dissertation (Allan & Dory, 2001;
Cohen, 1998; Good, 2002; Lenz, 1997; Tanzer, 2001)
institutional external-environmental (In-EE):
4
(a) institutional or departmental marginalization of some students: such as females, older
individuals, religious difference, people of color, or gays and lesbians (Yeager, 2008,
p. 50)
(b) opportunities for peer or faculty interaction via social or structured meetings (Allan &
Dory, 2001; Bair, 1999; Cohen, 1998; Gardner, 2007, 2010; Good, 2002; Lenz, 1997;
Lovitts, 2008; Robole, 2003)
various types of adviser issues (In-SA)
(a) adviser caring (Donoghue, 2010)
(b) adviser mentoring (Donoghue, 2010; Green, 1997; Tanzer, 2001; White, 2006)
(c) adviser marginalization of some students: such as females, older individuals, religious
difference, people of color, or gays and lesbians (Golde, 2005; Yeager, 2008)
(d) availability to students (Leatherman, 2000; Lenz, 1997) or accessibility to adviser
(Baker & Pifer, 2011; Good, 2002; Kluever, 1997; Pride, 2005)
(e) giving timely feedback (Cardozo, 2006; Eley & Jennings, 2005; Kumar & Stracke,
2007)
(f) fit or discontent with adviser (Kluever, 1997; Strite, 2007)
(g) adviser contribution to enculturation/socialization into doctoral training, the
discipline, department, or institution (Gardner, 2008; Golde, 2005; Lin, 2003; Pride,
2005)
personal structural (Pr-S):
(a) lack of research or writing skills (Cohen, 1998; Green, 1997; Kolman, 2001)
(b) time management (Nelson & Sacks, 2007)
5
(c) planning and scheduling writing and research tasks (Green, 1997; Leatherman, 2000;
Steel, 2007)
(d) creating and/or meeting progress deadlines (Gardner, 2010; Harsch, 2008; Lenz,
1997; Lovitts, 2008; Lundell, 1999)
personal environmental/external (Pr-EE) (non-structural):
(a) needs or demands of family (spouse/significant other or children) (Allan & Dory,
2001; Cohen, 1998; Good, 2002; Green, 1997; Lee, 2003; Lenz, 1997; Protivnak &
Foss, 2009)
(b) employment/work requirements are stressful, exacting, or mentally taxing (Barnett,
2008; Cheeks, 2007; Green, 1997; Harsch, 2008, Robole, 2003; Yeager, 2008)
(c) financial issues (paying for school or maintaining a livable income) (Barnett, 2008;
Cheeks, 2007; Green, 1997; Harsch, 2008; Lee, 2003; Robole, 2003)
(d) managing the transition from coursework to the dissertation process
(independent/solitary work) (Allan & Dory, 2001; Baker & Pifer, 2011; Cohen, 1998;
Gardner, 2010; Good, 2002; Green 1997; Kiley, 2009; Lenz, 1997; Lovitts, 2008;
Muszynski & Akamatsu, 1991; Pride, 2005; Terrell et al., 2009)
personal internal (Pr-I) (includes psychological factors or factors that are not structural
or environmental/external):
(a) need for emotional support (Allan & Dory, 2001; Cohen, 1998; Gardner, 2007; Good,
2002; Green, 1997; Lenz, 1997; Robole, 2003)
(b) procrastination (Green, 2007; Steel, 2007), perfectionism (Green, 1997; Lenz, 1997)
(c) lack of self -efficacy or -esteem, (Allan & Dory, 2001; Bandura, 1997; Green, 1997;
Kiley, 2009; Varney, 2003; Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997)
6
(d) loss of locus of control (Green, 1997; Harsch, 2008; Varney, 2003)
(e) writer’s block (Cohen, 1998; Green, 1997; Kolman, 2001)
Table 1. Factor Grouping Acronyms
Type of factor (for students) Code Type of factor (for institutions) Code
Personal Structural (skills/abilities) Pr-S Institution Structural In-S
Personal Internal (psychological) Pr-I Institution Structural Adviser In-SA
Personal Environmental/External
(family or work)
Pr-EE Institution External-Environmental In-EE
Importance is also established from various studies including Yeager’s (2008) results that
show “Five out of ten students enrolling in doctoral programs will drop out” (p. 28) and even
though doctoral students could leave during any year of study, ABDs/DCs have been identified
as a high-risk group (Yeager, 2008, p. 40). Moreover, Hinchey and Kimmel (2000, as cited in
Yeager, 2008) explain that “‘One out of every three students who remain in a program after the
first year leaves with ABD status; of the original 50 percent of entering students who do become
ABDs, one in every four will never complete the doctorate’” (p. 39).
Study rationale.
The rationale for this study is to find factors or combination of factors that can curb
ABD/DC dissertation/PhD non-completion. It is important to avert the negative effects or
consequences of non-completion for students and institutions. For example, some of the negative
effects of ABD/DC dissertation non-completion for institutions and students are
(1) Financial losses (Allen & Dory, 2001; Goodchild & Miller, 1997)
(a) for institutions: high attrition can affect federal or state funding, institutional grants,
alumni/past student financial contributions, or loss of future student enrollment
7
(b) for ABDS/DCs: costs of tuition or books, school-related fees (from parking to
technology fees), or in some cases, costs related to transportation and childcare
(2) Loss of reputation (Allen & Dory, 2001; Goodchild & Miller, 1997)
(a) for institutions: students relay their dissatisfaction to others and/or prospective
students, high attrition rates are reported to accrediting agencies and the US
Department of Education, lack of student support for the institution that could affect
national ranking
(b) for ABDs/DCs: if applying to a different institution they could be viewed as not able
to meet the demands of academic rigor, or employers may not offer tuition support or
view those employees as having a lack of dedication to move up in their careers
(3) Personal to ABDs/DCs
(a) student self-esteem, self-efficacy, or confidence could suffer
(b) time that could have been spent on other ways to enhance career opportunities
Researchers studying ABD/DC attrition during the dissertation research and writing
process face an uphill battle to retain students because as Sternberg (1981) explains “. . . less
than fifty percent of those entering the final stage of their doctoral program are able to write their
dissertation and receive their degree” (as cited in Kolman, 2001, p. 1).
Study rationale includes the possibility of finding factors that could help lower ABD/DC
non-completion/attrition rates.
Previous studies and their limitations.
Some past studies discovered factors or limitations employing different study methods
(quantitative or qualitative) or topics (i.e., attrition, retention, intent to persist, persistence,
8
dissertation completion/non-completion, persistence to degree, or degree completion/non-
completion). A short study of persistence at a public institution yielded slightly different results
than a short study of persistence at a private institution. Similar enabling or inhibiting factors
were discovered in both studies related to financial need, balancing work and studies, or lack of
fit with advisers, or transitioning from coursework to independent research and writing (Council
of Graduate Schools [CGS], 2008b; Terrell et al., 2009). Another example given in the literature
was that financial factors coupled with a student’s lack self-efficacy (the ability to complete
tasks) could have led to dropping or stopping out.
In previous studies, researchers listed a number of limitations presented below in two
groups (see Tables 2 and 3). The first group of limitations (Table 2) had to do with the sample or
participant pool and the second group (Table 3), had to do with research methodology, design, or
distribution.
Table 2. Limitations Related to Sample or Participant Pool
– unofficial designation or definition of
ABD/DC status – where survey took place
(Harsch, 2008)
– study not exclusive to ABDs/DCs
(Varney, 2003)
– entire study sample had same adviser
(Yeager, 2008)
– sample not random (Bridgmon, 2007;
Rovai, Wighting, & Liu, 2005)
– small sample size (Barnett, 2008; Cheeks,
2007; Harsch, 2008; Lin, 2003; Yeager,
2008)
– sample did not distinguish groups of
“minority students” (Bridgmon, 2007)
– student characteristics needed (Good,
2002; Muszynski & Akamatsu, 1991)
[marital or minority status, age not
assessed]
9
Table 3. Limitations Due to Research Methodology, Design, or Distribution
– quantitative studies: possibly more
detailed information could be attained
from qualitative interviews (Protivnak &
Foss, 2009) such as “various aspects,
characteristics, and dimensions of self-
efficacy. . . not captured by . . .
quantitative study” (Harsch, 2008, p. 97)
– wording of survey questions: clarity of
questions could influence participant
responses (Good, 2002; Protivnak &
Foss, 2009) and/or language used in open-
ended questions could make participants
recall negative experiences (Protivnak &
Foss, 2009)
– survey content: sensitive nature of the
topic could influence students into
“softening or simplifying” their Likert
responses (Bridgmon, 2007)
– use of self-report method: (Rovai 2002;
Rovai & Wighting, 2005; Rovai,
Wighting, & Liu, 2005)
– used only student perception of
environment: (Lundell & Beach, 2003)
[perceptions of administrators or faculty
could show a differences in shape of the
environment]
– student cognitive dissonance: students
that left their studies or past graduates had
to remember experiences or that
“selective memory could have influenced
the reporting of their perceptions of self-
efficacy, locus of control, and self-
handicapping” (Harsch, 2008, p. 96)
– study conducted at only one institution:
(Varney, 2003; Yeager, 2008); at one
private institution (Cheeks, 2007); at one
urban research institution (Robole, 2003;
Rovai, 2002)
– study conducted at only two institutions:
(Gardner, 2008; Rovai, Wighting, & Liu,
2005)
– study conducted in only one program:
(Barnett 2008; Bridgmon, 2007;
Muszynski & Akamatsu, 1991)
– study conducted in only two programs or
departments: (Green & Kluever, 1997;
Rovai & Wighting, 2005; Rovai,
Wighting, & Liu, 2005)
– use of online survey delivery method:
participants could have had limited
computer skills (Bridgmon, 2007)
– time/duration of survey not optimal:
(Good, 2002) [conducted during summer
when many students were not in school]
– study dealt with dissertation progress not
completion: (Varney, 2003)
– study results cannot be generalized for
one reason or another: (Barnett, 2008;
Bridgmon, 2007; Cheeks, 2007; Harsch,
2008; Rovai, 2002; Rovai & Wighting,
2005; Rovai, Wighting, & Liu, 2005;
Varney, 2003)
The limitations listed have informed subsequent researchers, but some of the same
limitations reoccurred as evidenced by the dates given by authors (see Tables 2 and 3).
10
Recommendations made in previous studies address resolution of some study limitations such as
preemptive study planning to prevent survey question ambiguity, increasing the number of study
participants, or to gather demographic information that was not collected.
Demographics, number of participants, and creating a survey that includes questions that
help identify factors is important. For example, if students are asked about funding sources that
helps them pay for school it could inform institutions that assistantships or other sources of
funding might help students pay for school. However, Smallwood (2004) cites Lovitts who
contends that assistantships may not improve non-completion rates (para.34). Nerad and Miller
(1997) explain that humanities (45%) and social science (25%) students depend on them, thus,
the paradox in results reported shows that more information is needed on factors related to
student finances.
Another example is previous studies asked students about faculty support and found it
was important because faculty support that is fostered helps increase retention (Allan & Dory,
2001; Cohen, 1998; Good, 2002; Lenz, 1997; Robole, 2003). However, ABD/DCs still report
there is a need for faculty/adviser interaction (Baker & Pifer, 2011; Pride, 2005). As a side note,
it was found that compensating faculty for their time and effort made their participation easier
(Cardozo, 2006; Green, 1997; Ehrenberg, Jakubson, Groen, So, & Price, 2007) because it helped
them with costs for conducting workshops or materials (Ehrenberg et al., 2007) and for
overseeing faculty-student or student-student research projects (Green, 1997).
Many previous studies found factors or corroborated multiple factors that informed
institutions about creating interventions such as writing or research workshops, faculty or peer
mentoring, or assistantships (Allan & Dory, 2001; Cohen, 1998; Good, 2002; Lenz, 1997;
Robole, 2003) while, some studies reviewed whether interventions were working (Sowell, 2007)
11
to improve PhD completion. Although a number of factors were identified and interventions
created to increase dissertation completion (Cardozo, 2006; Varney, 2003), ABD/DC attrition
rates have not shown a significant decline. However, the UCB study did show that they increased
completion rates by 11% in their target groups, social sciences and the humanities (Nerad &
Miller, 1997). Therefore, previous studies did not always result in similar findings or factors for
ABD/DC attrition.
Definition of terms.
The definition of words or terms used in this study are located in Appendix A because it
is long and contains entries from different subject areas such as library and information science,
psychology, and education.
Review of literature.
The literature review begins with the origin of dissertations in the United States, how it
became the capstone in attaining a PhD in most subject areas (Tanzer, 2001, p. 3), and how it
added to knowledge in different disciplines employing original research (Goodchild & Miller
1997; Lundell, 1999). As early as the beginning of the 19th century, German universities required
German students to write a dissertation presenting their original research. They used chapters
similar to the sequence and titles of current dissertation chapters such as methodology, analysis
of findings, and results (Barton, 2005, p. 48). Thus, the dissertation as a presentation of original
research has remained unchanged for approximately 140 years (Tanzer, 2001). Since the early
19th century, there is no accurate tally of “unfinished” dissertations or how many individuals left
doctoral studies during the dissertation process.
12
Next, the review of literature moves into the early 20th century when doctoral student
attrition was being noted as a problem in colleges and universities (C&Us). As research
progressed, PhD attrition was studied from different perspectives such as retention, intent to
persist, persistence, persistence to degree, dissertation completion/non-completion, degree or
PhD completion/non-completion, and time to degree. Since most of these studies either sought to
find factors that enable or inhibit PhD completion a number of them were reviewed. The review
includes studies of ABD/DC attrition/dissertation non-completion due to the “ABD
phenomenon” because the only hurdle left in attaining a PhD at that point is the dissertation and
its defense. The transition from coursework to the dissertation process is addressed in some of
the studies because transition involves planning, scheduling, not coming to campus to interact
with faculty or peers, and requires hours of work alone researching, analyzing data, and writing
(Gardner, 2007, Golde, 2005; Kittell-Limerick, 2005; Kluever, 1997; Strite, 2007; Turner &
Edwards, 2006).
As Kiley (2009) explains, the transition from coursework is sometimes viewed as a rite
of passage to the doctorate and the dissertation is sometimes viewed as a rite of passage into a
discipline. In this study, transition is also addressed because it occurs after a student reaches
ABD/DC status and has factors that enable or inhibit dissertation completion.
The review of literature progresses with studies showing which disciplines have higher
rates of attrition/non-completion or completion. Some of the studies reviewed were conducted by
colleges or universities (C&Us), independent researchers who are experts in the areas mentioned,
or dissertation researchers/writers. Some studies were over extended periods of time
(longitudinal) that included cohorts or students in doctoral programs at different cooperating
13
institutions. Two noted longitudinal studies reviewed by many researchers/authors were
conducted by CGS and the NSF (Terrell et al., 2009).
The literature review was comprehensive including books, peer reviewed articles,
conference papers, education reports, government publications, dissertations, and research
reports by a variety of public or private non-governmental organizations.
Many of the studies revealed a number of different factors that enabled or inhibited
ABD/DC dissertation completion with no single factor emerging above all others (Gardner,
2008). This is due to some studies focusing on factors in categories such as institution or adviser-
related or that are personal to the students. Table 1 showed the acronyms given to the categories
in order to create a way to show where enabling or inhibiting factors are rooted. Borrowing from
category-type classification systems employed in the literature reviewed can assist this
researcher in organizing factors revealed in this study and possibly finding relationships between
different categories.
Some of the studies in the review of literature were studies of studies that sorted through
previous research to summarize and compare results, or as a meta-analysis to consolidate work
on a specific set of factors or variables, and to note what interventions were suggested for factors
that had been discovered. Time to degree studies were included in the review because ABD/DCs
in some disciplines take longer to finish than in other disciplines (Allan & Dory, 2001; Gardner
2008, p. 97; Goodchild & Miller, 1997, p. 31; Gravois, 2007b, para. 10; Katz, 2007, p. 5;
Leatherman, 2000, para. 11; Nerad & Miller, 1997, p. 78). A number of studies suggested
interventions such as institution-based workshops or seminars, lightening adviser workloads to
give them more time for ABDs/DCs (Eley & Jennings, 2005; White, 2006), or
creating/facilitating opportunities for student funding, housing, or childcare. Subsequent research
14
on whether interventions enable ABD/DC dissertation completion/persistence to degree, is
ongoing and in some cases show improved completion rates (Cardozo, 2006; Gravois, 2007a;
Millman, 2007; Nerad & Miller, 1997; Sowell, 2008).
Some interesting results in the review of literature are given in Table 4 Adviser Factors
that Enable or Inhibit Dissertation Completion, Table 5 Factors that Enable Dissertation
Completion, and Table 6 Reasons Non-Completers Gave For Leaving Their Studies.
Table 4. Adviser Factors that Enable or Inhibit Dissertation Completion
Enables Dissertation Completion Inhibits Dissertation Completion
Adviser ability to mentor, and develop
supportive relationships with students
(Pride, 2005), foster relationships among
research students (peers) (Vilkinas, 2008,
p. 298)
Advisers who do not have time to mentor
or help students/advisees due to heavy
workloads or having many other students
to advise (Cardozo, 2006; Ehrenberg et
al., 2007; Eley & Jennings, 2005; White,
2006)
Advisers that help with realistic goal
setting (Katz, 1997, p. 10)
Advisers who show a lack of sympathy for
some student situations (Leatherman,
2000; Pride, 2005)
Adviser has interpersonal and management
skills (Vilkinas, 2008, p. 298)
Students who feel ignored and begin their
research without informed guidance (Eley
& Jennings, 2005, p. 14)
Compatibility or fit between adviser and
student (Lenz, 1997)
Adviser leaves the school (Cheeks, 2007;
Pride, 2005, pp. 159-160; Strite, 2007)
Mutual respect (Vilkinas, 2008, p. 298) Discontented or dissatisfied with adviser
(including personality, fit, attitude) (Bair,
1999, Cheeks, 2007; Kluever, 1997, p. 47;
Strite, 2007, p. 5)
15
Table 5. Factors that Enable Dissertation Completion
Getting involved in a research project to
learn the skills needed for the dissertation
project (Pride, 2005)
Asking for help on the dissertation project
(Graff, 1999 as cited in Cardozo, 2006, p.
141)
Proactive locating faculty with similar
research interests (Lenz, 1997)
Feeling satisfied (Cheeks, 2007; Tanzer,
2001)
Feeling capable (Cheeks, 2007)
Table 6. Reasons Non-Completers Gave For Leaving Their Studies
Dissatisfaction with department (Bair,
1999, Cheeks, 2007)
Did not pass qualifying exam(s) (Cheeks,
2007)
Felt isolated (Allan & Dory, 2001; Cheeks,
2007; Gardner, 2007; Golde, 2005; Kittell-
Limerick, 2005; Kluever, 1997; Lundell
1999; Rovai & Wighting, 2005; Strite,
2007; Turner & Edwards, 2006)
Advised to leave (Cheeks, 2007) Feeling burned out (Cheeks, 2007)
Not interested in discipline (Cheeks, 2007) Being stressed (Cheeks, 2007; Pride, 2005;
Robole, 2003, p. 66)
The process is too much work (Cheeks,
2007; Nerad & Miller, 1997)
Being depressed (Cheeks, 2007; Cohen,
1998; Green, 1997; Warren, 1984)
Having dissatisfactory grades (Cheeks,
2007)
Feeling insecure (Cheeks, 2007; Good, 2002,
p. 10; Green, 1997; Muszynski & Akamatsu,
1991; Robole, 2003, p. 66)
Literature reviewed included communities of practice, sense of community, and
connectedness because they increase persistence to degree (dissertation completion) by providing
ways for students to feel less isolated. The dissertation research and writing process is primarily
a solitary/isolating endeavor and was a factor many survey participants considered important
(Gardner, 2007, Golde, 2005; Kittell-Limerick, 2005; Kluever, 1997; Strite, 2007; Turner &
Edwards, 2006). The body of work in distance education (DE) related to isolation was reviewed
because ABD/DCs are not on campus attending classes regularly during the dissertation process
16
that parallels the isolation/solitary feelings DE students experience. ABD/DCs and DE students
feel less connected to the institution, departments, faculty, and peers.
Literature on sense of community, connectedness, and community/ies of practice (CoP)
could offer disciplinary or writing support/guidance, inform students of the core values and goals
of a discipline (Terrell et al., 2009), offer faculty and students an opportunity to interact, and
helps students connect with peers and leaders in their field making them feel less isolated. The
review of literature was broad and included many issues of ABD/DC dissertation/PhD non-
completion. Although the review was extensive, it was necessary because the body of work for
the past 40 years has revealed many enabling or inhibiting factors to dissertation completion.
Hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1 (Institutional Question [IQ]). When students reach ABD/DC status, adviser
caring, regular contact, and timely, constructive feedback are helpful to their progress or
dissertation/degree completion (In-SA).
Hypothesis 2 (IQ). When students reach ABD/DC status, institutional policies such as
academic support services, funding opportunities, paid assistantships, or family-friendly
policies are helpful to their progress or dissertation/degree completion (In-S).
Hypothesis 3 (IQ). When students reach ABD/DC status, some find that doctoral coursework,
workshops, or faculty/adviser interaction do not prepare them for research and writing at
the dissertation level or give them a formal structure or enculturate/socialize them in the
dissertation process, which made their progress or dissertation/degree completion difficult
(In-S).
Hypothesis 4 (Student-Centered Question [SCQ]). When students reach ABD/DC status, sense
of community, communities of practice, or feeling connected with either their advisers or
17
peers/peer group(s) are helpful to their progress or dissertation/degree completion (In-S,
Pr-EE).
Hypothesis 5 [SCQ]. When students reach ABD/DC status not knowing how to transition from
coursework to the dissertation process made their progress or dissertation/degree
completion difficult (Pr-I).
Hypothesis 6 [SCQ]. When students reach ABD/DC status, personal factors such as stress,
depression, perfectionism, procrastination, self-handicapping, negative perceptions of
competency, or a lack of motivation, locus of control, or self-efficacy made their progress
or dissertation/degree completion difficult (Pr-I).
Hypothesis 7 [SCQ]. When students reach ABD/DC status, a lack of motivational support, or
feelings of isolation or alienation made their progress or dissertation/degree completion
difficult (Pr-I).
Methods.
Literature review database research. This researcher holds a master of library and
information science (MLIS) with a focus in design, creation, and research in scholarly databases
for dissertation students. The skills in database research were employed to locate primary and
tertiary material in the areas previously mentioned (i.e., attrition, persistence, and so on). The
review of literature is exhaustive; previous research dating back 35-40 years was located and
analyzed to note factors found that enable or inhibit dissertation/PhD completion. In this study
the hypotheses, research questions, and survey questions were created using information
presented in the literature including delimitations, limitations, and recommendations for future
research.
18
Categories created for factors.
Previous studies found seventeen to twenty-five factors that positively or negatively
affect ABD/DC dissertation completion. In some studies, factors were grouped into categories in
such as psychological, structural, external, institutional, and compatibility (Allan & Dory, 2001).
Within each category, there are specific factors. In this study, the categories shown in Table 1
help in the creation survey questions that address each type of factor so possible relationships
between types of factors can be noted. Because there are many types of factors, categories offer a
way to find combinations that may not have been discovered in other studies and will help
categorize the open-ended questions in this study.
Survey participants. The target sample consists of three groups. (1) ABD/DCs currently
writing a dissertation; (2) ABD/DCs who did not complete their dissertation and left doctoral
studies during the dissertation process temporarily or permanently (between 2009 to 2013); (3)
ABD/DCs who completed a dissertation between 2009 to 2013. These three groups of students
could possibly offer different points of view about the dissertation process; what they are
currently facing, what it took to finish their dissertation, or what made ABD/DCs leave doctoral
studies after completing all other doctoral candidate requirements. The date range for groups 2
and 3 helps ensure that participants are recent dissertation writers or completers who still recall
the process. Participants can be from any discipline, a private or public institution, have any
dissertation topic, or be any age, gender, ethnicity, race, or faith and so on. This helps ensure
participation because there are no limits other than being from one of the three groups listed.
Recruitment region and criterion. The sample was obtained by sending survey invitations
through five social media sites LinkedIn, Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, and Yahoo Groups. A brief
posting and survey link was given in a brief recruitment statement in each social network site.
19
Some sites such as LinkedIn or Yahoo Groups could require group membership to post
comments or survey recruitment texts. In some cases starting a group for dissertation writers to
exchange ideas or vent frustration helps establish a presence by posting helpful hints such as how
to research scholarly databases. The Claremont Graduate University (CGU) Institutional Review
Board (IRB) deemed this research exempt from their overview but recruitment texts were
submitted for their approval. Recruitment texts vary depending on word limits or contact
restrictions on social networking sites. A sample of a Twitter recruitment “tweet” using their
limited text requirement (140 characters or less) is “Survey: What enables or inhibits dissertation
completion? Current writers, ABDs that left, recent PhDs.
https://cgu.co1.qualtrics.com/xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx”
All five social networking sites include individual members and groups formed by
members in different areas such as current dissertation writers, recent PhDs, students seeking
participants for their studies, and so on. Members of any group can forward a recruitment text to
people or groups they know, enhancing the opportunity to increase the number of participants.
A dedicated email was set up for survey participants or anyone with questions about the
survey or to ask for technical assistance. The email address was accessed at least every four
hours, seven days a week from survey activation to its closing, and every 2 hours after each
recruitment tests are sent. In addition, when joining social networks an email is required and the
dedicated email (CugnoDissSurvey@aol.com) was used so any correspondence from a social
network could be addressed. The dedicated email was not ambiguous so possible participants
gain a sense of credibility about the recruitment notes being sent out. The dedicated email can
insure that the researcher will be able monitor all study-related correspondence without having to
sort it from work or personal email.
20
The survey was placed online using Qualtrics software that is licensed through CGU for
use by students and faculty. Data gathered from surveys can be downloaded to import into SPSS
statistical software and as an Adobe portable document format (pdf). Having a pdf file of the
entire survey also gives the researcher a “hard copy” to use if needed.
Employing an online survey method. Because the proposed study was conducted using an
online survey provider, participants had to be willing to use a computer to access the Internet to
complete the survey. There are advantages and disadvantages to using an Internet-based survey
such as those given by Survey Audience (2005)
• a sense of anonymity to participants
• greater opportunity to reach a larger participant pool
• online surveys are less expensive to conduct (no money spent to make and distribute
survey copies or pay for envelopes, address labels, and postage)
• site software can compile data that can be exported to statistics programs for analysis
• participants might answer questions more truthfully due to a sense of anonymity they
experience using a computer in their homes or study area
• flexibility in survey design such as use of a Likert scale, rating format, or open-ended
questions
Some of the disadvantages (Survey Audience, 2005):
• random participants that do not fit the target group might respond
• if the survey is long there could be lower completion rates
• some respondents may not be familiar with navigating the survey in an online medium
21
• responses or results may not necessarily be generalized to the experiences of all
doctoral students in the dissertation stage, recent PhD alumni, or ABD/DCs that left
their programs because recruitment may not have been comprehensive
Survey questions were created to locate factors or sets of factors that enable or inhibit
dissertation completion and which might appear most frequently with each other.
Participants may request results from the study by emailing the researcher. Results will
be sent after the data has been analyzed and written up in the results section of the dissertation.
Analysis of data. Descriptive statistics were employed on background and key variables
in the study for the three groups of participants. The data were compared using correlation
analysis. The open-ended questions of what helped most or made completing a dissertation
difficult were coded with a numbering system to keep a participant’s identity confidential. The
responses were categorized according to those given in Table 1 and by comment. For example,
responses for what helped most could include an adviser/dissertation chair that responded
quickly to questions (institutional structural-adviser) or having support from spouse/significant
other (personal environmental). Open-ended responses will be compared to survey questionnaire
responses to show relationships if any.
Delimitations.
The researcher implemented certain delimitations in this study. A date-range was created
for participant groups 2 and 3: PhD graduates/dissertation completers and ABD/DCs who
stopped-out, dropped out, or withdrew from doctoral studies (early withdrawal) from 2009 to
2014 could participate no matter how long they were in a program as long as they graduated or
left after 2009. No limitations were placed on the first group of participants who are current
22
ABD/DCs that have completed all candidate requirements and are in the dissertation research
and writing process.
Organization of the remaining dissertation chapters.
Thus far in Chapter 1, statement of the problem, the rationale and importance of the study
were presented as well as a brief overview of previous studies and their limitations. A brief
discussion of the literature review, methods, and delimitations was also given.
In Chapter 2, a comprehensive review of literature was conducted beginning with the
origins of the dissertation in the United States (US) and topics that researchers have explored
regarding what enables or inhibits completion of the dissertation/PhD. These topics include
attrition, retention, intent to persist, persistence, persistence to degree, time to degree,
dissertation or PhD completion/non-completion. Factors found in these studies that enable or
inhibit dissertation completion are thoroughly explored to assess factors found and to employ
recommendations for future studies in this study.
Chapter 3 details the methodology employed in this study, which includes a description
of the participant sample needed, how they w were recruited from five social networking sites
(LinkedIn, Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter, and Yahoo groups), why an online survey site (Qualtrics)
was employed to gather data, and the methods that was used to analyze the data.
Chapter 4 presents study findings from the quantitative analysis of the survey questions
and qualitative analysis of two open-ended questions about what was/has been the most helpful
or difficult in completing their dissertation.
Chapter 5 will summarize and draw conclusions based on study findings. Also presented
in this chapter are study limitations and recommendations for future studies.
23
Following Chapter 5, are this dissertation’s reference section and all appendices relevant
to this study such as the master list of definitions used, a copy of the survey instrument, the
participant consent form and recruitment statements, and a few sections of works that bear on the
relevance of literature employed in this study.
24
CHAPTER 2
Review of Literature
Some view the dissertation phase in doctoral studies as the final step in the enculturation
process into academia (Lundell, 1999) and that it has become established as a “symbol of
academic accomplishment and respectability on the university campus” (Malone, 1981, p. 12). If
published it can increase an adviser’s or program’s reputation (Good, 2002) and historically, a
PhD was viewed as a college professor’s “union card” (Malone, 1981, p. 12). Dissertation/PhD
completion also shows that all but dissertation (ABD) students/doctoral candidates (DCs) have
received training needed to complete a dissertation/PhD such as content knowledge and past
literature relating to the project, analytic writing and original research skills, show the ability to
interpret, synthesize, and analyze results fully and coherently, and present results in a sequential
and logical manner (Council of Graduate Schools [CGS], 2008a; Lundell, 1999; Nerad & Miller,
1997, p. 76). Per past scholarship, the dissertation has been viewed as academia’s sacred cow,
that it must contribute to the student’s field, and to some the “. . . process should be a long, ego-
threatening, gut wrenching experience. . .” (Good, 2002, p. 6). This is emphasized when students
say the acronym ABD means “all but death” or “all but dead” (Leatherman, 2000), while some
associate words or phrases with the process such as “‘. . . fear, agony, torture, guilt, no end in
sight, indefinitely postponed gratification, ruining my life, I am drowning in it, anxiety,
boredom, hate, despair, depression, humiliation, powerlessness’” (Warren, 1984, p. 1), while
some say the process is one of “. . . frustration, loneliness, self-doubt, and anxiety” (Good, 2002,
p. 7).
Because of the positive and negative aspects of the dissertation process and PhD
completion, a thorough review of literature was needed to gather factors found in previous
25
studies on what enables or inhibits dissertation completion. In order to understand how the PhD
became the apex of academic studies and the dissertation as the rite of passage into academia a
short background of the origin of the PhD and dissertation in the United States (US) is given.
Evolution of doctoral degrees and the dissertation
The German influence. During the 19th century, German scholars influenced by logical
positivism became interested in “. . . producing new knowledge [replacing the] often circular
formal dialectical argumentation so central to the Medieval universities” (Barton, 2005, p. 48).
The observational model was a way to gather new data and add to the body of existing
knowledge. Students at the doctoral level were asked to “explore knowledge for its own sake”
(Goodchild & Miller, 1997, p. 19) and encouraged to use new objective research through the
labor-intensive work of conducting experiments or studies and discovering new knowledge to
contribute to their fields. They wrote about their research using a model of a dissertation that
included chapters for “. . . ‘Methodology,’ ‘Results/Findings,’ and ‘Analysis and Interpretation
of the Findings’” (Barton, 2005, p. 48). Written dissertations became a requirement for German
students just before the beginning of the 19th century (Barton, 2005; Malone, 1981) and the raw
research material generated created a demand for more studies that ultimately led to other
European and some Western universities to employ it. Because a doctoral degree was still in the
developmental stage in the US, individuals seeking a Ph.D. (PhD) went to Europe and most often
chose German universities (Malone, 1981, p. 12; Thurgood, Golladay, & Hill, 2006. p. 3).
The Yale influence. In 1814, Yale University led the way in graduate studies programs in
the US. Yale offered courses to students who had completed the baccalaureate, but it took until
1847 to create a post-baccalaureate Scientific School offering “. . . liberal arts and science
courses in ‘chemistry, mineralogy, geology, botany, mathematics, physics, meteorology, and
26
astronomy’” (Goodchild & Miller, 1997, p. 20). There was interest by others to create graduate
institutions; Thomas Jefferson and Charles Fenton Mercer (in 1825) wanted to create a “new
university” in the US that was comparable to European models and included separate
departmental studies, a concept borrowed from Scottish “separate schools” (Goodchild & Miller,
1997).
Yale moved ahead to create graduate studies and a doctor of philosophy degree with the
help of one of its bachelor’s degree students, Daniel Coit Gilman. After graduation (1852)
Gilman went to Europe to attend seminars and lectures at European and German colleges. He
created a plan for US colleges and universities (C&Us) in accordance with PhDs at German
universities (Barton, 2005; Goodchild & Miller, 1997, p. 20). However, he departed from an
exact German model because he felt the conditions in America should be taken into account; the
US was growing agriculturally, building industry, developing in science areas, assessing social
conditions of growth, and so on. In 1856, Gilman proposed a plan to reorganize Yale’s School of
Science that included a doctor of philosophy degree.
In 1860, John A. Porter, dean of the Sheffield School of Science at Yale, would take
Gilman’s idea a step further by petitioning administrators to offer doctoral degrees similar to
German institutions; he proposed two years of graduate study, that students pass examinations in
their area of study, be proficient in languages (Latin, Greek, French, or German), “and complete
a thesis. . . [that included] an original or physical investigation” (Goodchild & Miller, 1997, p.
20) that had to be approved by faculty. Later in 1860, Yale faculty created “the conditions for the
new Doctor of Philosophy degree. . . one year residency, comprehensive examinations, foreign
language proficiency, and a dissertation which made a contribution to new knowledge” (Bair,
1999, p. 10). One year later in 1861, Yale awarded the first three American doctorates/PhDs
27
(Malone, 1981; Thurgood, Golladay, & Hill, 2006). By 1876, twenty-five other colleges
followed Yale’s lead and from 1870-1889 Harvard, Columbia, Pennsylvania, Princeton, and
Brown adopted doctoral studies at their institutions (Bair, 1999). The first dissertation submitted
at Yale (1882) was from the history department meeting doctoral qualifications even though
previous doctorates were awarded without a formal dissertation (Yale University, 2007).
The Johns Hopkins University (JHU) influence. Gilman moved on to JHU in 1874 and
became their president, he worked to create an institution similar to Yale and the German schools
(Goodchild & Miller, 1997). JHU took the lead in developing a PhD by ensuring quality and
structure of the degree, formalizing attainment requirements, and organizing graduate studies
“into separate schools” (Bair, 1999, p. 10; Malone, 1981, p. 11). The JHU faculty and
administration changed dissertation requirements at different times and increased years of study
from two years to three (in 1881). In order to enhance the prestige of both the student and JHU
students were required to print out 150 copies of their dissertation to send to other C&U libraries
(Goodchild & Miller, 1997) and to share knowledge with professionals and colleagues.
The JHU model for the dissertation became a standard for other C&Us setting the tone
for quality, rigor, methodology, and level of research expected (Malone, 1981). By 1902, JHU
was recognized by the nation’s foremost educators as a leader in the university research
movement, granting their first PhD in 1873. Other colleges awarding PhDs were Harvard in 1873
and the University of Michigan in 1876. It took until 1907 before women could attain doctorates
at JHU, who lagged behind the University of Chicago, Yale, and Clark universities who already
had women in their doctoral programs (Goodchild & Miller, 1997).
Progression of the doctorate. In American C&Us quality advanced and many students
gained an opportunity “to enter the academic profession” (Goodchild & Miller, 1997, p. 18). The
28
Association of American Universities (AAU) worked to standardize the doctorate’s quality from
1900-1937 and from 1938-1957 regional accrediting entities granted permission for many C&Us
to offer doctorates. In 1958, federal funding helped create a steady increase in doctorates
awarded with funding attached to US priorities in the areas of science, health, and national
defense.
The review of literature that follows shows the institutional, adviser, and personal student
factors that could enable or inhibit dissertation/PhD completion. Material reviewed comes from a
number of studies in attrition, retention/non-retention, persistence/non-persistence/intent to
persist, dissertation completion/non-completion, and time to degree.
Research on and the prevalence of attrition.
Doctoral-level attrition was described as a problem in Edward’s (1944) study (as cited in
Bair, 1999). Edwards explained that there was a 16%-78% range in attrition “across a number of
colleges and universities” (Bair, 1999, p. 11). In order to pin down more exact percentages,
researchers began to consider factors such as race, ethnicity, age, gender, children, families,
paying for or obtaining loans for school, outside employment, and disciplines, departments, and
institutions (Bair, 1999). Since that time, a number of studies have been conducted on attrition,
retention, intent to persist, persistence, persistence to degree, time to degree, dissertation
completion/non-completion, and degree or PhD completion/non-completion. Studies are
currently ongoing and conducted by government education and funding agencies, independent
organizations, individual C&Us, and individual scholars.
Bair (1999) examined the results from 118 studies conducted over a period of 28 years
(1970 – 1998) to identify patterns in the previous research creating distinctions to account for
contradictory findings in any of the studies. Bair’s (1999) meta analysis of the research showed
29
that there were many factors related to persistence and attrition from institutional, adviser, or
personal perspectives. From all of the studies reviewed for this study no single factor emerged as
a primary reason for attrition, retention, or persistence (Gardner, 2008, p. 97). Factors intersect at
points such as funding and family responsibilities, or funding and lack of mentoring, or a lack of
mentoring and family issues. Funding could be student loans, employment, or institutional means
such as grants or scholarships. Intersection of factors has also been researched such as a student’s
personal issues (lack of academic writing and research skills) and an institutional issue (few
scholarships or funding opportunities).
Yeager (2008) explains that categorizing student status could distort attrition numbers.
For example, status in American models treats all students admitted to a program a “doctoral
student” while the German model of education does not consider a student a “doctoral student”
until all work is completed except the dissertation.
Another perspective to consider when attempting to locate attrition or persistence factors
is how schools track attrition. First, enrollment is monitored more readily than students who
leave their programs. Second, many students do not start their programs in a cohort which makes
their departure less noticeable than if they were in a group cohort. Yeager (2008) cites Lovitts’
(2001) estimation that if a department does not track students who have registered, “graduate
students can virtually disappear” (p. 9). Yeager (2008) and Donoghue (2010) also mention that
some students that leave their program temporarily and return at a later date [stop out] were
grouped with students that left their program permanently. Moreover, the year of doctoral study
students leave their program is important because first year doctoral students account for one-
third of all “drop out” numbers (Golde, 1996 as cited in Barnett, 2008, p. 77), 31% of doctoral
students left their studies within the first three years, and 11% after reaching candidacy (Nerad &
30
Miller, 1997, p. 78). Study results on attrition by year or stage a doctoral student departs can vary
or not be included in otherwise comprehensive studies. For example, Bair (1999) explains that
Harmon (1978) collected data from the beginning of doctoral education to create a statistical
study in many areas of graduate education but did not include outcome data and had little or no
discussion about the stages of attrition.
More than half of the doctoral students entering a program finish and once students reach
ABD/DC status, they are 80% more likely to graduate (Leatherman, 2000, para. 8; Yeager,
2008). Yeager (2008) cited Bowen and Rudenstein (1992) who found that 30-36% pre-
ABD/DCs left their programs and after a student attained ABD/DC status, the numbers were
only 15-25%. Tinto (1987, 1993) explains that assessing graduate level attrition may be difficult
because there is no comprehensive model or theory to create methodologies to study persistence
that could limit attrition (as cited in Bair, 1999, p. 4).
Disciplines susceptible to attrition. Attrition rates vary among disciplines averaging a
combined 57% (Gardner 2008, p. 97). Professional programs in business, law, and medical
schools showed higher completion rates than the humanities and social sciences whose attrition
rate rose after students reached candidacy (Allan & Dory, 2001). Natural science has shown the
lowest rates of attrition, because students in the sciences are assigned to a lab, and work closely
with certain faculty who establish working relationships with students who benefit from the
collaboration and mentoring relationships (Leatherman, 2000). Depending on whether past
studies assessed attrition, completion, or persistence, overall, the humanities and social sciences
had higher attrition rates with humanities having the highest (Bair, 1999; Gravois, 2007b; Nerad
& Miller, 1997). The Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) and the University of California,
Berkeley (UCB) have studied the nature and role of the dissertation in social sciences and
31
humanities, and explored ways to assist and support students by creating policies and practices
related to PhD program research components (Nerad & Miller, 1997, p. 77). Practices range from
workshops to promoting adviser/committee member interaction and feedback. The efforts made
by UCB improved completion rates by 11% (Nerad & Miller, 1997, p. 89) showing that
interventions do benefit students in the humanities and social sciences.
Time to degree completion/doctorate. Race, ethnicity, gender, and culture, and
enculturation/socialization were found to have an influence on time to degree.
While 23 percent of White or Asian-American students who earned doctorates within 10
years did so after the seventh year, 27 percent of black students and 36 percent of
Hispanic students who earned doctorates within that time period took more than seven
years to do so. (Schmidt, 2008, para. 6)
In life sciences, sixty percent of black students kept pace with White students to finish
within 10 years. However, they did not finish within 10 years in physical sciences, mathematics,
or engineering as did their peers from Asian American, White, and Hispanic-American groups
(Schmidt, 2008, para. 13). Princeton University’s Graduate School dean, William B. Russel,
commented that being academically and culturally unprepared are factors for doctoral minority
students (Schmidt, 2008, para. 7), which could be addressed by enculturating/socializing students
in graduate, disciplinary, or departmental culture (Gardner, 2010; Lundell, 1999; Pride, 2005;
Sowell, 2008; Vilkinas, 2008). Enculturation/socialization is addressed in a later section of this
review of literature. In general, time to degree completion is longer in the humanities than any
other discipline (Gravois, 2007b, para. 10).
Gender was found to be a factor in study results as well. First, some researchers claim
role-conflicts (Germeroth, 1991 as cited in Green, 1997) or the “complicated psychological
32
experience” (Hobish, 1978 as cited in Green, 1997) of the dissertation process is more difficult
for women (p. 58). Robole (2003) surmised that there could be differences in obligations or
responsibilities in the home lives of women, or that emotions could vary by gender, which also
adds to the list of stressors (p. 165). However, women’s willingness “. . . to stay in such
programs for as long as it takes them to earn their degrees” (Schmidt, 2008, para. 4) helps them
persist even though they might be balancing home life and family. In other studies, women that
had supportive meaningful relationships helped them regain focus and energy, which affected
writing and more importantly, their self-esteem (Pride, 2005, p. 158). Results from other studies
corroborate results from CGS, NSF, and other researchers that “. . . women leave at a higher rate
than men, racial minorities [leave] in greater numbers than Whites, and humanities students more
often than those in the natural sciences” (Cardozo, 2006, p. 140).
A variety of factors can lessen time to degree such as “. . . making the dissertation a top
priority, conducting a laboratory or analogue study as opposed to a treatment study, and living
close to the university” (Muszynski & Akamatsu, 1991, p. 122).
Public versus private C&Us. Tucker et al. (1964 as cited in Bair, 1999) found a non-
completion rate of 38.1% for doctoral students in traditional science and arts, and that public
institutions (54%) had higher rates of non-completion than private institutions (23%) (Bair, 1999,
p. 17). In 1970, Heiss reported findings from a nationwide study interviews with 3,400 doctoral
students, 1,600 faculty, and 160 department heads and graduate deans in “twelve arts and
sciences fields at 190 top-ranked universities” (as cited in Bair, 1999, p. 15). CGS (2008a) study
results were similar to Heiss’ results from 1964, that attrition is lower at private and top-ranked
C&Us (30%) than public and other institutions (50%) (Bair, 1999, p. 15). Rates at public and
private institutions can vary by race/ethnicity. Asian-American doctoral students at private
33
universities were three percentage points likelier than their White counterparts to finish, while
White doctoral students at public universities were seven percentage points more likely to earn
PhDs than their Asian-American counterparts (Schmidt, 2008, para. 15). However, it is
interesting to note that “Americans drop out more often than international students” (Smallwood,
2004, para. 17).
Public institutions had the highest rates of attrition in Mathematics & Physical Sciences
followed by Engineering in years 2-6 and in the Humanities in years 7-10 with Social Sciences in
second place in year 1 (CGS, 2008b). Private institutions followed a slightly different pattern for
highest rates over the ten-year period with Engineering having the highest attrition rates in years
2-7 and taking the second highest rates in years 1, 8, 9, and 10. The Life Sciences discipline
placed second highest in years 3, 4, 5, and 6 (CGS, 2008b). Humanities had the second highest
rates of attrition in year 2 and 3. From CGS data, when total rates of attrition in all disciplines
were compared between public and private schools, in years 1-10 public schools had the highest
percentage; however during the same 10-year term, private institution rates crept incrementally
higher narrowing the gap with public schools. Thus, results from studies reviewed, attrition by
institution type has been varied over the course of the past 40-plus years.
CGS study (2008a). The CGS study conducted at participating institutions was on student
retention and attrition patterns, to locate possible practices that abate attrition, and to tailor
interventions for different programs, departments, and disciplines (Sowell, 2007). The study was
longitudinal lasting 10 years and specific forms/surveys were created for institutions to fill out to
gather information. Cohorts were tracked, students were from different disciplines, and
demographic data was gathered such as males and females, international and domestic students,
and ethnicity (Sowell, 2008). In addition, each institution conducted or gathered “. . . student exit
34
surveys, pre-project factor assessment data (for the institution and each participating program)”
(Sowell, 2008, p. 21). The percent of participation tracked by discipline was engineering – 19%,
life sciences – 12%, math – 31%, social sciences – 21%, and humanities – 17% (Sowell, 2008, p.
4). Graph 1, taken directly from CGS’s web site data shows that during the ten-year study,
overall attrition rates grew incrementally over the years.
Graph 1. Ten Year Attrition (Overall) (Sowell, 2008, p. 17).
CGS suggested interventions for institutions based on questionnaires and information
gathered from students during the study term.
Categories of New Interventions
▪ Selection/Matching
▪ Mentoring and Advising
▪ Financial Support and Structure
▪ Program Environments
▪ Research Experiences
35
▪ Curricular and Administrative Processes and Procedures. (Sowell, 2008, p. 22)
Institutions and attrition. C&Us know that attrition is costly (Gardner, 2010; Terrell, et
al., 2009) as shown in the following examples. C&Us could experience financial loses in federal
and state funding, meeting accreditation requirements, and loss of reputation (Allen & Dory,
2001; Goodchild & Miller, 1997). In addition, C&Us could incur high internal costs such as
sponsoring students or awarding fellowships to avert attrition, paying compensation to faculty
who carry heavy teaching and advising loads, and for staff needed to manage C&U academic
student services (Gardner, 2008, p. 97). An associate dean at the University of Notre Dame
Graduate School calculated that the university could save about $1 million “a year in stipends
alone if attrition went down by 10 percent, because programs would not over-enroll students to
compensate for attrition” (Smallwood, 2004, para. 12). Faculty or advisers spend time and effort
to help students, but when some students leave, their time could have been shared or given to
students who are persisting (Gardner, 2010). Moreover, unfavorable attrition rates could be a
sign that services such as mentoring, training in research or writing are insufficient or lacking
(Allen & Dory, 2001), which in turn could affect student recruitment or accreditation
requirements.
Non-completion rates could affect C&U ranking, reputation, standing, recruitment of
high caliber students and faculty, or in attracting alumni participation such as volunteering,
mentoring, or other contributions (Green, 1997; Katz, 2007, p. 6; Lee, 2003, p. 8). Moreover,
non-completion has far-reaching social effects because there are fewer professionals and
scientists that contribute to social needs and productivity (Varney, 2003, pp. 1-2). Losses for
students come from lost tuition paid, book and materials costs, time spent on their studies, and
internal personal “costs” such as feelings of inadequacy or lack of academic competency. A
36
measure of an institution’s success includes having a high percentage of students that complete
doctoral degree requirements (Allan & Dory, 2001, p. 2) that can also enhance grant funding
opportunities, and a C&U’s image (Lee, 2003, p. 8).
Limitations of previous studies. Some of the studies reviewed had participant samples
that were small, or from one institution, certain departments, or disciplines. In addition, study
topics differed such as attrition, persistence, the state or structure of doctoral education,
institutional issues or advising, or student reasons for non-completion/attrition. Examples of
some of the limitations of previous studies are given in Table 7.
Table 7. Limitations of Previous Studies
Small sample; 1 private institution; cannot
be generalized, for “minority” students or
other kinds of schools (Cheeks, 2007, p. 72)
1 college and 1 department; student
perceptions only, 1 question on survey may
have been ambiguous (Lee, 2003)
Almost all participants had “significant
problems with advisors, dissertation chairs,
or other committee members” (Pride, 2005,
p. 163). Qualitative study; small group of
females in counseling psychology; self-
reports based on “retrospective memory”
not corroborated.
154 doctoral graduates from 1988-1993 to
determine patterns in student and university
relationships and programs; 111 ABD
students that did not finish their dissertation
(Kluever, 1997)
11 participants, female non-traditional age; 5
large state college, 6 private C&U (Lenz,
1997, p. 67-68)
27 doctoral students from an “Interactive
Qualitative Analysis” course for education
students (22 females, 5 males (Robole,
2003, p. 54)
8 social science students, strictly qualitative
(Tanzer, 2001)
Eight participants (Pride, 2005, p. 171)
8 students and 5 faculty, study was at one
university (Lin, 2003)
52 psychology undergraduates, Italy
(Boscolo, Arfe, & Quarisa, 2007)
11 in sample all from 5 humanities
departments (Lundell, 1999, p. 218)
8 students that experienced writer’s block
(Cohen, 1998, p. 49)
1 adviser and 1 student in a study of adviser
feedback (Kumar & Stracke, 2007)
37
The institution: enabling PhD completion and inhibiting attrition.
C&U recruitment, admissions policies, expectations, and fit. Studies assert that
admissions and recruitment policies are part of the blame for some student non-completion. In
some cases, meeting enrollment numbers are more important than giving students an honest
overview of program requirements, outcomes, or how they meet student expectations.
Institutions, degree programs, departments, and faculty should provide information to
prospective students that clearly state requirements and implicit or explicit expectations
(Ehrenberg et al., 2007, p. 145; Gardner, 2007, 2010; Protivnak & Foss, 2009; Tanzer, 2001).
Prospective students may not know the politics or policies at C&Us such as that departmental
practices, degree requirements, curriculum, financial support, and admissions are controlled “by
the department or program” (Golde, 2005, p. 671) and disciplinary norms, forms, practices,
cultural assumptions, and disciplinary research and scholarship are controlled by the discipline
(Golde, 2005).
Explicitly stating requirements and what students can expect could help in recruiting
students, help them develop realistic expectations (Cooke, Sims, & Peyrefitte, 1995), and give
them a sense of satisfaction (Tanzer, 2001). Unmet student expectations or lack of “fit” with
institutional expectations, leads to dissatisfaction, which is linked to attrition (Bair, 1999, p. 17).
Institutional fit was an issue for some students who did not persist (Lundell, 1999; Smallwood,
2004). Tinto (1993 as cited in Rovai, Wighting, & Liu, 2005) asserts that “According to student
institution fit theory, the congruence between student goals and school mission is mediated by
academic and social components” (para. 41). Clarifying institutional, disciplinary, or
departmental expectations means defining the purpose and goals of degree programs and course
of study so students have them clearly explained so everyone’s expectations are known and
38
understood (Bair, 1999, p. 17; Tanzer, 2001). Students could check if their expectations are
unrealistic or if they will be met as well as clarifying their or the C&U’s expectations and ask
questions if needed.
Additionally, students should have access to information about time to degree, access to
attrition statistics (Cardozo, 2006), the amount and academic level of work required, costs, and
how their education translates to their profession (Bair, 1999, p. 17; Cooke et al., 1995; Tanzer,
2001). According to a dean at Duke University, “informing students rather than selling your
program” (Smallwood, 2004, para. 25) is best for all involved because it gives clarity to what the
school has to offer them. Students can access information from C&U web sites (department,
program, and discipline), brochures, student handbooks, interviews during campus visits,
meetings with faculty or departments during recruitment, or orientation interviews (Gardner,
2007, p. 737; Lundell & Beach, 2003, p. 496; Tanzer, 2001). Some suggestions have been made
to modify admissions processes Gravois (2007a) with some changes currently being assessed to
see if there has been any improvement (para. 11).
Institutional data gathering. Many authors suggest that gathering data on students can
help C&Us limit attrition, non-retention, or non-completion. Chris M. Golde (2005) a senior
scholar at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, is one of the nation’s
foremost researchers on graduate-school attrition, and recommends that departments find a way
to gather data and present it to C&U departments or individuals to confront the problem
(Smallwood, 2004, para. 19). Bair (1999) specifically pointed to reasons such as data collection
not being systematic within programs, graduate schools, or records offices. Most C&Us conduct
exit surveys of students who finish their doctorate, but this is not always the case when a student
drops or stops out or discontinues studies. Accessing records on students who leave is arduous at
39
times because it involves different C&U entities such as departments or programs, deans, staff,
faculty, advisers, or other ways to locate specific information. Because most students that leave
are “under the radar” or have “fallen between the cracks” it is difficult to follow-up or locate
them to find out why they left especially if their contact information was not up to date (Bair,
1999, p. 3).
Hierarchy marginalization. Within academia the systems, faculty/professors, and
graduate students are situated in a hierarchy where students are at the bottom or from an
oppressed group that lacks the wherewithal to challenge the system or hierarchy. Some groups
among the marginalized/oppressed are females, older individuals, gays and lesbians, and people
of color (Yeager, 2008, p. 50). Marginalization and oppression may not be perpetuated by every
C&U, but it could exist among faculty, advisers, or departments. Another issue mentioned was
that a faculty/adviser-student hierarchy existed where some advisers or mentors abused power by
having students work in non-paid or unfunded positions (Lin, 2003). Although students learn
from filling positions on research projects or as teaching assistants (TAs), they need time and
energy to conduct their dissertation research and writing chapters, to work in paid positions, or
assistantships.
Institutional services. C&Us can limit ABD/DC attrition though a range of academic
support services to students such as libraries, writing centers, writing workshops or courses, peer
support, academic adviser(s), alumni support, department staff, and so on. Part of student
services include technology such as computers, printers, and software needed to complete a
dissertation (word processing, presentations, graphics, spreadsheets, statistics) (Vilkinas, 2008, p.
298).
40
Preparing students for dissertation research and writing could enable persistence. Yeager
(2008) proposed a course titled “Managing Your Dissertation” that included a syllabus walking
students through the dissertation from beginning to end (p. 195). Courses could be taken for
credit so students could “present their work in relevant graduate classes; candidates completing
their degrees could invite students at earlier stages to attend their defenses” (Cardozo, 2006, p.
147) to learn what is expected of them.
Allan and Dory (2001) suggest C&Us could find ways to “. . . carefully match students
and advisers according to interests and personalities, or institute workshops or luncheons to
overcome feelings of isolation” (p. 17). Students could rate workshop quality, format,
thoroughness, or relevance to the process or make suggestions about content for future
workshops (Boscolo et al., 2007). Kluever (1997) found that students gave high ratings to
seminars explaining how to undertake the dissertation and understanding C&U dissertation
guidelines (p. 52). In one study, students were invited to be volunteers to improve the quality of
their dissertations “. . . which in most cases consists of a written synthesis and argumentative
elaboration of literature on a topic” (Boscolo et al., 2007, p. 424). When students have help such
as this, it could enable dissertation completion.
Increasing dissertation completion includes training and practice in research methods.
Sternberg’s 1981 study cited student testimonials explaining that inadequate training in research
was a factor that made the dissertation process more difficult (as cited in Good, 2002, p. 9).
Green (1997) suggested that small groups of graduate students be required to work on a research
project for one to two years and take responsibility for their part of the project. Faculty assigned
to each group could oversee the project and uphold accountability. Working individually and
with faculty could build persistence and a degree of comfort with research, gain “positive
41
research habits” (Green, 1997, p. 64), and possibly cultivate a network of support with other
students or faculty as students enter the dissertation process. In addition, working in a research
group could give students a feeling of control and independence (Green, 2007), which can result
in building self-efficacy and establishing locus of control.
In addition to writing and research help, sample “successful dissertations” should be
available for students in graduate lounges or on the department web site besides being housed in
their C&U libraries that could help writing dissertation sections or chapters (Cardozo, 2006).
Another way students get support is through attending boot camps or finding personal coaches
(Leatherman, 2000, para. 6). In order to improve completion rates, students should be
encouraged to complete their dissertations early (Ehrenberg et al., 2007, p. 145).
The list below details some of the items doctoral/ABD students found helpful in
persisting/completion in the studies reviewed:
provide training in research, methodology, guidelines, program, or department
requirements (Allan & Dory, 2001; Cohen, 1998; Good, 2002; Harsch, 2008; Lenz,
1997).
courses, workshops, or programs designed for dissertation researchers and writers in
research, writing, their topic area, referencing and citation help, how to use statistical
software and analyze results (Boscolo et al., 2007; Robole, 2003, p. 164).
Financial factors. Bernard Berelson (1960, as cited in Gardner, 2009) conducted a study
of administrators and faculty in the late 1950s who said they thought financial resources had a lot
to do with students leaving; graduate deans believed that 69% of attrition was due to lack of
financial resources (Berelson 1960, as cited in Bair, 1999, p. 13). Studies by some researchers
show that financial resources could affect a student’s decision to leave or persist. Cheeks (2007)
42
found that the “inability to meet finances” was an issue for non-completers and that 44% of her
study participants claimed that inability to meet expenses “very much” influenced their decision
to leave studies. Seventy percent said financial hardship was “. . . very much or somewhat . . . a
reason for leaving” (Cheeks, 2007, p. 61). In the CGS Ph.D. Completion Project a larger
longitudinal study, exit surveys of recent PhD completers revealed that 80% of them felt
financial support was instrumental in completing their PhD (Gravois, 2007a, para. 17). Some
students must work at least one job to pay personal expenses and college costs that can delay
completion (Harsch, 2008, p. 4) so financial issues are an important factor in persistence.
Institutions that offer internships or assistantships give ABD/DCs opportunities to earn
money for personal or C&U costs (Robole, 2003, p. 164). Chances that students will complete
their degree are improved with a teaching assistantship but even more so with a research
assistantship (Smallwood, 2004, para. 32). Research or teaching assistantships create ways for
graduate students to interact with each other and departmental faculty while conducting
professional tasks that help them become part of the graduate student “subculture” (Smallwood,
2004, para. 34). However, C&Us should be careful about putting pressure on graduate students
to teach or fulfill internships, which can slow down degree completion (Yeager, 2008, p. 50).
Barbara Lovitts a noted attrition researcher claims that there is no assurance of higher completion
rates based on money such as fellowships (as cited in Smallwood, 2004, para. 33), whereas
Nerad and Miller (1997) found that students in the humanities (45%) and social sciences (25%)
depended on assistantships (p. 78). Financial factors could inhibit persistence when students need
money to pay for school or personal expenses.
Institutional policies and interventions. In response to Varney’s (2003) problem
statement “Are there components universities can build into their doctoral programs to facilitate
43
dissertation progress, ultimately enhancing the writing and completing of doctoral dissertations
and programs?” (p. 2) the answer is yes because assessments show that some components are
having positive affects on dissertation progress. Some components or policies in place are
creating a cohort system for students entering programs (Cardozo, 2006), creating mentoring
opportunities, revising adviser selection or student-adviser matching, and fostering policies that
improve the environment or procedures of programs, departments, or administrative areas
(Sowell, 2008, p. 5). After reviewing study results and listening to student reasons for
completion or non-completion, many institutions have implemented and begun monitoring
“. . . new interventions aimed at improving completion and reducing attrition” (Sowell, 2008, p.
21). The way students are oriented to the institution, department, and discipline, is being assessed
as well as areas such as student housing, financial issues, and student-parent needs well
(Cardozo, 2006). Thus, many institutions are being proactive to try to prevent attrition by
responding to student needs and empirical research findings.
Some institutions are responding to personal student needs by creating “family friendly”
policies such as revising time limits for completion so males and females can take a parental
leave of absence. Princeton University offers “three months of paid leave from research and
teaching to new birth mothers. . . . need-based child-care grants, subsidized back-up care, and
care-related travel funds” (Millman, 2007, paras. 3, 4). Princeton also leads the way by offering a
mortgage program to help new or adoptive parents buy a home at lower costs as well as being
“eligible for free counseling on how best to navigate work-life collisions and take advantage of
the benefits the university offers” (Millman, 2007, para 4). In addition to helping students persist,
Princeton hopes their efforts will help more women enter fields and pursue careers in higher
education. With Princeton leading the way, Stanford University, UC Berkeley, and
44
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) are among C&Us that are creating policies to limit
attrition among female doctoral students and “make research careers more appealing to women”
(Millman, 2007, para. 10).
Creating peer interaction opportunities. Peer support or social interaction is important to
student success (Allan & Dory, 2001; Cardozo, 2006; Cohen, 1998; Good, 2002; Lenz, 1997;
Robole, 2003). Peers that know about the dissertation process, the graduate, departmental, or
disciplinary culture could help others who are transitioning to the dissertation process or at a
state in the process. Students further along in the process know about some of the frustrations
associated with research or writing, or with advisers, the department, or the institution (Gardner,
2010; Lovitts, 2008). Gardner’s (2010) participants said that other students in their program
provided the primary source of support. Interacting with peers gives ABD/DCs someone they
can share their progress with, their ideas and concerns, gives them a sounding board, or a way to
“blow off steam” (Leatherman, 2000). A student in one study commented “We all got to know
each other. We formed kind of a network of relationships that we could kind of come to each
other when we were having troubles” (p. 70). Another study confirmed that a lack of connection
to peers or informal networks to share, discuss, or clarify information contributed to students
discontinuing their studies (Protivnak & Foss, 2009, p. 240).
Students benefited from “connecting” with peers (Harsch, 2008) via groups created by
students, faculty, advisers, the department, or the institution (Baker & Pifer, 2011). Institutions
could foster peer interaction through institution or department gatherings, peer or subject area
group meetings (Cheeks, 2007; Cooke et al., 1995), or guest lectures (Barnett, 2008). Baker and
Pifer (2011) and Yeager (2008) explain there are formal forms of scheduled meetings between
students and professors/advisers such as seminars or workshops that help students through part
45
of the transition to the dissertation process or in specific areas related to writing conventions,
referencing, or statistics. Involving students in formal support groups not only creates a sense of
community but it also fosters faculty-student research (Lenz, 1997, p. 74). Students that get
assistance from or collaborate with peers or knowledgeable faculty helps them gain acceptance
into a community and develop into core practitioners (Kiley, 2009, p. 301).
In addition, informal meetings such as planned social activities can help students
(Cheeks, 2007; Golde, 2005) that want advice, discuss their topic, and see there are other
students who may be experiencing similar issues. In subsequent meetings, they can report their
progress or mini-goals they have reached, which ultimately helps establish accountability to
themselves and their peers.
A few more suggestions where institutions can help are (a) forming cohorts based on
“similar interests and research agendas” (Terrell et al., 2009. p. 115); (b) asking peers who have
completed parts of the dissertation process to serve as mentors; and (c) using technology to
connect with faculty or peers such as using student portals or “. . . online workshops. . . email,
discussion forums, blogs, wikis, social networking, and voice-over-Internet protocol [VoIP])” (p.
115). Moreover, these mediums could help ABD/DCs start their own groups, stay in touch with
faculty/advisers, with each other, or find dissertation support groups (Leatherman, 2000, para.
38).
Ways institutions can help students persist.
Socialization and the dissertation process. “Socialization is the process through which an
individual learns to adopt the values, skills, attitudes, norms, and knowledge needed for
membership in a given society, group, or organization” (Gardner, 2008, p. 126).
Socialization/enculturation is important to graduate students so they can learn the norms, values,
46
and beliefs created within graduate, disciplinary, and departmental cultures (Cardozo, 2006;
Golde, 2005; Lovitts, 2008). Socialization is important because the culture of student’s discipline
and graduate education are part of “the larger cultural context in which graduate students live
and work” (Lovitts, 2008, p. 315).
A few examples have been given addressing the process, how, or when socialization
takes place including Gardner’s (2007; 2008) three-phase model of the “developmental nature of
the socialization process” (Gardner, 2010, p. 63-65) created from her empirical research. She
gives the stages students move through beginning when they enter their program through to
degree completion and the level of socialization needed to progress through the phases. One
important point to mention here is that she addressed issues that were not included in previous
models. Gardner’s (2010) model includes a student’s “personal identity development” (p. 64) by
giving the “structure and focus to the multiple events and relationships that occur during the
doctoral program thereby facilitating a better understanding of the student’s experience at
particular turning points” (p. 64). Gardner’s (2010) model accounts for a student’s
developmental and personal experiences as well as “a tool for structuring the programmatic
aspects of the student’s experience” (p. 64). Table 8 shows a few points in the three phases of
“developmental nature of the socialization process” (Gardner, 2010, p. 63).
47
Table 8. Phases, Stages, or Levels in Doctoral Studies and the “developmental nature of the
socialization process” (Gardner, 2010, p. 63-65)
Phase 1: “. . . first phase as the time leading up to admission into the doctoral program
through the beginning of the coursework experience. . . . In regard to socialization, this time
is integral to the rest of the students’ experience and marks what is typically referred to as
the period of anticipatory socialization” (Gardner, 2010, p. 64)
Phase II: “. . . encompasses the time after which the doctoral student begins his or her actual
program through the onset of candidacy status. . . . [includes coursework] other parts of
integration into the program, including social integration with peers and faculty, the eventual
choice of an advisor and committee, preparation for examinations, and, for many students,
the experience of an assistantship. . . . these formal and informal gateways through which
the student must pass mark important parts of the overall socialization process (p. 65)
“Phase III marks the period after which students have passed the examinations, or gain
candidacy status” [ABD]. . . . Programmatic structures. . . include the dissertation research. .
. writing of the findings, the preparation for the job search or post-doctoral appointment, and
concluding finally with graduation” (p. 65)
In addition, Gardner’s (2007) study shows five levels where socialization occurs
(1) The overall culture encompassing graduate education, its values, and tenets across
institutions and disciplines;
(2) The institutional culture. . . includes general norms and procedures governing the day-
to-day working of the graduate enterprise;
(3) The disciplinary culture including the distinct norms, habits of mind, and behaviors
needed for membership;
(4) The departmental culture, which consists of the interpersonal dynamics, history, and
mission influencing its members, and
(5) The individual culture, witnessed in each student’s own background, knowledge, and
skills that he or she brings to the graduate enterprise, therefore influencing and being
influenced by each of the aforementioned cultures in one way or another. (p. 737)
48
Socialization/enculturation takes place in a number of ways. Peer interaction is one way
to become socialized because aspects of graduate studies or the dissertation process can be
shared. Faculty/adviser interaction can help students learn protocols or policies needed to
negotiate departmental or disciplinary culture and norms. Socialization sits atop the ways
students can successfully navigate graduate school and complete their dissertation/PhD.
Sternberg (1981 as cited in Cardozo, 2006) explains that the “‘dissertation anomie is the
occupational disease of the ABD’” (p. 144) and that for the most part, ABD attrition results from
students who are “‘unsocialized to the scope and meaning of [a] dissertation’” (Cardozo, 2006, p.
144). Writing a dissertation requires more that just writing. ABD/DCs must meet deadlines,
follow protocols for institutional review boards, and respond to suggestions or comments by
committee members. Interaction with other writers serves as a way to share information about
these issues. Sharing topics of interest with peers/fellow students in the same department, during
coursework, collaborative projects, or study groups is helpful and in the long run could lead to “a
network of professional colleagues” (Golde, 2005, p. 692).
Socialization that incorporates interaction with others helps create attachment, bonding,
or “connection” felt by students at all levels (as cited in Gardner, 2008). The bonding or sense of
connection helps ABD/DCs who experience ambiguity about what to do next or during times
when feelings of isolation cause thoughts of wanting to leave the program (see Graph 2).
49
Graph 2. During Transitions (“Fig 1. The Socialization Process at Work” Gardner, 2010, p. 75).
Because socialization takes place in different ways, Golde (2005) explains effective
adaptation of graduate students should occur early in doctoral studies to integrate the dominant
forms and valued ways of interaction (p. 692). However, there are circumstances that make
socialization unequal; researchers and organizations such as CGS and NSF, found male and
female students of color, older or returning students, and international or part-time students are
some of the groups that experience socialization differently (as cited in Gardner, 2007, p. 738).
Students that “do not fit the majority profile” (Gardner, 2008, p. 128) experience inequities in the
socialization process because of their “underrepresented status.” The contention of some
researchers is that the academe is male-dominated, and more to the point, that White males “are
still typically the full professors and administrators in academe” making the process unequal for
students that not fitting the majority profile (p. 128). In general, many institutions or departments
have activities where socialization takes place uniformly, but individual differences among
students can make the process unequal. Robert Ibarra proposes that underrepresented students
50
face higher stakes in disciplinary socialization because their identities are greatly affected as well
as their professional preparation (Cardozo, 2006, p. 150).
As shown in Tables 9 and 10, results from other studies show that students could have
trouble during the dissertation process and that attrition and retention is “clearly connected to the
socialization process as experienced by the students” (Gardner, 2008, p. 135). Reversing the
ABD phenomenon of early departure and not completing the PhD improves C&U attrition rates
and as Varney (2003) asserts, produces professionals that satisfy social needs and workplace
productivity.
Table 9. Ways that Socialization is Fostered or Accomplished
Institution (orientations or activities)
(Gardner, 2008; 2010)
Given/taught explicit and implicit rules to
engage in appropriate behaviors and culture
in their discipline (Kiley, 2009)
Faculty and advisers, departments, or with
peers and mentors (Gardner, 2008; 2010)
Writing in a discipline during coursework
(Lundell, 1999)
Is a component of training (Golde, 2005)
(coursework in the discipline)
Learning how to conduct research and
writing during coursework (Gardner, 2009)
Table 10. Results of Poor, Inappropriate, Inadequate, or Unsuccessful Socialization
“a student’s decision to depart the graduate
program” (Gardner, 2010, p. 61) and
(Gardner, 2007; 2008)
Not knowing differences in norms within a
department or discipline could color
dissertation evaluations and production
(Cardozo, 2006, p. 139)
Students often struggle with expectations of
dissertation process essential for completion
(Gardner, 2010, p. 74)
Could affect perspective and direction of
their research (Creswell & Miller 1997, p.
33)
Departmental norms and expectations not
known could affect dissertation writing
(Sowell, 2008; Vilkinas, 2008)
Could affect legitimacy within the discipline
or academy (González, 2007)
Could affect acquiring active research skills
(Green 1997, p. 64)
51
The benefits of socialization are helpful to students transitioning to “life” after
coursework and producing “higher quality dissertations” (Lovitts, 2008, p. 316). There is no
demarcation of when socialization ends because some scholars contend that the dissertation
process could be considered the final step in enculturation/socialization of graduate students
(Lundell, 1999).
Structure and transition to the independent dissertation process. After students finish
coursework, qualifying exams, their dissertation proposal, and defense they move “from
dependence to independence” (Green 1997, p. 64). Some students facing the dissertation process
without structure feel it is an overwhelming endeavor saying they were “. . .‘lost,’ ‘confused,’
‘frustrated,’ ‘scared,’ and ‘alone’. . .” (Pride, 2005, p. 161). Guidance from advisers helps, but
even though they may assist and give direction, students are expected to work independently on
the development and execution of research and writing (Allan & Dory, 2001). In most cases,
faculty or advisers expect “. . . students to create their own structure in order to exercise control
over their research” (Allan & Dory, 2001, p. 2) but some students that are unprepared to make
the transition, could experience ambiguity and isolation. Gardner (2010) shows that support is
needed to help students make the transition from coursework to the dissertation phase of their
studies (see Graph 2). Creating ways for students to transition can help them with planning and
scheduling (Baker & Pifer, 2011), or in developing structure, skills, and knowledge about
research and writing through collaborative writing or research projects with faculty or peers, or
other types of faculty/adviser interaction (Pride, 2005).
When students do not have connections with people who can serve as bridges. . . they
often miss out on key experiences and question their sense of belonging. The connections
bring valuable experiences or connect students who can provide experience, link them to
52
other resources, and transition to the dissertation process by developing behavioral
strategies that fosters completion and identity development. (Baker & Pifer, 2011, p. 10)
Kiley (2009) cites Turner (1979) who contends that there are three stages associated with
transitioning from one state to the next. The first stage is separation where learners “separate”
from one state to another; after mastering one state the learner is not yet in the next state and is
“in a state of liminality” (p. 294).
Liminality is the second state where students may find ambiguity as they proceed toward
proficiency. That last stage is aggregation where the transition is complete “culminating in the
ritual consummation of examination and graduation” (p. 295). The liminal state could take
students time to get through and last for a number of years. Kiley (2009) chose two conditions
associated with the liminal state to discuss. The first is being “stuck,” which could be
“counterproductive” because it tears away at self-confidence and self-esteem, can cause students
to question whether they should remain in school, or could affect timely degree completion
(Kiley, 2009, p. 295). Kiley (2009) explains that before a student crosses over a challenging
threshold they may experience a period of being “stuck.”
Attrition can occur when students become stalled or stuck during the transition to the
dissertation process when “‘virtually the entire support structure vanishes’” (Cardozo, 2006, p.
145). Moreover, a student could feel stuck if they lack fit with their department or do not feel a
sense of belonging. Other ways students can get stuck are when they are transitioning and
experiencing ambiguity over what is required of them, or even during the writing process. The
second liminal condition Kiley (2009) discusses is mimicry where students mimic the behaviors
or language of other students without understanding or mastering the concepts or underpinnings
53
of their discipline. A good example of this was given by a supervisor in Kiley’s (2009) study
who said that “‘My supervisor used to say fake it until you make it’” (p. 296).
Making any transition requires learning what is needed to reach the next phase of work.
This is also true in the transition from coursework to dissertation research and writing. Faculty
commented that interaction within the department or with peers was extremely helpful in
students transitioning to “life” after coursework and producing in “higher quality dissertations”
(Lovitts, 2008, p. 316).
Facilitating completion when students get stuck. Sometimes students experience being
stuck when they reach a challenging threshold (Kiley, 2009). As doctoral students progress
during coursework, if they are successful with research or writing assignments they have faced
the challenges and managed them. Thus, as ABD/DCs progress through the dissertation process,
they will face new challenges and could get stuck during negotiation of the challenge. The
experiences of other learners or communities of learners could help ABD/DCs realize that they
are stuck and how to get past it (Kiley, 2009). Including the discussion of getting stuck with
dissertation completion is important because when students do not get past a challenge (being
stuck) it can affect self-esteem or self-confidence (Kiley, 2009; Lovitts, 2005). Kiley (2009)
explains “The experience of being ‘stuck’ can manifest as depression, a sense of hopelessness,
‘going round in circles’ and so on” (p. 293). In addition, Kiley (2009) adds that when students
are mired by some challenges they could lose “the will to remain with the programme and the
ability to complete in a timely fashion” (p. 293). It is important to help students through times of
“stuckness” through academic communities such as peers, faculty in their department, or getting
involved in writing projects or journal clubs where they can share their writing and get feedback.
The concept of getting stuck could be addressed by creating communities of practice or
54
departmental activities. Helping ABD/DCs to persist or complete their PhD in a timely manner,
could be as simple as helping them get through times when they get stuck during the dissertation
process.
Sense of community. Rovai, Wighting, and Liu (2005) cited previous study findings (e.g.,
Dede, 1996; Tinto, 1993; Wellman, 1999) stating that a strong sense of community contributed
to “both high persistence and learning satisfaction” (para. 39). There is no fundamental definition
for “sense of community” acceptable to all researchers or scholars because contexts and
“components of community differ from setting to setting suggesting that sense of community is
setting specific” (Rovai, 2002, p. 322). There are greater opportunities for persistence when
students have a sense of community that provides support and connections to other students,
faculty, and advisers (Rovai, 2002). When students have negative or “malintegrative”
experiences, it can result in lower commitment to their intentions and goals or to the institution
(Rovai, Wighting, & Liu, 2005, para. 8).
ABD/DCs and DE students share time away from campus in common with sense of
community benefiting students at any stage of doctoral studies. ABD/DCs and DE students gain
feelings of “‘belongingness’” (Rovai, 2002, p. 321) from a strong sense of community. Sense of
community could be fostered using email, blogs, the telephone, or multi-media such as using
“face-to-face” conversations via computer, cell/smart phone cameras, or software such as
Blackboard. These mediums could help students share information, foster community, and make
“connections” with faculty/advisers, peers, or mentors (Rovai & Wighting, 2005). Cohesiveness
and bonding between peers gives them a form of support during the dissertation process as well
as alleviating feelings of isolation (Janson, Howard, & Schoenberger-Orgad et al., 2004).
55
Institutions could facilitate a community building structure through the use of cohorts
(Rovai, Wighting, & Liu, 2005), or as previously noted forming cohorts based on “similar
interests and research agendas” (Terrell et al., 2009. p. 115). If a cohort system is not in place,
C&Us can build a sense of community by fostering teamwork, acceptance of diversity, and
building “a common sense of purpose, and a common set of values” (Rovai, Wighting, & Liu,
2005, para. 18). The research shows that it is important for students to feel a sense of community
(Wighting, Liu, & Rovai, 2008) and that the responsibility should be shared by departments,
faculty, and students in taking an active role in creating connections to “community” (Tanzer,
2001).
A sense of community also helps students aspire to higher goals, develop strong social
support, and establish high levels of social connectedness (Rovai & Wighting, 2005, p. 99).
According to Adler’s work (1939) not feeling connected to teachers, “other students, or the
school community at large” (as cited in Rovai & Wighting, 2005, p. 98) leads to failure in
school. The notion of community Adler refers to could be applied to any level of education.
Rovai and Wighting (2005) used the work of McMillan (1996) and McMillan and Chavis
(1986) to describe social community as “spirit, cohesion, trust, safety, interaction,
interdependence, and sense of belonging” (p. 101) and learning community as, its members’
shared values and norms satisfying their expectations and educational goals (Glynn, 1981; Royal
& Rossi, 1997 as cited in Rovai & Wighting, 2005). Using the work of Strike (2004), Rovai and
Wighting (2005) note that an important factor of school community is “normation” or
internalization of shared expectations of individuals within a group. Thus, sense of community
also helps students learn norms and standards, feel less isolated, and have others to share their
experiences or concerns.
56
Community/ies of practice. Past research on communities of practice (CoP) suggest
elements of CoP could help students learn about norms or standards of graduate studies, their
discipline or department, as well as building their own skills or feelings about their academic
growth or progress. Support builds when members gain awareness of “the mission, goals, and
values of the CoP” (Terrell et al., 2009, p. 115) and support each other. A CoP is a forum for
interaction, to learn the roles of the institution or faculty, and to assist in maintenance and growth
of their CoP. Students reserve the option to participate or not, but having availability of the
option is important.
Because there is no “map” of how to navigate graduate school and/or the research and
dissertation process, students could become disquieted about how to reach their PhD degree
destination (Janson et al., 2004). Deficiencies in institutional or academic programs and among
students could contribute to an incomplete map to navigate through doctoral studies. Moreover,
since ABD/DCs may feel a loss of faith in their skills or abilities or “. . . feeling ‘stressed or
overwhelmed’. . . [and fear of being exposed] “to criticism or making mistakes” (p. 171) a CoP
can help students in different ways to “Sustain energy, renew interest, educate novices, find a
voice and gain influence” (p. 169).
Working alone is a fact of the dissertation process but students could view solitude
positively or negatively. One student in the Janson et al. (2004) group commented that time “to
think and write in solitude” (p. 171) was important. However, there is also a need to interact with
others to discuss topics or ideas, the processes involved in researching and writing a dissertation,
or sharing feelings of emotional turmoil and coming to the realization that other students feel the
same way. Janson et al. (2004) show how peer interaction can form a CoP through
potential: preparing the community based on discovering common ground;
57
coalescing: focus on community design via shared needs, creating and engaging in
learning activities;
maturing: managing community growth, detailing standards and learning agendas;
stewardship: bringing in/welcoming new students, sustain energy and gain authority; and
transforming: staying in touch, fostering a legacy of acceptance and a legacy. (p. 169)
The elements listed above show that a CoP can provide the elements students need to
persist to degree.
Connectedness. A review of literature on connectedness revealed that it could be linked
to a student’s decision to stay in school or leave. Terrell et al. (2009) cite Lovitts (2001) who
agreed that connectedness was significant in the dissertation process. Furthermore, the NSF’s
Division of Science Resources Studies (1998) (as cited in Terrell et al., 2009) found that highest
rates of attrition occur during candidacy when students must transition to independence.
Connectedness to peers, advisers, faculty, departments, or the institution can be critical in
ABD/DC persistence (Rovai, 2002; Rovai, Wighting, & Liu, 2005). Moreover, feeling connected
can alleviate a student’s feelings of isolation because they can get emotional support and other
forms of support through the connections (Janson et al., 2004). The less a connection students
feel, the higher the rate of attrition (Gardner, 2008).
Students seeking entry and acceptance into a discipline, department or with others (i.e.,
advisers, faculty, or peers) is part of the social integration process (Gardner, 2010; Rovai,
Wighting, & Liu, 2005) thus pointing to interaction with communities or groups being essential
with both DE and on-campus students. Cardozo (2006) explains that departments could work to
keep students intellectually or socially connected through different activities or programs with
other students or faculty (p. 148). Cohesiveness and bonding between peers is another form of
58
support that shows each member that the problems or challenges that occur during the
dissertation process are shared by others (Janson et al., 2004). Thus, a sense of community, CoP,
and feeling connectedness with others increases persistence.
Emotional support. Emotional support could come from a student’s department, advisers,
peers, departments, communities of practice, and connections among students that helps with the
transition to the dissertation process, producing quality dissertations, and increasing persistence
(Cardozo, 2006; Lovitts, 2008).
Advisers provide emotional support through mentoring, giving timely and constructive
feedback, building confidence, providing motivation to achieve mini-goals, hold students
accountable while providing guidance, and willing to learn or provide expertise on the ABD/DCs
topic or research methods (Allan & Dory, 2001; Cohen, 1998; Lenz, 1997). Emotional support is
also linked to advisers who exhibit care toward students; when advisers are caring and interested
in a student’s success it helps with persistence (Allan & Dory, 2001; Cohen, 1998; Good, 2002;
Lenz, 1997).
Within the department, emotional support comes from helping students disambiguate
processes involved with policies or requirements or meeting deadlines (Gardner, 2010; Harsch,
2008; Lenz, 1997; Lovitts, 2008). In addition, in Gardner’s (2010) study, “The students
interviewed repeatedly used words such as ‘family’ and ‘camaraderie’ to describe the
department” (p. 69).
Support, or the lack thereof, greatly impacts a graduate student’s decision to persist in his
or her program and was an issue for students of all ages, gender, race, or ethnicity (Lenz, 1997).
In some studies, nontraditional-aged women or “. . . older, part-time students with outside
employment, mostly with families” (Miller, 1995 as cited in Allan & Dory, 2001, p. 1) reported
59
support being a key component to success (Lenz, 1997). Support from financial sources, peers,
and faculty was mentioned as being one of the most important influences on “lower rates of time
to degree and higher rates of persistence” (Abedi & Benkin, 1987 as cited in Gardner, 2007, p.
728) (see Tables 11 and 12).
Table 11. Support Issues that Inhibit Dissertation Completion.
Inhibits Dissertation Completion Inhibits Dissertation Completion
Lack of adviser, department, or institutional
support services (mentoring, or support in
writing or research, disambiguating policies
or norms) (Allan & Dory, 2001)
Environmental factors [that increases the
need for support] include “(a) externally
imposed obligations, (b) requirements, and
(c) systems of support” (Harsch, 2008, p. 3)
Lack of support from connectedness or CoP
(Gardner, 2008; Lovitts, 2001 as cited in
Terrell et al., 2009)
Lack of support (emotional) from family,
friends, dissertation advisers, departments,
or institution (Harsch, 2008, Kluever, 1997)
Lack of support for dissertation topic (Eley
& Jennings, 2005; Lee, 2003; Lenz, 1997;
Muszynski & Akamatsu, 1991; Nelson &
Sacks, 2007; Vilkinas, 2008; Yeager, 2008)
Table 12. Support Issues that Enable Dissertation Completion.
Enables Dissertation Completion Enables Dissertation Completion
Financial support from “assistantships,
fellowships, scholarships, or loans”
(Gardner, 2007, pp. 728-729)
“. . . emotional support. . .[from] family
members, friends, and dissertation advisors”
(Harsch, 2008, p. 4)
Peer support (Harsch, 2008), faculty support
(Gardner, 2007)
Emotional support (in general) (Harsch,
2008)
Advisers/advising factors.
Students surveyed in different studies felt there were a number of issues related to
advisers that enabled or inhibited dissertation completion. Areas that students claimed were
important to them were adviser accessibility, knowledge, agreement of topic, and “fit.” In
60
addition, past studies cited student reasons for dissatisfaction or failure to complete their degree
such as inattention from advisers, lack of supervision, guidance, or support (Golde, 1994 as cited
in Allan & Dory, 2001). Students also said advisers who expressed care, maintained mentoring
relationships, and/or were knowledgeable or showed interest in their dissertation research and
topic, helped them persist/complete their dissertation.
Advisers: Chosen or assigned. There are many points to consider in the adviser-student
relationship that are important to completers (Lenz, 1997, p. 70; Muszynski & Akamatsu, 1991).
The way students are assigned an adviser can affect their success (Pride, 2005) because if they
have a poor working relationship or personality conflicts it can inhibit completion and/or extend
time to degree (Allan & Dory, 2001; Protivnak & Foss, 2009). Making the right choice of
adviser or being pared with one by the department or other processes facilitates the dissertation
process because an adviser could help students contact other committee members, faculty,
content specialists, or graduate tutors to answer questions or affirm their work (Vilkinas, 2008)
or by opening doors for them in the discipline (Cardozo, 2006).
Others ways to be paired with an adviser have been explored in the literature.
Departments could add information to their literature or web site that while students are
completing coursework, they should think about dissertation topics and be amenable to topic
suggestions from faculty or advisers (Lenz, 1997, p. 73). In addition, students could find faculty
with similar research interests or get involved in a research project to learn skills needed for the
dissertation process. Cardozo (2006) explains that students could use another way to choose an
adviser by using “a behavioral model: judge them by what they do, not according to their cultural
or scholarly identities [because] The best advisers will make time for you, listen respectfully,
respond thoughtfully, provide reasonably prompt feedback, and prioritize the goal of degree
61
completion” (Cardozo, 2006, p. 149). There should be a way to let students know how to start
looking for an adviser because students may not know this method or others for choosing an
adviser. One way to start is including information on how an adviser should be chosen in the
doctoral student handbook or the web site area for new students.
Feedback. Timely, constructive, positive feedback and validation add to student success
in dissertation completion (Protivnak & Foss, 2009). Students have expectations that their work
will be read in a timely manner so they can stay on schedule (Eley & Jennings, 2005, p. 2).
Students commented that when an adviser is open and supportive and gives constructive
criticism (Eley & Jennings, 2005, p. 2) the timely feedback on research or writing was important
to their success (Kumar & Stracke, 2007). Kumar and Stracke (2007) analyzed written
adviser/supervisor feedback on theses and found that comments were a form of advanced
academic training in how to write and produce a work that adds to the body of knowledge in a
field. Studies showed that interventions by mentor-advisers could facilitate student success via
“academic advice, information and feedback on research studies, career guidance and the
development of other professional skills needed to succeed” (White, 2006, p. 2).
Regular meeting or correspondence. In some cases, ABD/DCs do not see or correspond
with advisers regularly as was the case with Gail T. Houston, “director of graduate studies in
English at the University of New Mexico [UNM]” (Leatherman, 2000, para. 24), who found that
of 63 doctoral students (40 were ABD) had not spoken to anyone in two years. Houston stepped
up to the challenge of “reconnecting” students with their work, the institution, and supervisory
help by organizing a weekend retreat for six students who received help from a personal coach
(Kumar & Stracke, 2007, p. 468). With heavy workloads and many students to oversee, students
and advisers should set a time table to check in with each other.
62
Adviser workloads and time for students. Adviser/dissertation chair availability could
affect student dissertation completion/persistence. Advisers/chairs have heavy workloads that
could affect the amount of time they have to advise or mentor students. Researchers listed many
of the tasks or obligations advisers/chairs have such as creating or teaching courses or having
large classes, advising students, being on or chairing dissertation committees, departmental or
disciplinary requirements (i.e., departmental or disciplinary functions/tasks, research and writing,
peer review, securing grants), and mentoring (Donoghue, 2010; Eley & Jennings, 2005; White,
2006). In addition, they must stay abreast of work being done or taught in their discipline by
combing through disciplinary articles or books, attending conferences, or staying in
contact/collaborating with colleagues.
There is a connection between advising/mentoring time and student procrastination;
students who procrastinate could benefit if advisers had the time and institutional support to offer
“stronger mentoring, and tailored seminars” (Green, 1997, p. 64). One way the institution can
foster mentoring is when new faculty are hired they could be informed about mentoring
expectations and the type of institutional support available to facilitate it (Tanzer, 2001, p. 99).
C&Us could provide training for advisers in giving constructive student feedback,
managing student dissertating research and writing more effectively, and in creating ways that
foster adviser-student interaction (Tanzer, 2001). C&Us could improve student-adviser
engagement by reducing the number of advising students, tasks or functions required by
departments, by providing compensation to advisers for materials or conducting workshops
(Ehrenberg et al., 2007) and for overseeing faculty-student or student-student research projects
(Green, 1997). Other suggested interventions include asking ABD/DCs who are further along in
63
the process to be mentors (Gardner, 2010; Cooke et al., 1995) or help with advising (Cardozo,
2006).
When advisers have more free time they can share expertise with students during the
dissertation process and help them with planning, setting schedules, and meeting deadlines
(Lenz, 1997, p. 74). Establishing connections that link students to faculty or advisers can lower
attrition (Protivnak & Foss, 2009) and improve student satisfaction, which also lowers
attrition/boosts retention and completion.
Adviser-student relationship and exhibiting care. Not all students have a mentoring
relationship with their adviser (Pride, 2005) that express of a sense of caring. Previous research
by Noddings (1992) and Foster (2001) show that caring is an important component for student
success (as cited in White, 2006). “Affirming and encouraging the best in others” (White, 2006,
p. 28) is part of being a caring mentor and advisers that create and model caring help students
learn about the caring mentoring/advising relationship when they become mentors and/or
advisers.
Some advisers claim that being caring and authoritative is “paradoxical” or contradictory
work. Being caring while making demands for dissertation progress means maintaining “the
balance between liberty and regulation and autonomy and restraint” (Vilkinas, 2008, p. 299).
These contradictions can cause exhaustive conflicts. They should be viewed as generative
paradoxes or ways to reconcile both sides so advisers/supervisors can be effective (p. 299).
Mainhard, Rijst, Tartwijk, and Wubbels (2009) assert that the paradox causes a tension “between
the supportive helping role of the supervisor and the requirements of the role to warrant
dissertation quality” (p. 361).
64
Mainhard et al. (2009) said three issues could come up in a supervisor-student
relationship; tension or paradox, supervisory style (i.e., hands-on or -off), and the institution’s
concept of supervision versus the “reality” of supervision. The institution’s influence causes
more pressure because of “research production” that is expected (an adviser adopting a bad guy
stance) and nurturing student independence, autonomy, and satisfactory academic and
dissertation progress. Sometimes advisers/supervisors concentrate on one part of the paradox to
avoid dealing with its opposite (Vilkinas, 2008, p. 299). For example, a supervisor can demand
production and does not take on a caring aspect toward the student.
Students who have a positive relationship with their adviser could increase their feelings
of self-efficacy, direction, freedom to explore ideas, and give them a forum to discuss frustration,
and ask for assistance when developing research projects (Pride, 2005, p. 160). The institution’s
influence on advisers/supervisors does not have to be an intentional mandate to interact a certain
way; it can be subtle and framed as an assumed norm that is expected by institutions, the
department, or the discipline.
Cardozo’s (2006) study explained that some advisers did not think they were uncaring or
unavailable because instead, they felt that “graduate students ‘don’t know what they don’t
know’: by virtue of their very condition as learners, they cannot formulate the questions whose
answers would help them when they most need help” (Cardozo, 2006, p. 145). A theory
borrowed from Nicholas J. Belkin and colleagues explained how individuals seek information
when they know they need it, but do not know exactly what they need. This was coined an
anomalous state of knowledge (ASK). “In this model, information seekers are concerned with a
problem, but the problem itself and the information needed to solve the problem are not clearly
understood” (Marchionini, 1997, p. 29). For advisers, understanding that a need exists even if the
65
student does not ask, means asking them if they have any questions so a student can take their
fluid thoughts and solidify them into solid questions that can now be addressed. An adviser is not
“uncaring” if they do not know that a student’s silence means they need help. Advisers could be
more proactive by asking students they have not seen for a length of time if they have any
questions. An adviser must be tactful when asking students if they need assistance (Eley &
Jennings, 2005) because students may view adviser tact or straightforwardness (Allan & Dory,
2001, p. 3) as being a bad “fit” because they disagree with their adviser or they think adviser is
being unreasonable.
Advising is not easy and the care paradox or tension is difficult for advisers because
being proactive or exhibiting care requires balance in how to approach students. Adviser
interaction has been found to increase dissertation completion/persistence (Robole, 2003;
Vilkinas, 2008; White, 2006). The most important points of how advisers inhibit or enable
dissertation completion are given in Tables 13 and 14.
Table 13. Adviser Factors that Inhibit Dissertation Completion
Students who feel ignored might begin
research without informed guidance (Eley
& Jennings, 2005)
Advisers who show lack of sympathy for
some student situations (Leatherman, 2000;
Pride, 2005)
Advisers with heavy workloads and limited
time for students (White, 2006); too many
students to oversee or mentor (Leatherman,
2000)
Advisers non-existent to share ideas, be a
sounding board, offer mentoring, advice, or
guidance when needed (Baker & Pifer,
2011)
Lack of faculty interaction and mentoring
(Good, 2002; Pride, 2005)
Adviser leaves the school (Pride, 2005;
Strite, 2007)
Meetings with advisers are interrupted (other
students or phone calls) (Eley & Jennings,
2005)
Discontent with adviser — personality, fit,
attitude (Kluever, 1997; Strite, 2007)
Shortage of advisers (White, 2006)
66
Table 14. Adviser Factors that Enable Dissertation Completion
Personality/fit/compatibility with student
(Allan & Dory, 2001; Lenz, 1997; Lundell,
1999; Muszynski & Akamatsu, 1991;
Smallwood, 2004; Sowell, 2008)
Adviser has knowledge or expertise of topic
or research methods (Creswell & Miller,
1997; Eley & Jennings, 2005; Robole,
2003; Smallwood, 2004)
Adviser interpersonal, management skills
(Vilkinas, 2008), good communication
(Lenz, 1997)
Interest, agreement, openness, or willingness
to learn about student’s topic area (Allan &
Dory, 2001; Vilkinas, 2008)
Adviser exhibits a sense of care (Robole,
2003) or mutual respect (Vilkinas, 2008)
Assists with realistic goal setting (Katz,
1997, p. 10) and goal setting collaboration
Helps students understand what is expected
of them (Lundell, 1999; Muszynski &
Akamatsu, 1991; Robole, 2003;
Smallwood, 2004)
Helps/guide in socialization/enculturation
into doctoral training, the discipline,
department, or institution (Gardner, 2008;
Golde, 2005; Lin, 2003)
Evaluating writing, timely feedback (Eley &
Jennings, 2005; Kumar & Stracke, 2007;
Pride, 2005; Protivnak & Foss, 2009;
White, 2006), constructive feedback (Eley
& Jennings, 2005)
Adviser ability to mentor, develop
supportive relationships (Eley & Jennings,
2005; Green, 1997; Pride, 2005; White,
2006); foster relationships among research
students (peers) (Vilkinas, 2008)
Availability to students; making and keeping
regularly scheduled meetings (Kluever,
1997)
Coordinating writing, research assistance,
dissertation support (Allan & Dory, 2001;
Vilkinas, 2008)
Student Issues affecting dissertation completion.
Allan and Dory (2001) reviewed and cite the work of a number of authors who studied
factors related to student skills or abilities attributed to non-completion such as (a) choice
dissertation topic (Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Germeroth, 1991; Isaac, Quinlan, & Walker,
1992; Madsen 1983); (b) lacking needed research skills (Allan & Dory, 2001; Cohen, 1998;
Good, 2002; Lenz, 1997)); and (c) poor time management (Green & Kluever, 1997). The
dissertation process has stages that require student skills and abilities that include collecting
research, analyzing data, writing, and presenting findings. All of these parts of the dissertation
process must be successfully accomplished before completing a dissertation. Often, the
67
responsibility for student training/socialization leading to the development of skills needed falls
on the student who must learn to research and write, advisers that mentor or answer student
questions, and the institution to provide workshops, seminars, or courses (Allan & Dory, 2001;
Cohen, 1998; Good, 2002; Lenz, 1997). Thus, there is no one person or entity entirely
responsible for training. Some students have to learn how to handle the work of completing a
dissertation without having a similar task or warm-up example from coursework. Students must
find a systematic way of managing the dissertation writing process such as breaking down tasks
into manageable steps with mini-deadlines for each, as well as a method of organization of
dissertation materials (Davis & Parker, 1979 as cited in Kolman, 2001, p. 3).
Choosing or agreement on a dissertation topic. For some students, choosing a
dissertation topic is not easy and the frustration over finding, choosing, or adjusting a topic can
impede their progress, or lengthen time to degree completion (Lee, 2003; Lenz, 1997; Muszynski
& Akamatsu, 1991). Most students choose a dissertation topic and discuss it with their adviser or
chair before they make it the topic of their dissertation; however sometimes students from certain
disciplines are channeled toward a topic. Science students had less flexibility in choosing their
topics because faculty funding, research grants, or departmental assistance limited them to
certain topics that led to choosing an adviser or topic that was connected to funding or
institutional financial support (Leatherman, 2000). Institutional politics can play a part in
choosing a topic because there might not be faculty who support or have expertise on the topic
(Yeager, 2008), or that exhaustive work has already been done on a topic, it is not entirely
relevant to the discipline, or is technically in another disciplinary area (Vilkinas, 2008).
Choosing a topic and getting support to pursue it was an issue for students (Eley &
Jennings, 2005; Lee, 2003; Lenz, 1997; Muszynski & Akamatsu, 1991; Nelson & Sacks, 2007;
68
Vilkinas, 2008; Yeager, 2008). In some cases, factors that inhibited completion or lengthened
time to degree were (a) having to change or modify a topic (Lee, 2003; Lenz, 1997), (b)
narrowing the scope of the topic (Nelson & Sacks, 2007), (c) not having an adviser/chair who is
knowledgeable about the topic or interested in it (Yeager, 2008), (d) not having peers to talk to
who went through issues choosing a topic (Cardozo, 2006), and (e) the student is not interested
in the topic (Allan & Dory, 2001; Muszynski & Akamatsu, 1991). Some factors associated with
choosing a topic that can enable or inhibit dissertation completion are given in Tables 15 and 16.
Table 15. Issues with Dissertation Topics that can Enable Completion
Enables Dissertation/PhD Completion Enables Dissertation/PhD Completion
join a writing group or peers who know what
each other is going through (Cardozo, 2006,
p. 150)
an adviser with knowledge, expertise; one
who shows interest in the topic/research
area (Eley & Jennings, 2005, p. 2)
choosing a topic carefully (Nelson & Sacks,
2007; Vilkinas, 2008)
funding/grants that might garner financial
support (Yeager, 2008); help paying for
supplies, travel, and other items (Lenz,
1997, p. 70)
modifying, adjusting, or changing an
original topic (Lee, 2003; Lenz, 1997)
Table 16. Issues with Dissertation Topics that can Inhibit Completion
Inhibits Dissertation/PhD Completion Inhibits Dissertation/PhD Completion
difficulty narrowing topic (Nelson & Sacks,
2007)
choice of topic (Allan & Dory, 2001);
suitability of the topic (Vilkinas, 2008)
changing topic or making adjustments to
original topic (Lee, 2003; Lenz, 1997)
Difficulty identifying a research question
(Nelson & Sacks, 2007)
students lack interest in their topic (Allan &
Dory, 2001; Muszynski & Akamatsu, 1991)
adviser unfamiliar with topic or shows no
interest in it (Yeager, 2008)
69
Planning and scheduling. Students need to be able to plan, create a habitual writing
schedule, and/or revise, outline, and evaluate material, and their own writing (Graham & Harris,
1997). These skills can all be taught or reinforced in a writer at any age; although Graham and
Harris (1997) used studies involving grade school-aged children, their conclusions could apply to
writers of any age. Writers from grade school through high school learn these skills as they learn
to write at each grade-level, just as college students become more proficient at writing from
bachelors to the PhD level.
Having a timeline for research helps a student in more than one way. First, it engages
them in the activity of researching literature and helps them focus on their topic. Second, it helps
them organize the process into smaller parts, making the work more manageable (Nelson &
Sacks, 2007, p. 195). A timeline should be created with an adviser and cover expectations for
progress, and how to structure writing a research-based literature review and the dissertation
chapters on methodology, results, and discussion of the analysis. Nelson and Sacks (2007) also
remind students and advisers that flexibility should be built into the timeline in case more time is
needed or if unexpected issues come up. The entire committee should give input on the timeline
based on their areas of expertise to help guide students in creating a manageable timeline.
There are books and materials to help students with tasks associated dissertation research
and writing. Some materials contain models for writing regimens such as planning, scheduling,
how to set goals for different tasks, or they help with qualitative and quantitative methods, or
writing mechanics (Leatherman, 2000). The more a student knows what is expected from them
and can plan for it, the better they can manage their time or adapt if unexpected issues arise.
Type or way of writing. Writing leads to student learning and discovery (Kumar &
Stracke, 2007, p. 462), which in turn builds student skills, content mastery, and self-efficacy in
70
their ability to complete their dissertation. Ultimately, writing and disciplinarity also legitimizes
students through their written body of work, and in passing comprehensive and/or qualifying
exams (González, 2007). After reaching ABD/DC many of these attributes should be instilled in
a dissertation writer.
Because academic writing at the dissertation level requires planning and scheduling time
to write and being mentally ready to write, some students may find it easy to pick up where they
left off previously or have a difficult time getting in the mood to write. Results of some studies
show that students may tackle the writing task differently based on advice from peers, advisers,
or others. Some students work through the writing process by just putting words on the page and
edit later, or free write daily for a period of time. When writing in that manner, it requires more
time to edit or revise text. Kolman (2001) refers to these methods as “‘making a mess.’” Other
ways student tackle writing are, planning to write for 10 to 20 minutes without stopping, editing,
or quitting before a few pages are written. Again, time is needed to edit the work after the initial
ideas are written. In some cases, students binge write in a what Boice (1994) called a manic state
(as cited in Cohen, 1998) where students forego food and/or sleep resulting in exhaustion and
could bring on bouts of depression (p. 147). Conversely, a sense of euphoria can result making
binge writing addictive; accomplishing a large amount of work can feel good, but may become
the only way a student can write. The way a writer approaches the task of writing a dissertation
could be more formal, such as a structured plan that includes which sections will be written and
time set aside to do so, as well as doing that step on a planned regular basis of 2 to 5 times a
week. An ABD/DC’s choice of how to write is generally up to them based on their available time
or schedule. Different approaches to writing aside, ABD/DCs have to show authority in their
knowledge of the topic, originality, and convention in academic writing, incorporating
71
suggestions or revisions by advisers or committee members, and producing work that adds to the
body of knowledge in their field.
Some ABD/DCs view the writing process from a different or deeper perspective. Lundell
and Beach (2003) give a dissertation writer’s thoughts about writing
On the one hand, it is about detachment, and on the other hand, locating the source of
authority within oneself. It’s about a self that, well, you’re proving yourself. The
dissertation is about the ideas, about you and your creative capacity, but it’s also so
detached from your person and kind of transcendent. So on one hand…it legitimizes a
self, but it’s a detached universal self…hard to explain. (Lundell & Beach, 2003, p. 493)
Teaching prospective ABD/DCs the skills needed to research and write a dissertation
involve more than academic writing; their approach to writing how they think about it could be
addressed in coursework or via socialization. The skills students could be taught are being able to
work independently, organize and plan time to work or how to proceed, and maintaining
motivation and confidence so they can complete their dissertation. Some of the important topics
for dissertation non-completion that could be monitored and addressed by the institution or
advisers/chairs are given in Table 17.
72
Table 17. Personal Structural Factors that Inhibit Dissertation Completion
Inhibits Dissertation/PhD Completion Inhibits Dissertation/PhD Completion
working independently during dissertation
process without a formal structure (Allan &
Dory, 2001; Cohen, 1998; Good, 2002;
Lenz, 1997; Muszynski & Akamatsu, 1991;
Pride, 2005)
lack of organizational skills to complete
dissertation tasks (Steel, 2007, p. 65);
organization and planning skills (Green,
1997) [in general]
lack of focus (Allan & Dory, 2001; Cohen,
1998; Good, 2002; Lenz, 1997)
scheduling, task priorities, writing skills
(Green, 1997)
lack of training in research, methodology,
guidelines (Allan & Dory, 2001; Cohen,
1998; Good, 2002; Lenz, 1997)
writing, collecting research, and presenting
the findings (Green, 1997; Harsch, 2008)
unrealistic expectations (of the dissertation
process or one’s own skills and abilities)
(Muszynski & Akamatsu, 1991)
lack of confidence and comfort in research
preparation (Good, 2002) or academic
competency
technology use (Allan & Dory, 2001;
Cohen, 1998; Good, 2002; Lenz, 1997;
Vilkinas, 2008)
Ambiguity and self-direction. When some doctoral students transition from regular
coursework to the dissertation process, they could experience ambiguity about what is expected
during the process or planning the direction of their work (Gardner, 2010). Gardner (2007) found
that ambiguity was not discussed as much by students early on in their studies compared to
students that were further along. Thus, ambiguity arising later in doctoral studies shows that
students at any stage of doctoral studies may need help navigating ambiguity at times.
Students can be taken aback when faced with ambiguity (Cardozo, 2006) especially when
they are not clear about the direction they have planned, or with what is expected at different
stages of the dissertation process (Gardner, 2007; 2010). The lack of clarity results in ambiguity
that makes it hard to be self-directed. Students should be self-directed in general and it is
73
especially important during the dissertation phase. According to Gardner (2010), students
brought up concerns they had, with four being most prevalent “support, self-direction, ambiguity,
and transition” (p. 74). Thus, addressing ambiguity and self-direction is important. Being self-
directed means a student plans how they move along in the dissertation process according to the
direction given in their PhD handbook or adviser/chair for timelines.
Students from different departments referred to self-direction in different contexts.
Engineering students used the term in context with “learning how to conduct research
independently” (Gardner, 2010, p. 71) and students in the English department used the term with
regard to “. . . ‘having a plan’ to complete their degree in a timely manner” (p. 71). In any
context, self-direction is needed to progress but could require support to be most effective. Self-
direction could be developed through socialization/enculturation into graduate studies,
disciplinary, departmental, or writing norms and values. In this way, once a student knows what
is expected they can direct their focus on how and what needs to be accomplished.
Forms of support and self-direction are needed to mitigate ambiguity that could occur at
different points in graduate studies (see Graph 2 Support During Transitions [“Fig 1. The
Socialization Process at Work” Gardner, 2010, p. 75]). The transitions are numerous and go
beyond transitioning to the dissertation process such as transitions made when students begin
researching their topic and learning how to use library databases to conduct literature searches,
then there are transitions when students begin their own research and analysis, then transitioning
to scholarly writing.
The four issues Gardner (2010) mentioned “support, self-direction, ambiguity, and
transition” (p. 74) were important to students and include some students with “. . . specific needs,
such as language difficulties, family obligations, or financial problems” (Gardner, 2010, p. 76).
74
Building self-direction skills, limiting ambiguity, maintaining support, and making transitions
from one area to the next are important issues in persistence for all students.
Feelings of isolation or alienation. Feelings of isolation or being alone during the
dissertation process was found to be an important factor to students. When students do not
interact with other students/peers or are physically distanced from campus, the lack of
involvement often results in negative outcomes for students and school climate (Rovai,
Wighting, & Liu, 2005, para. 16). A number of authors discuss the solitary/isolating nature of the
dissertation process confirming that it is an area of concern for both students and the institution
(Gardner, 2007, Golde, 2005; Kittell-Limerick, 2005; Kluever, 1997; Strite, 2007; Turner &
Edwards, 2006). After coursework ends and traditional on-campus students reach ABD/DC
status, they are left on their own during the dissertation process and distance education (DE)
students who are left on their own share the same feelings of isolation or needing guidance to
research and write a dissertation.
Detachment and isolation in DE is centered on being “physically separated from the
social learning environment” (Rovai, Wighting, and Liu, 2005, para. 3), which mirrors some
instances of isolation that on-campus students experience during the dissertation process. DE
research on persistence and DE students’ sense of community and alienation is based in theory
including Tinto’s work (1975, 1995, 1997), and also used for research on on-campus students (as
cited in Rovai & Wighting, 2005, p. 105). Another way students could feel isolated is when they
feel marginalized by advisers or their department (Golde, 2005, p. 681) and if this is the case,
then isolation they experience during dissertation process is exacerbated.
Definitions of alienation by Seeman (1959) and Dean (1961) were helpful to Rovai and
Wighting (2005) who use three aspects or dimensions to show how alienation occurs; “social
75
isolation, powerlessness, and normlessness” (p. 98). Social isolation can occur even when
students are around others but have “. . . a perceived lack of meaningful, intimate relationships
with peers, family, and the wider community [in addition to] . . . a lack of connection to others”
(p. 98). Powerlessness is related to locus of control (discussed in the psychological factors
section of this review) and a student’s feeling of having little or no control that can result in
giving up. Normlessness results when students do not meet norms, do not “fit,” do not conform
to standards, or have different values than institutional systems or processes (Rovai & Wighting,
2005, p. 99). The authors use Dean’s (1961) empirical evidence that any of these factors can
result in feelings of alienation and lack of commitment to the institution resulting in non-
completion or attrition (Tinto, 1975, 1995 as cited in Rovai & Wighting, 2005, p. 99).
In cases where students feel “alone” they may not step forward to ask for help or where
to get assistance (Kolman, 2001). Some graduate students are often “‘in the dark about what they
are supposed to do and afraid to ask out of fear of looking unsophisticated or naïve. Sometimes
the message students get is that if you are any good, you will already know the essential secrets’”
(Graff, 1999 as cited in Cardozo, 2006, p. 141). Thus, schools should be “proactive” in
integrating students via support in social and intellectual interaction/exchanges (Tinto, 1993, as
cited in Rovai, Wighting, & Liu, 2005) and in promoting stronger connections with
school/institutional entities/individuals or classmates/peers (Rovai, Wighting, & Liu, 2005, para.
14). The feelings of isolation or detachment could lead to non-completion or attrition (Tinto,
1975, 1995 as cited in Rovai & Wighting, 2005; Rovai, Wighting, and Liu, 2005). Peer or
dissertation support groups could also decrease feelings of isolation among ABD/DCs (Lundell,
1999; Pride, 2005) and keep them from losing valuable input, collaboration, and emotional
support (Allan & Dory; 2001).
76
Spouse/significant other/domestic partner and family. Students reported that “well-
developed support networks” (Harsch, 2008, p. 4) of family and friends is high on the list of
“importance” to them (Baker & Pifer, 2011; Yeager, 2008). Spouses and family give support by
offering empathy, help with tasks that female students are usually responsible for, and getting
reassurance of stability in family or relationship status (Lenz, 1997). Conversely, students
reported that lack of emotional support from spouses or family made it difficult to persist. Fifty-
nine percent of the students in Cheeks’ (2007) study said “pressure from family” (p. 61) was a
reason they did not complete their degree. Lenz (1997) adds that spouses or family should not
undermine or sabotage the dissertation process by making demands on their student
parent/spouse or be inconsiderate about the time students set aside to work on their dissertation
(p. 74).
Personal internal and psychological factors.
Some of a student’s personal issues are beyond the control of the institution, department,
and faculty or advisers (Varney, 2003, p. 2). This section presents some of the personal-internal
factors revealed in the studies on attrition and persistence. This section gives examples of
students’ internal or psychological factors that affect persistence. Some psychological factors
presented here either intersect or exacerbate each other and are important to examine because
they could occur in relationship to institutional or adviser factors. Personal internal issues
intersect with each other as well. For example, procrastination is linked to perfectionism,
anxiety, depression, pessimism, low self-esteem or self-efficacy, and locus of control or “the
extent of control individuals perceive they have over the expectancies of reinforcement or
outcomes in their lives” (Harsch, 2008).
77
An example of psychological factors being reported with institutional or structural factors
was given in Cheeks’ (2007) study where non-completers said the following factors very much or
somewhat influenced their decisions to leave the university. Some said they “. . . felt burned out
(74%), lacked motivation (62%), felt too much stress (63%), pressure from family (59%), or that
there was too much work (52%)” (p. 61). Bair (1999) found that recent graduates felt “. . . lack of
proper motivation [47%]” (p. 13) contributed to decision for leaving school. The following
internal student factors were reported in studies that included factors from other areas (i.e.,
institutional, structural-external).
Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is linked to personal accomplishments, a sense of well-being,
and motivation. A student that stays motivated can make headway that builds self-efficacy in
their ability and competency to complete tasks, especially when writing their dissertations. In
addition, Pajares (2001, as cited in Varney, 2003) asserts that self-efficacy can determine the
amount of effort put into tasks, how long students persist when faced with challenges, and
resiliency in difficult situations that could influence a student’s motivation and persistence (as
cited in Varney, 2003, p. 5). High self-efficacy in task completion means a student can
accomplish tasks by relying on and using their skills and abilities; a student’s confidence in their
skills and abilities shows resiliency, which also works to fuel motivation. Writing is not easy for
everyone, but as a student accomplishes specific tasks such as writing various sections or
chapters, perception of their capabilities becomes positive (Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997). In
addition, Zimmerman’s work with Bandura (1994) showed that “Motivational processes such as
perceptions of self-efficacy and positive self-reactions during learning are as essential to setting
effective writing goals and sustained achievement as cognitive measures of writing competence”
(Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997, p. 76).
78
Boscolo et al. (2007) wrote that low self-efficacy could be attributed writers that have
reservations about their writing abilities, especially when being evaluated, and in writers who do
not have a style of writing (p. 420). After reading a student’s course paper assignments, faculty
could suggest workshops or seminars, campus writer’s groups, or peer mentors for writers whose
style is flat or a “regurgitation” of text and facts. In this way, self-efficacy can be cultivated in
students through task accomplishment in writing during coursework. The more a student
improves or feels confident in their writing the more self-efficacy fuels motivation that is needed
when they begin the dissertation process (Varney, 2003; Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997).
Perfectionism. According to results from the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale,
completers were “more perfectionistic” and in some cases, perfectionism had an enabling effect
on students (Lenz, 1997, p. 72). Studies reveal that student perceptions of perfectionism being
enabling or inhibiting made a difference in how they progressed. Some perfectionists put undue
stress on themselves that could lead to procrastination and act as a barrier to completion.
“Individuals higher in perfectionism tend to have higher levels of stress and achievement
motivation; are more neurotic, avoidant, dependent, and depressed” (Green, 1997, p. 60). It is
clear that students have to let go of some perfectionistic traits (a) so they can avoid setting
unrealistic or difficult standards (Lenz, 1997, p. 72), (b) so they will be able, or allow themselves
to take chances and not fear making mistakes, and (c) to ensure progress and completion of the
dissertation (Lenz, 1997, p. 73). Some students cling to perfectionism because feel they have to
reach a high level of scrutiny or because they want to appear to be perfect to advisers (Lenz,
1997). The literature suggests that perfectionism and procrastination are related and that both
may be viewed as expressions of control stemming from deficits in self-esteem. Often,
perfectionism is used to explain the reason for a student’s procrastination (Green, 1997, p. 60).
79
More research on how to manage perfectionist traits could inform faculty in all disciplines or
institutions to help students. However, in some cases if faculty gave a rubric for the standard of
quality expected, some students may strive for what they think is quality or perfect.
Procrastination. Procrastination is ensconced near the top of the list of student behaviors
that negatively affects their progress at all degree-levels (Green, 2007, p. 59). It is high on the list
of psychological factors associated with non-completion of tasks; it could be fueled by a fear of
failure, pessimism, control issues, perfectionism, or lack of self-efficacy (Allan & Dory, 2001, p.
1). Academic procrastination is not task-specific; it is domain-specific because “a student will
procrastinate in every aspect of an endeavor, not just with specific component tasks” (Green,
2007, p. 59). Procrastination influences students’ behavior in about one-third of their daily
activities (Steel, 2007). Even more problematic, the longer a student stays in college the worse
the level of procrastination, which generally results in negative consequences (Green, 2007). The
snowballing effect is exacerbated when other factors inhibiting degree completion enter the
equation because the motivation for, and results of, procrastination will vary widely making it
hard to find a factor to address. For example, financial or employment issues could be weighing
heavily on a student, whose mind is preoccupied leading to a lag or a delay in writing, an
increased tendency to procrastinate, and possibly lengthen time to degree.
Procrastination has been researched in domains such as academics, as a neuroses, a
compulsion, in making decisions, and in life routines. In the academic area, Steel’s (2007) study
showed that 80-95% of all college students admitted to procrastination, seventy-five percent said
they “do it” regularly, and 50% stated they were consistent at it (p. 65). Procrastination is
complex and Steel (2007) confirms it by showing that there are “Strong and consistent predictors
of procrastination. . . [such as]. . . task aversiveness, task delay, self-efficacy, and impulsiveness,
80
as well as conscientiousness and its facets of self-control, distractibility, organization, and
achievement motivation” (p. 65). Because Green’s (1997) work is focused on dissertation
writers, the implications of domain specificity means students might procrastinate in all aspects
of the dissertation process (research and writing).
In general, procrastinators blamed themselves and not the university’s structure or level
of task difficulty in doctoral studies (Green, 1997; Lee, 2003). Despite the negative
consequences, it is a way to delay actions or tasks voluntarily. In addition, by procrastinating,
students can attribute their “failure to lack of effort rather than incompetence and can attribute
success to unusually high ability” (Green, 1997, p. 59). Shifting the blame to a lack of effort is
one way of creating an excuse that is not related to knowledge, skills, and ability.
Some of the interventions or suggestions to help students with procrastination are having
meetings that: (a) help with stress and time management; (b) cognitively restructuring students to
foster and sustain motivation; (c) helping students take control over negative emotions; (d)
develop relationships between students and their advisers or committees, and (e) helping students
manage problems with writing such as writer’s block (Green, 1997). Another way to help
procrastinators is to identify them early in the doctoral program so they can be directed toward
programs or workshops such as those discussed above (Green, 1997). Finally, to learn more
about academic procrastination, use of an instrument such as the Procrastination Inventory can
reliably measure “a dimension that is predictive of both past and current behavior, one which
may be useful in understanding and reducing the irrational ideas that underlie procrastination in
completing doctoral dissertations” (Muszynski & Akamatsu, 1991, p. 123). Having someone
qualified to use an instrument such as faculty in clinical psychology versed in testing could be
part of a writer’s workshop. The University of La Verne in La Verne, California has a
81
procrastination workshop and also hosted “Destination Procrastination” event to help students,
which in turn also helps in lessening stress and acknowledging diversions they use to
procrastinate (“Campus Times,” 2013). The workshop and event was open to all degree levels
that could help a bachelor’s or master’s student seeking an eventual PhD.
The work of Muszynski and Akamatsu (1991) also results in suggestions for changes in
graduate programs that can be evaluated for finding who is “‘at risk’ for delays” (p. 123). Thus,
Green (1997) and Muszynski and Akamatsu (1991) have made suggestions to locate students at
risk for non-completion; a number of reasons such as procrastinators, individuals with a lack of
writing or research skills, or outside influences such as family or work could be identified to
create or find interventions that will facilitate completion. In the case of procrastination, if a
program or structure is in place for doctoral students to “check in” with advisers, show rough
drafts, or discuss ideas there is a possibility that advisers could set a time table for ABD/DCs
who have a tendency to procrastinate could be avoided.
Self-handicapping. Students who impose barriers on themselves are self-handicappers,
which can result in procrastination, delays in completion, or possibly students leaving studies.
When students create barriers such as not planning enough time to complete tasks, not having a
dedicated workplace to write, or scheduling tasks they think are important but unrelated to their
dissertation, not succeeding can be blamed on the barrier (Harsch, 2008). Sometimes individuals
create barriers unconsciously. Self-handicappers are included here because they “tended to have
lower self-worth than non-procrastinators” (Harsch, 2008, p. 9) and self-worth is a personal
internal issue.
Locus of control. Varney’s (2003) review of empirical studies corroborates that academic
task performance such as dissertation writing is positively related to self-efficacy (p. 5) resulting
82
in s stronger sense of locus of control in an individual. An individual who has the inner belief
that they have the ability to influence the outcome of a task or other endeavor has a strong sense
of locus of control (Harsch, 2008). Green (1997) points out that that the literature she reviewed
suggested that locus of control could possibly “predict dissertation completion” (p. 64). Green
explains that Wenzel (1997) used a different study population, not a random campus-wide
sample and education DCs instead of psychology DCs, as well as a different measure than two
other researchers “(Smith, 1985; Wagner 1986)” (as cited in Green, 1997, p. 58).. Thus,
Wenzel’s findings were different and that different methodology yielded different results. More
work could be done on locus of control as a factor in persistence and dissertation completion to
create interventions that build a sense of control in the dissertation process. Since personal
factors could intersect, more research on different student populations (demographics),
disciplines, and type of institutions or programs could show when some personal issues intersect,
it inhibits dissertation completion. For example, Green (1997) posits that identifying students
who procrastinate, “. . . have high dependency needs, a lack of persistence, or an external locus
of control could” (p. 63) would be helpful that advisers are aware of their needs
Motivation. The definition of motivation is basically the same in any area where tasks are
undertaken; however, the definition here was taken from “Improving the Quality of Students’
Academic Writing: An Intervention Study” by Boscolo et al. (2007)
‘a pool of forces that foster human behaviour, differentiated biological and social needs,
and underlined the importance of the interaction between an organism’s behaviour and
environmental responses. . . . [and] . . . a pattern of cognitive and affective factors which
affect generating and maintaining an effort towards an objective.’ (p. 421)
83
Researchers have options to employ motivation theory from different disciplines
depending on the context of their study. For example, researchers could use theories in
motivation, sub-areas such as intrinsic or extrinsic motivation, or using theories that include
motivation such as self- esteem or efficacy, or social cognitive learning theory.
Examining research on factors that contribute to building motivation under different
circumstances can help ABD/DCs. For example, motivation can be coerced so students meet
deadlines for chapter submissions through constant progress monitoring or a strongly controlled
environment. The result is accomplishing a required task (extrinsic reward) but not because the
student was motivated by their own sense of goal attainment (intrinsic reward). In fact, coerced
motivation could lead to a student’s loss of autonomy that could fuel “perceptions of
incompetence leading to a sense of futility” (Wighting, Liu, & Rovai, 2008, p. 287).
The ultimate extrinsic reward or gratification is delayed for ABD/DCs because
dissertation/PhD completion and can take many months or years (Lovitts, 2008). Setting and
attaining mini-goals during the research and writing process could help students stay motivated,
instead of delaying gratification/extrinsic reward until the dissertation is finished, defended, and
PhD awarded. Motivation can be built in students if they have a plan and structure for how and
when each mini-goal is attained because hitting the goals alone could be satisfying. If ABD/DCs
have peers, a CoP, or other support network, they could share the accomplishment, which affirms
it, and begs for input. Lovitts (2008) reminds us that “The pats on the back and other forms of
positive reinforcement are few and far between” (p. 312). In this way, hitting mini goals or
scheduled tasks is acknowledged with feedback and can build motivation. Lovitts (2008)
explains “‘stick-to-it-ness’” is associated with persistence and the impetus to stay self-motivated
and being assertively proactive (p. 309) during the dissertation process. Tables 18-20 show
84
authors cited who have conducted studies of personal internal factors that enable or inhibit
dissertation completion.
Table 18. Attitude or Behavioral Factors Inhibiting Completion (Personal Internal)
Behavioral Factors Inhibiting Completion
task aversion (Muszynski & Akamatsu,
1991; Steel, 2007)
unmet student expectations (Bair, 1999;
Tanzer, 2001)
lack of commitment (to dissertation or
degree completion) (Allan & Dory, 2001)
rebelliousness (against system, stress, or
workload) (Muszynski & Akamatsu, 1991)
taking the work or responsibility for the
work lightly (Allan & Dory, 2001)
Easily distracted (Steel, 2007)
Table 19. Personal Internal Factors (Psychological) that Enable Completion
Personal Internal Enables Completion
belief can complete tasks/self-efficacy
(Allan & Dory, 2001; Good, 2002; Graham
& Harris, 1997; Harsch, 2008; Kolman,
2001; Varney, 2003; Zimmerman &
Risemberg, 1997)
students can learn to recognize range of
emotions they experience so they can work
through or deal with them (Robole, 2003)
motivation (Allan & Dory, 2001; Varney,
2003); self motivation and being driven
(Yeager, 2008)
perfectionism (to a degree) can improve
quality of work (Allan & Dory, 2001; Lenz,
1997)
writer self-regulation (Graham & Harris,
1997; Kolman, 2001; Zimmerman &
Risemberg, 1997)
social cognitive factors (belief in oneself)
(Harsch, 2008; Varney, 2003)
student expectations are met (Bair, 1999;
Tanzer, 2001)
emotional support (Harsch, 2008; Lenz,
1997)
student has locus of control (Harsch, 2008)
85
Table 20. Personal Internal Factors (Psychological) that Inhibit Completion
Personal Internal Inhibits Completion
procrastination (Allan & Dory, 2001; Cohen,
1998; Good, 2002; Harsch, 2008; Lenz,
1997; Muszynski & Akamatsu, 1991; Steel,
2007)
“. . . stress, pressure, anxiety, tension,
frustration, self-doubt, and fear” (Robole,
2003, p. 66)
other elements of procrastination: lack of
structure, self-denigration, low frustration
tolerance, insufficient reinforcement,
rebellious (Muszynski & Akamatsu, 1991)
for females: “. . . more complicated
psychological experience for females than
for males” (Green, 1997, p. 58; Yeager,
2008, p. 50)
perfectionism that causes procrastination
(Allan & Dory, 2001; Lenz, 1997)
lack of locus of control (Harsch, 2008) or
control issues (Allan & Dory, 2001)
perfectionism in general (Allan & Dory,
2001; Cohen, 1998; Good, 2002; Green,
1997; Lenz, 1997)
low or lack of self-esteem (Allan & Dory,
2001; Pride, 2005)
fear of failure (Allan & Dory, 2001) Writer’s block (Cohen, 1998)
“self-perceptions of ability, competency,
effectiveness, and coping” (Harsch, 2008, p.
5) (linked to self-efficacy & social
cognitive factors and theory [Bandura])
(Allan & Dory, 2001; Pride, 2005; Steel,
2007; Varney, 2003)
self-handicapping: students control
performance by procrastinating, shifting
blame to uncontrollable factors to preserve
self-worth (i.e, advising or teaching, illness)
(Harsch, 2008, p. 5)
pessimism (Allan & Dory, 2001; Cohen,
1998; Good, 2002; Lenz, 1997)
Literature review closing discussion.
The literature in this review shows that students that interact and feel connected to the
institution, faculty, advisers, and peers are more likely to persist. In addition, a student’s personal
issues could also affect dissertation completion. Many interventions for students, suggestions for
future research, and finding solutions were included in the review of literature. For the most part,
the primary focus of the literature was traditional on-campus students but DE literature was used
to show that some issues are shared with traditional on-campus students such as time for family
86
or work, feelings of ambiguity about the dissertation process, and feelings of isolation. Allan and
Dory (2001) explain that some research (i.e., Miller, 1995; Sigafus, 1998) used participants that
went through the dissertation process from 1970 to 1998 and when some interventions had not
been enacted and they had to recall their experience that could lead to some information being
outdated. As a result, this study will seek participants that are currently ABD/DC, or that
completed a doctorate, or left studies within the past five years (2009-2014) to find current
factors or issues that affect dissertation completion.
87
CHAPTER 3
Methodology
Survey design.
A survey questionnaire was created to locate factors or sets of factors that ABD/DCs,
recent PhDs (2009-current), and ABD/DCs that left doctoral studies (after 2009) felt enabled or
inhibited dissertation completion. Questions were created for different areas explored in
literature review such as factors related to whether coursework or other services prepared
students in researching and writing a dissertation, adviser (behavior toward students), personal
student skills and abilities, or student behaviors or tendencies. Creating questions from these and
other areas were intended to show factors most prevalent to dissertation writers at this time
and/or relationships between factors. For example, a personal factor such as procrastination
could appear when an institutional issue such as an adviser’s lack of feedback is present.
The recruitment method involved using social networks (SocNets) to find and recruit
participants. After searching SocNets for possible participants, a short statement was sent to
individuals or groups that are current ABDs, recent PhDs, or who recently left before dissertation
completion. Terms used in this section to describe the statement sent out to possible participants
are recruitment “text,” “post/posting,” or “survey invitation.” Recruitment statements, postings,
group profiles, blogs, or recruitment postings, were created using words or symbols in sentences
that may not always be considered good academic/English form because of the word limits on
SocNets. An example is Twitter’s character restriction of 140 per tweet; therefore, conserving
space is critical. By using an ampersand (&) instead of the word “and” cuts two characters even
though it may not be acceptable in many other forms of writing. In addition to use of ampersand
shortcuts, apostrophes for contractions or possessives were excluded, and numbers were used
88
instead of writing out the number such as using 4 instead of four. Any shortcuts used in the
recruitment texts, is by design, not an error or lapse of “grammatical/punctuational” judgment.
Searching SocNets sites for possible participants and sending them a recruitment
note/survey invitation is detailed in this section and was done within each SocNet’s guidelines.
The survey(s) were located online on the Qualtrics web site where they also house all responses
in their database. When the surveys closed, completed surveys were downloaded in a “portable
document format” (PDF) in order to compare with results that were saved/downloaded as an
Excel file or SPSS (statistical software file). The surveys or downloaded SPSS/PDF files are kept
in a secure location and are scheduled to be destroyed in five years. The survey in Qualtrics was
created with four questions per page because Qualtrics software automatically saves each page a
participant completes so participants do not have to be concerned with saving the file or losing
the progress they made. In addition, if a participant stops taking the survey for any length of
time, their partially completed survey will remain saved as “in progress” for up to one week.
Research questions.
Data from the two survey instruments were used to answer the following five research
questions
1. Does student interaction with faculty, advisers, dissertation chairs, or committees help
dissertation writers?
2. Do institutional services or policies help dissertation writers?
3. Does a sense of community, connectedness, or CoP help dissertation writers?
4. Does socialization/enculturation/training in dissertation research or writing help
dissertation writers?
5. Do student personal issues affect dissertation writers positively or negatively?
89
Survey instruments.
Survey instrument 1: Dissertation Completion Factors Survey (long survey). A thirty-six
question survey titled Dissertation Completion Factors Survey (Long Survey) (see Appendix C)
was created based on the different factors found in the literature. The survey consists of thirty-
four Likert-style questions and two open-ended questions. The open-ended questions give
participants an opportunity to explain what they felt helped or hindered PhD/dissertation
completion.
The two open-ended questions are:
35) Please list the things that have helped you most along the way to your PhD.
36) Please list the things that have been most difficult in completing the PhD.
The instrument contained demographic questions about gender, race/ethnicity, type of
C&U and program attended, and employment status during the dissertation process. No
compensation was offered to participants. The CGU institutional Review Board (IRB) reviewed
the survey instrument, consent form, and recruitment texts and determined this study be exempt
from their direct oversight. The long survey was put on Qualtrics October 20, 2013 and modified
November 7th 2013 for minor changes in question numbering and then activated.
Because of the holiday season, the long survey only received four responses from
November-December 2013. After recruitment efforts were initiated the first week of January
2014 and continued every two weeks through to April 11, 2014, there were only fifteen
responses in January 2014, two in February 2014, one in March 2014, and two in April 2014.
After the long survey was activated and recruitment began on November 7th 2013, there were
forty-one surveys in the Qualtrics survey queue by April 11, 2014; only twenty-four were
completed. Some surveys were opened and viewed but no responses were filled in, and five of
90
the surveys only had three to eight questions answered voiding all of them as results in this
study. Due to the low response rate, it was decided that a second shorter survey should be created
and compensation offered to increase participation.
Survey instrument 2: Dissertation Completion Factors Survey-2 (short survey). A second
survey (Dissertation Completion Factors Survey-2) (see Appendix E) was created by eliminating
some of the questions from the long survey and adding compensation to the consent form and
recruitment texts. The short survey contained twenty-four Likert-type and demographic
questions and the two open-ended questions (in the short survey the open-ended question
numbers are 25 (what helped most) and 26 (what made it most difficult). The compensation
offered for participation in the second survey was three Amazon.com gift cards awarded to three
participants via a drawing after the survey was closed.
The short survey and new consent form changes were submitted to CGU IRB to approve
the changes in the survey, consent form, and recruitment texts. IRB explained that since this
study was originally considered exempt, the changes submitted did not require changing IRB
status. The second, shorter survey was activated on June 20, 2014. Once the short survey was
activated, no more recruitment efforts were made for the long survey, but the survey remained
active because of posts on groups that someone could read (posting archives) and go to the
survey site.
Participants.
The target sample consists of three groups. (1) ABD/DCs currently researching and
writing a dissertation; (2) ABD/DCs who did not complete their dissertation and left doctoral
studies during the dissertation process on a temporary basis (stop-outs) or permanently
91
(dropouts) between 2009 to 2013; and (3) recent PhDs who completed a dissertation and
graduated with a doctoral degree between 2009 to 2013.
The date range for groups 2 and 3 helps ensure that participants are recent dissertation
writers or completers who still recall the process rather than individuals who attained a PhD
before 2009 and may have forgotten or dismissed certain factors. Another reason to limit the date
range for participant groups 2 and 3 (2009-2013) includes the possibility that some ABD/DCs
may have had opportunities to participate in interventions implemented in the past few years (see
Table 21).
Table 21. Possible interventions implemented since 2009 benefiting ABD/DCs.
• workshops for researchers and writers • financial/funding assistance
• creating peer/faculty/adviser interaction
for support and feedback
• services or referrals for individual,
health, or family issues
• coursework that includes planning and
scheduling projects
• family-friendly services from housing to
approved absences for new mothers or
fathers
The three groups of students could possibly offer different points of view about the
dissertation process; what they are currently facing, what it took to finish their dissertation, or
what made them leave doctoral studies after completing all other ABD/DC requirements.
Participants can be from any discipline, a private or public institution, have any dissertation
topic, or be any age, which helps ensure participation because there are no limits other than being
from one of the three groups listed.
Recruitment of the second group of participants, dissertation non-completers, may be
more problematic. In most cases, they are generally referred to as “drop-outs,” “stop-outs,” or
early dismissals and not choose to take part in the survey or do not wish to identify themselves as
part of this group in the survey demographics. Some ABD/DCs leave doctoral studies during the
92
dissertation process and their reasons may or may not involve factors in previous studies or (a)
they felt a PhD was not needed for career advancement, (b) they felt that a PhD was not what
they wanted to pursue, or (c) they took an employment position that required re-location.
Another reason it may be difficult to recruit participants from this group is that participation
could cause them to feel negatively about themselves or their departure because the terms early
withdrawal/dismissal, drop-out, or stop-out can be pejorative in nature. Lastly, it may be difficult
to find individuals from this group by contacting PhD granting institutions that may dismiss the
request as invasive to those students or not track students that leave prior to dissertation
completion. In the literature review it was noted that some students may have fallen between the
cracks/under the radar or that some institutions do not conduct exit interviews with students that
withdraw or are dismissed (Bair, 1999). However, some students that withdrew or were
dismissed after reaching ABD/DC status could hear about the study from friends or ex-
classmates who get a recruitment note or who are participating in the survey.
Recruitment and survey distribution via social networks.
Social network sites chosen for recruitment. A search was conducted on a social network
(SocNet) review site to find SocNets that can be easily searched for words or terms, have
searchable profiles for individuals and groups, age range of members, if they permit non-
members to contact individuals or groups, and/or many other features. From the list of 25
SocNets listed, seven were chosen initially as potential recruitment sites for this study: Google+
(plus), LinkedIn, StumbleUpon, Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, and Yahoo Groups. Two were
excluded after they were reviewed; StumbleUpon was excluded because it was predominantly a
site to share images, photographs, videos. Google+ (plus) was excluded because it required that
members use Google email (gmail), provide a cellular telephone number, and give other personal
93
information such as home address, other telephone contact numbers, and so on. The five SocNet
sites chosen for participant recruitment for this study are LinkedIn, Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook,
and Yahoo Groups because they were easy to join, had a sizable membership, a broad age-range,
and ways to find members located in the US. After searching the SocNets and locating possible
participants, survey invitations were sent to them. Participants were located as group members or
individual members of SocNet sites. All five social networking sites either have individual
members and/or member groups set up for individuals with different interests. Individuals can
create profiles, comments, posts, or blogs that can be searched or viewed by others, and groups
can be searched for their description or area of interest, comments, and posts.
A brief description of the five SocNets chosen follow. LinkedIn, is a SocNet consisting of
professional people or groups that “link” with others to stay informed in their business/careers or
areas of interest. Twitter and Tumblr are SocNet sites where individuals can exchange comments
with each other or post statements (blog) about any topic they choose. Facebook is a SocNet site
that permits individuals or groups to post comments about themselves and/or topics or areas of
interest. Lastly, Yahoo Groups is a SocNet site made up of groups formed in different topic
areas. Each SocNet site has rules of conduct for contacting other members or for what is
acceptable to post. Individuals can “follow” another member’s or group postings on any of these
SocNet sites, which is a way people can meet up or group with others who have similar areas of
interest, to comment/post on a topic, or make interesting comments in general.
Searching on Facebook, Yahoo, and LinkedIn yielded a number of groups found using
search terms that appear in their description or name. Twitter or Tumblr yielded hundreds of
people by using search words/terms such as dissertation, ABD, or doctoral that appeared in their
profile, previous Tweets, or posts to other members. All five SocNet sites have ways to forward
94
or share comments/posts they receive that helped get the word out about this survey. In addition,
followers of any group or individual could see a comment someone made about this survey. For
example, someone can send the recruitment tweet/text to others (called a re-tweet or re-
tweeting). Message forwarding can be done on all of the SocNet sites via re-posting, making a
comment about the survey, or using email. Another way the survey link/recruitment note was
shared was with a service offered by LinkedIn called “in mail” for their paying subscription
members. Members can contact each other without using their own email or posting comments
in a group or as individuals. These forms of contact on SocNets could create a snowball effect
for recruitment that was not originally known about how to contact individuals on a SocNet.
As possible participants were located via a search, a recruitment post/text was sent to
them and if a dissertation writers group or other similar topic was found, a recruitment post was
sent to the group unless there was a requirement that someone must join a group first. Posting to
a group that has this type of requirement requires submitting a request to join the group and
answering a number of questions about why you want to join or why the group appeals to you.
Your request to join is reviewed by the group moderator/creator that grants or denies permission.
If granted permission to join, which can take anywhere from a few hours to a few days, the
group’s rules on posting comments or contacting others on that SocNet must be followed. If not
followed and a recruitment note is posted that is not part of the group’s approved policy, your
membership can be revoked.
Prior to IRB approval, each SocNet site was accessed before the study was approved to
learn how to navigate it, how to run searches, and the type of information that could be searched
but no individuals or groups on any of the sites were contacted regarding the study. Some
SocNet interfaces require time to learn how to navigate, use their search engine, and/or to learn
95
how to set up a profile, member name, or a group. The researcher joined some groups on
LinkedIn and Yahoo Groups to take part in various discussions or answering member questions
that could help the researcher become known as a “regular” member, or establish a presence as a
fellow student, or someone that could help answer basic questions. The researcher holds a Master
of Library and Information Science (MLIS) in academic library database research and could
answer questions about finding literature review articles or how to cite sources if a group
member posts a request for help in that area. The upcoming survey was never mentioned or
referred to until IRB approval of the study. In some cases, the researcher started a group about
dissertation writing and research. The groups that were started had a name, profile, group
description, or posts that were created with phrases or words such as doctoral candidate, all but
dissertation, ABD, dissertation writers, PhD, and so on. This way anyone who searches those
terms will find the group created by the researcher so they could join the group, ask questions, or
make comments. An example of the different posts, group descriptions, or profiles were similar
or identical to the following list; more examples of group posts or descriptions of group(s)
started by the researcher are given in Appendix G.
• names of groups created by the researcher: Dissertation Writers Past & Present,
Dissertation or PhD, and Dissertation Writers (ABD) & Recent PhDs
• this is a group for dissertation writers that want to ask questions or give answers to
questions about dissertation research or writing
• this group is for current “all but dissertation” (ABD) students, doctoral candidates, or
recent PhDs that want to share their frustrations, comments, concerns, and experience
Logging searches and results. In addition to joining or starting groups, conducting
systematic searches using identical words or terms in each of the SocNet sites helped ensure a
96
balanced approach to find participants or groups. Logging the information in a computer
spreadsheet program when it can be “sorted” and alphabetized by any of the following ways can
help a researcher avoid “contact redundancy” and track which ways finding participants was
working/worked the best. Logs included (a) name of the SocNet, (b) words/phrases used in
searches, (c) screen name/online ID or group name, (d) date, (e) time, (f) a copy of the
recruitment text or posting sent, (g) to track how many and which individuals or groups were
contacted, and any (h) SocNets they “connect” with, or other options that help locate other
possible participants. As new words or terms were found in individual or group posts, they were
logged onto the list of words or terms to use when searching other SocNets. In addition, as all
information was added to the spreadsheet, it decreased the risk of sending a second recruitment
request to individuals or groups that could appear unprofessional, be reported as spam, and to
avoid “contact redundancy.”
All profiles, posts, or job descriptions retrieved in searches were reviewed one-by-one to
note new words or terms and any information about others who could be sent a recruitment note.
Moreover, logging information helps to avoid “cross social network” searches. For example,
someone on Twitter may also have a Facebook membership under a different screen name or
online ID and mention it in their Twitter profile. Logging their Facebook account name can limit
sending them a second recruitment note and avoid “cross social network” recruitment attempts
that could appear to be invasive. Many benefits of logging information include saving time
locating information to conduct subsequent searches. The following list gives the benefits of
logging certain information in these types of searches (bulleted points) and the reasons why
logging is a benefit (dashed points).
• which site was accessed
97
– ability to tally response rates from each SocNet and use that knowledge for subsequent
recruitment
– to make sure consistent recruitment follows a schedule
– tracking search frequency to ensure recruitment saturation
• which search terms/words were used to locate possible participants
– to note which recruitment texts worked best to recruit on different SocNets
– to locate new words or terms individuals or groups were using
• the “screen name” or online ID of the person that was sent a recruitment note
– avoid contact redundancy in future recruitment attempts
– helps avoid redundancy in “cross social network” searches and recruitment
– to read their profile or group pages to get new search words/terms
– to read their profile or group pages to find others who commented and could be
contacted for recruitment
• which recruitment note/survey invitation was sent
– to track any issues arising from phrasing (ambiguity; guidelines for “appropriate”
language or contacting SocNet users, or other SocNet terms of service)
– to note which recruitment text had the most responses
• time, date, and day of the week
– to locate new members or groups that may have joined the sites since the last posting
– to note which time or days are best for recruitment (yields the best results)
– when to continue recruitment efforts
Creation of a dedicated email address. A dedicated email address was created as a way
for participants to contact the researcher for assistance with issues that may come up using an
98
online survey. Although prospective participants have ways to contact the researcher via their
SocNet chat or email capabilities, a dedicated email also helps the researcher avoid issues of
missed contact with anyone or SocNets regarding policy changes, rule violations for postings, or
updates on participants that forwarded my post to them or to others. In addition, when joining
SocNets an email address is required and one dedicated to the study helped insure that the
researcher can monitor all study-related correspondence without having to sort it from work or
personal email.
Email was checked every two hours after each recruitment effort on any SocNet sites in
case participants had questions about the study or a technical issue. Email was checked every
two hours until 12:00am pacific time (California) then the two hour interval begin again at
8:00am (pacific) for a period of 48 hours so participant or SocNet emails coud be addressed in a
timely manner. On all other days that the surveys were active, the dedicated email was checked
every 4 to 5 hours to respond to questions or check SocNet correspondences addressed to the
researcher. Furthermore, the dedicated email created was more professional in appearance and
lended credibility to the survey/research. The email remained active and was monitored daily for
up to 60 days after close of the survey. Participants that placed their email address on the consent
form to enter the Amazon.com gift card giveaway or to request study results were contacted
using the dedicated email. Sixty days after email notifications were sent to Amazon card
recipients and/or portions of the survey results they requested (from Chapter 4) the email address
were closed. The sixty-day time frame gave participants a way to contact the researcher about
study results or Amazon gift card issues.
Searches to locate and attract possible participants. There is no set method to run on the
Internet, in search engines, or SocNet sites; however, a method can be created and employed by
99
the searcher depending on their experience or knowledge using these mediums. The researcher
holds a Master of Library and Information Science (MLIS) with a specialty in retrieval systems
design. This specialty comes from course and thesis work in theory and design, experience as an
instructor in retrieval systems design workshops, and being well versed in using scholarly
databases, Internet search engines, or searching on web sites. As a research consultant, searches
are done within the capabilities of the site being searched, and with the understanding that how
something was put into a database or profile is how it must be found. Search strategies were
employed that fit the search parameters of each SocNet site and knowledge of retrieval systems.
For example, using a term such as “dissertation writers” may not obtain many results because the
word “writer” is plural (writers) and the individual inputting their information may have not used
the plural “writers.” An example of running the exhaustive searches employed to find survey
participants for this study is using only the word “doctoral” to try to find individuals or groups
that listed “doctoral program,” “doctoral thesis,” or “doctoral candidate” in their profiles or
posts. Results for the word doctorate or doctoral were each in the hundreds, taking hours to filter
through every “hit” retrieved in order to find a possible participant.
A search for the word dissertation brought over 600 cumulative “hits” on three sites in
one day, Twitter, Tumblr, and Yahoo Groups. Filtering through all of the hits was done in one
sitting because the number of hits could be reduced if trying to navigate back to find the same
results if any individuals left a SocNet or changed their user name. The same rigorous efforts and
scheduling was used on numerous days to recruit participants. Some of the items that were
retrieved were out of context such as dissertation editor advertisements that had to be excluded
from the possible participant recruitment pool. It is important to keep in mind that a group or
individual posting/title can be misleading and something of value contextually could be
100
overlooked. For example, other “hits” retrieved were “I hate my dissertation” or “F*** my
dissertation” and after reading the person’s profile, they might explain that they felt exasperated
during the dissertation process, which would make them a possible participant. This is why
reading profiles, blogs, posts, and discussion boards (from groups) was critical in finding
possible participants. Moreover, using a variety of words and terms and tracking the amount of
results employing them can help with subsequent searches in other SocNets chosen for this
study. No more searches were conducted for long survey participants after the short survey was
activated in June 2014, but the same five SocNets were used to recruit for the short survey.
Because using the most common or logical search words and terms were exhausted,
another strategy used to find and recruit participants was trying to locate people by type of
doctorate they are working on or completed. To find a list of doctorates, a “Google” search for
type of doctorate retrieved well over thirty types of doctorates and the acronyms for them (see a
partial list in Appendix H). Searching for doctorate titles involved using the full title and the
acronym for it (Doctor of Philosophy versus DPhil). A rigorous effort was made searching the
acronyms for different types of doctorates in the five SocNets (searches for EdD, DPhil, and
others). Results trying both “title” and acronym revealed better results using the acronym. For
example, someone wrote in their profile that they were pursuing a DPhil. Searching for Doctor of
Philosophy did not retrieve that person’s profile. The acronym and doctorate title was searched
in the hope of finding individuals that were commenting about the degree they were working on.
Recruitment texts employed to attract possible participants. Recruitment texts were
submitted to IRB for the long and short, and since this study was determined to be exempt, IRB
did not set any restrictions to the texts submitted for their approval. Some of the recruitment text
examples are given near the end of this section, and were similar for both surveys. They only
101
differed per SocNets depending on word/character limits or site guidelines. Recruitment for the
long survey ceased after the short was activated, but the long survey was kept open and active
because prior postings with the survey link could have been found by anyone searching a
SocNet.
After participants were located, recruitment texts for the short survey included mention
that this survey had fewer questions and that Amazon gift cards were being offered as
compensation. This was done because some individuals might have received a recruitment text
for the long survey, and declined taking it because if its length or because no compensation was
being offered and these two points could increase participation. An example of some long and
short recruitment texts follow (see Appendix G for more recruitment texts)
• Students who have recently written, are still writing, or did not finish their dissertation
are invited to participate in a study to find factors that helped or hindered their progress
during the dissertation process.
• Please feel free to contact fellow ABD/doctoral candidates, recent PhD graduates, and
students you may know who did not complete their dissertations so they can participate
in the study.
• In Twitter with 140 character posting limit: Short dissertation writers survey, ABDs that
leave, & PhDs since 2009. Amazon gift card drawings.
https://cgu.co1.qualtrics.com/xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Although recruitment strategy will vary among researchers and within context to the type
of searches they conduct or type of research, the methodology presented here documents what
this researcher found to be helpful or that other researchers can build on, modify, change, refine,
or use in subsequent research.
102
Protecting participant identity.
Coding created for survey participants. Each survey was given an ID code to shield the
participant’s identity; however, the codes assisted the researcher to identify certain aspects about
a survey participant. Qualtrics gives a “general” geographic location of participant via an arrow
pointing to a place on a map; however, no exact address or other identifiable information is
given. Survey coding created and the sequence used for each survey are as follows
• Student geographic location at the time of the survey, but not necessarily where they
attended: 1 = USA, 2 = Not USA
• Participant’s educational status at the time they took the survey: A = ABD; P = PhD; F
= Left Studies
• Type of survey taken: long or short: L = Long Survey; S = Short Survey
• The type of college/university attended/ing and type of program C = public/state school;
V = private school; D** = distance education
• How a participant found out about the study: N = another student, peers, faculty, or
adviser; B = Facebook; I = LinkedIn; T = Twitter; Y = Yahoo; O = other site (one
another student may blog the link or pass on to others)
• Random numbers beginning with 001 through 061 (the number of participants).
** On-campus/traditional-type programs were identified after reading survey responses
for that question. If someone said they attended a DE program it was identified by
using a “D” as a way to distinguish these participants
Letters used in the coding method may not represent actual information about a
participant’s characteristics. For example, for anyone who heard about the survey/study on
LinkedIn, an “I” was used because “L” was used for type of survey taken (long). An example of
103
the coding is 1ALCI001 indicating the participant took the survey from a US geo-location, is an
ABD/DC, took the long survey, attended a public, on-campus school, found out about the study
on LinkedIn, and was randomly assigned a number (011). The codes created also helped when
assigned to the open-ended participant responses.
Quantitative and Qualitative Methods
This study employs quantitative and qualitative methods, commonly referred to as mixed
methods (MMs). The two methods have proponents with many reasons to support both methods.
The general point made by Terrell (2012) is that use of the method employed should suit a
researcher’s theoretical perspective to gain a better understanding of the issue or phenomenon
being studied. This study employs a quantitative approach to use statistical methods to find
frequencies or cross tabulations (of variables) as well as relationships or correlations. The
qualitative open-ended portion of the survey provided participants an opportunity to elaborate on
what helped therm or made the dissertation process difficult. For many years, there was
conjecture by positivist quantitative supporters and constructivist qualitative supporters (Terrell,
2012) who asserted results from their method had benefits. Qualitative researchers sought to find
the subtext of a topic of exploration or read “between the lines.” A truce in the paradigm wars
between quantitative and qualitative proponents in the 1980s and 90s occurred and how use of
both methods are compatible (Terrell, 2012, p. 258). A great deal of discussion on the benefits of
employing mixed methods has been detailed by a number of authors as cited by Caruth (2013):
Creswell, 2012; Frels & Onwuegbuzie, 2013; Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007; Greenwood & Terry,
2012; Hong & Espelage, 2011; Salehi & Golafshani, 2010; Truscott, Swars, Smith, Thornton-
Reid, Zhao, Dooley, Williams, Hart, & Matthews, 2010; and Venkatesh, Brown, & Bala, 2013).
104
Caruth (2013) lists weaknesses and ethical issues in using MMs. Weaknesses are that it is
time consuming, may be difficult for a single researcher, requires knowledge of both methods
and how they mesh and having the ability to explain why MMs are being used, and last that
MMs can come into question with “methodological purists” (p. 115). This requires using
quantitative and qualitative methods on their own to gain mastery and the ability to distinguish
the difference or complementary nature of both methods. Objectivity is the responsibility of the
researcher in both cases, and for qualitative researchers, they must also acknowledge that they
are part of the survey instrument, because they code responses and analyze them and must
remain objective (Patton, 2002).
For this study, the researcher has kept issues and concerns using MMs in mind in the way
information from each method compares, contrasts, and relates to each other. In addition, use of
MM could possibly prove validity of their use through cross validation (triangulation) of
quantitative and qualitative responses (Caruth, 2013; Fakis, Hilliam, Stoneley, & Townend,
2014). As Caruth (2013) emphasizes, quantitative and qualitative data gathered should be
analyzed and evaluated independently and collectively (p. 116). The open-ended questions in this
study gave participants a way to state what helped them the most or what made things more
difficult that the quantitative instrument did not include.
Quantitative methods.
The survey questions have a number of optional responses in either a Likert format or a
Check all that apply format. An example of each type of question is:
“Check all that apply” type question:
4) I chose my dissertation topic (Check all that apply)
__ after completing all doctoral coursework
105
__ because I always knew what I wanted my topic to be
__ because one of my professors suggested one
__ because my adviser suggested one
__ but my adviser made me modify or change my topic
__ but my adviser made me accept her/his choice of topic
Likert type question:
1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree
During the dissertation process a sense of community, community/ies of
practice, or feeling connected
1 2 3 4 5
made me feel less isolated
gave me a way to vent my frustration
helped me through times when I got stuck
From the examples shown, each topic is a variable. Thus, the Likert question shown
consists of three variables. The “Check all that apply” question has six topics, there could be one.
Descriptive statistics were employed to assess results of both types of questions as well as
frequencies and cross-tabulations (crosstabs) to determine the amount of responses to each
question-option. SPSS was employed to analyze quantitative data. After open-ended data was
categorized and coded, an SPSS file was created to assess frequencies.
Qualitative methods.
There are pros and cons to using qualitative methods. First, Hoyle, Harris, and Judd
(2002) explain that there could be the inability to “reconstruct. . . experiences” (p. 215), which
could be the case for PhD graduates and current ABDs.
Data analysis. Open-ended responses were coded by common theme and grouped by
code in a semi-structured format (Fakis et al., 2014). Grouping was done by question type (1) the
things that have helped you most along the way to your PhD, and (2) the things that have been
106
most difficult in completing the PhD. After responses were grouped, themes in each group were
identified such as: adviser, committee, peers, spouse/family, motivation, and so on. If there were
comments that someone had support from family or spouse it was considered a personal factor. If
a participant wrote that they were unprepared for the dissertation process, it was considered an
institutional factor because preparation is part of writing for coursework or learned in workshops
or through a campus writing center. These two examples are from what helped most or what
made the process difficult from a personal or institutional perspective. Frequencies were
obtained from these groupings and categories.
When there was no factor from the open-ended responses that matched factors given in
the review of literature one was created. For example, someone said they needed time to relax so
they played video games. A “diversions” factor was created for things that divert someone’s
attention away from writing or research. The category is considered to be a “personal” issue
based on what was considered a personal factor given in previous studies. Using the literature
review as a guide to personal factors found and previously categorized, some were structural
(writing skills, task management), environmental (work or family obligations), or
internal/psychological (lack of self- efficacy or esteem, perfectionism) (Green, 1997). Thus, the
distinction between a personal factor that helped or made things difficult was made using
previous examples. Open-ended grouping and categorizing did not rely on researcher
interpretation (Patton, 2002), but on what the participant wrote, and the type of factor was based
on previous study findings. Previous findings reported seventeen to twenty-five factors that
positively or negatively affect ABD/DC dissertation completion and were grouped into
categories in such as psychological, structural, external, institutional, and compatibility (Allan &
Dory, 2001). These categories were addressed in the survey and open-ended questions.
107
In some cases, distinct responses were defined as a personal-structural issue such as
needing help with planning time to write or needing to develop academic writing skills. A
personal factor was considered internal is if a participant said that they felt uncertainty in their
ability to complete their dissertation or that they went through bouts of depression. Depression or
lack of self-efficacy is considered a personal-internal psychological factor. The literature review
included interventions implemented by institutions that could help students and this study
provides results regarding the need for workshops, assistantships or funding, or assisting ABDs
in creating a structure to follow to meet progress deadlines during the dissertation process, or
other interventions/recommendations to facilitate dissertation completion.
Concluding comments.
Use of quantitative and qualitative methods (MMs) was helpful in locating emerging
themes and to corroborate past study findings. In addition, open-ended question responses
provided more detail about factors that ABDs or recent PhDs found helpful or made the process
more difficult.
108
CHAPTER 4
Results
Study demographics.
Total participants for long survey and short survey. There were 61 participants from the
long (25) and short survey (36). One participant from each survey said they left studies before
completing their dissertation/PhD and because they were ABD when they left they are
considered “ABD” in all data assessed or used as an educational status variable. The breakdown
of participants’ by educational status (ABD or PhD) is given in Table 22. All percentages
included in the demographic tables in this chapter are based on the combined participant totals of
the long and short survey (61) unless specified that there were fewer participants responding to a
question.
Total ABD and PhD participants from both surveys. Overall, there were more ABD than
PhD participants from both surveys. Of the 25 long survey participants, 14 were ABD (56%) and
21 of 36 participants from the short survey were ABD (58.33%). There were 11 PhD participants
from the long survey and 15 from the short survey for a total of 26 PhDs. The totals show that
57.38% of the study participants were ABD and 42.62% were PhD (see Table 22).
Table 22. Educational Status of Participants in the Long and Short Survey.
Participants Long Survey Short Survey Combined Totals
ABDs 14 (56%) 21 (58.33%) 35 (57.38%)
PhDs 11 (44%) 15 (41.67%) 26 (42.62%)
Totals 25 (100%) 36 (100%) 61 (100%)
109
Gender of ABD and PhD participants. Overall, there were more female than male
participants with 18 from the long survey and 24 from the short survey, for a total of 44
(72.13%) females. There were 6 male participants from the long survey and 10 from the short
survey totaling 16 (26.23% overall) (see Table 23).
Table 23. Long and Short Survey Participant Gender.
Participants Long Survey Short Survey Combined Totals
Females 18 (29.51%) 26 (42.62%) 44 (72.13%)
Males 6 (9.84%) 10 (16.39%) 16 (26.23%)
Decline to state gender 1 (1.64%) 0 1 (1.64%)
Totals 25 (40.98%) 36 (59.02%) 61 (100%)
Participant gender and educational status is shown in Table 24. One ABD from the long
survey declined to state gender and is shown in the demographic tables as “decline to state
gender.” Female ABDs from both surveys (28) outnumber male ABDs (6) for a total of 34 ABDs
(35 ABDs and 1 decline to state gender). Combined there were 26 PhD participants (17 females
and 9 males). Overall, females represent 73.77% of all participants.
110
Table 24. Long and Short Survey Participants with Gender and Educational Status.
Females Males
Decline to
state gender
Totals
ABDs (long) 11 (18.03%) 2 (3.28%) 1 (1.64%) 14 (22.95%)
PhDs (long) 8 (13.11%) 3 (4.92%) 0 11 (18.03%)
ABDs (short) 17 (27.87%) 4 (6.56%) 0 21 (34.43%)
PhDs (short) 9 (14.75%) 6 (9.84%) 0 15 (24.59%)
Totals 45 (73.77%) 15 (24.59%) 1 (1.64%) 61 (100%)
Totals for ABDs and PhDs by gender shows that all male and female ABDs (35)
outnumber all male and female PhDs (26) (see Table 25). The interest in these numbers has to do
with responses given; ABDs are currently in the dissertation process and PhDs have finished
their dissertation. Thus, the perspective of ABDs could differ from PhDs because as factors were
found in previous studies, interventions, policies, and services have been implemented to address
them at some C&Us. Some recent interventions involve funding opportunities and family
friendly policies or writing and research workshops and seminars. Current ABDs may be
benefiting from interventions needed to facilitate the transition to the dissertation process,
providing financial assistance, or other helpful programs, policies, or services.
Table 25. Total Participants from Both Surveys Aggregated by Gender and Educational Status.
Females Males
Decline to
state gender
Totals
ABDs by Gender 28 (45.9%) 6 (9.84%) 1 (1.64%) 35 (57.38%)
PhDs by Gender 17 (27.87%) 9 (14.75%) 0 26 (42.62%)
Totals 45 (73.77%) 15 (24.59%) 1 (1.64%) 61 (100%)
111
Participant ethnicity. Whites outnumber all other races at 72.13%. Of the 61 participants,
44 were White, with the next closest ethnicity/race being Asian (6) and Black/African-American
(6) followed by 1 (1.64%) Latina/o, Middle Eastern, Indian (India), Filipino, and Asian/White.
Table 26 lists participant ethnicity/race with their educational status and gender. Females of all
ethnicities/races outnumber males; there were 15 male participants with 13 being White followed
by 1 Asian and 1 Filipino male.
Table 26. Participant Ethnicity with Educational Status and Gender.
Race/ethnicity ABD PhD Totals Female Male Totals
Asian
3
(4.92%)
3
(4.92%)
6
(9.84%)
5
(8.2%)
1
(1.64%)
6
(9.84%)
Black/African
American
5
(8.2%)
1
(1.64%)
6
(9.84%)
6
(9.84%)
0
6
(9.84%)
Latina/o 0
1
(1.64%)
1
(1.64%)
1
(1.64%)
0
1
(1.64%)
White
25
(40.98%)
19
(31.15%)
44
(72.13%)
30
(49.18%)
13
(21.31%)
43
(70.49%)
Middle Eastern 0
1
(1.64%)
1
(1.64%)
1
(1.64%)
0
1
(1.64%)
Indian/India
1
(1.64%)
0
1
(1.64%)
1
(1.64%)
0
1
(1.64%)
Filipino 0
1
(1.64%)
1
(1.64%)
0
1
(1.64%)
1
(1.64%)
Asian/White
1
(1.64%)
0
1
(1.64%)
1
(1.64%)
0
1
(1.64%)
Totals
35
(57.38%)
26
(42.62%)
61
(100%)
45
(73.77%)
15
(24.59%)
60**
(98.36%)
** 1 White declined to state gender
112
Type of college or university (CorU) and program. Twenty-eight participants (45.9%),
attended public/on-campus institutions (22 females, 5 males, 1 declined to state gender) with
females (22) outnumbering males (5). The next highest number of participants (20) attend/ed
private/on-campus programs (32.79%) with females (12) outnumbering males (8). Eleven
participants (18.03%) attend/ed distance education (DE) programs with 3 at private and 3 at
public institutions and the remaining 5 participants did not disclose if they attended a private or
public DE program. Five DE students did not say which type of school they attend/attended.
Gender and educational status and college/program are given in Table 27. Nine of the 10 DE
students are female (14.75%) and 2 are male (3.28%); nine of the DE participants are ABD and 2
are PhD. Thus, the majority of DE students are ABD (9, resulting in 14.75%) and female (also 9
resulting in 14.75%).
Table 27. Participant Institution/Program Type with Educational Status and Gender.
Institution/Program ABD PhD Totals Female Male Totals
Private (on campus) 12 8
20
(32.79%)
12 8
20++
(32.79%)
Public (on campus) 14 14
28
(45.9%)
22 5
27++
(44.26%)
Private (Dist. Ed.) 2 1
3
(4.92%)
1 2
3++
(4.92%)
Public (Dist. Ed.). 3 0
3
(4.92%)
3 0
3++
(4.92%)
Private (unknown) 0 1
1
(1.64%)
1 0
1++
(1.64%)
Institute (on campus) 0 1
1
(1.64%)
1 0
1++
(1.64%)
Unknown (Dist. Ed.) 4 1
5
(8.2%)
5 0
5++
(8.2%)
Totals
35
(57.38%)
26
(42.62%)
61
(100%)
45++
(73.77%)
15++
(24.59%)
601 ABD
(98.36%)
++ Percent based on 61 participants
1 ABD: 1 ABD declined to state gender (ABD Public – On Campus)
113
Employment status during the dissertation process. Again, the data presented for this
section on participant employment includes educational status and gender (see Table 28). The
question requesting a participant’s employment was worded as follows
– Employment status while you were/are completing your dissertation
Thus, all responses given by PhD and ABD participants do not reflect their current
employment status but their employment statuse while in the dissertation process. Eighteen
females and 9 males (45.9%) worked full time and 12 females and 5 males (27.9%) held down
part time positions. Four female PhDs were unemployed as was 1 female ABD; none of the
males reported being unemployed and one female ABD reported being on disability.
Interestingly, 11 participants checked the option “Other. Please explain” but filled in responses
such as being a TA, a university researcher, an adjunct instructor, a “paid grad student,”
unemployed or worked part time sometimes, had a stipend, one said they did not understand the
question, two said they worked freelance or were self-employed, and two said they had a
teaching fellowship. Interestingly, some these participants were employed part-time or worked a
number of hours per week/month. Participants that checked “Other” (11) made up 18.03% of 61
study participants. Some of the responses for “Other” could be tallied as a “part time” option;
however, the responses for “Other” were not added to the part time employment total.
114
Table 28. Participant Employment Status with Educational Status and Gender.
Employment ABD PhD Totals Female Male Totals
Full time
17
(27.87%)
11
(18.03%)
28
(45.9%)
18
(29.51%)
9
(14.75%)
28
(45.9%)
Part time
11
(18.03%)
6
(9.84%)
17
(27.87%)
12
(19.67%)
5
(8.2%)
17
(27.87%)
Unemployed
1
(1.64%)
3
(4.92%)
4
(6.56%)
4
(6.56%)
0
4
(6.56%)
On disability
1
(1.64%)
0
1
(1.64%)
1
(1.64%)
0
1
(1.64%)
Other
5
(8.2%)
6
(9.84%)
11
(18.03%)
10
(16.4%)
1
(1.64%)
11
(18.03%)
Totals
35
(57.38)
26
(42.62%)
61
(100%)
45
(73.77%)
15
(24.59%)
61
(100%)
Social media results. Because long survey responses were low and the short survey
responses were also low, additional efforts were made to recruit participants. Additional
recruitment efforts were made in Facebook, LinkedIn, Tumblr, Twitter, and Yahoo Groups,
using search terms such those described in Chapter 3 including type of doctorate (i.e., EdD,
DPhil) or the words “doctoral” (doctoral candidate), dissertation, and so on. An example of
recruitment saturation shows that 429 recruitment texts were sent to different SocNets on six
occasions as follows (see Table 29).
Table 29. Example of Recruitment Efforts on SocNets.
Date SocNet Date SocNet
7/1/14 Twitter 7/14 and 15/2014 Tumblr
7/8/14 Twitter 7/15/14 Yahoo Groups
7/16/17 Twitter 7/17/14 Facebook
In addition to the 429 short survey recruitment requests sent on the dates listed, over 250
additional texts were sent to LinkedIn and Yahoo Groups, Tumblr, and Twitter. Table 30 shows
115
an example of the results from Twitter; there were 2,344 views of the recruitment texts by the
individuals, groups, and “re-Tweet” recipients that resulted in 41 surveys being started. Only
thirty-six surveys were completed overall. The example in Table 30 gives researchers an
example of the type of responses this researcher received for total views of the texts sent, how
many recipients replied to the text by “favoriting” the text or sender, visits to the survey link, and
how many recipients retweeted the recruitment text. Thus, the amount of completed surveys for
the short survey alone was not as high as hoped for the amount of attempts and recruitment
requests sent; however this was informative for future SocNet recruitment.
Table 30. Example of Responses to Recruitment Efforts on SocNets.
Date/Time*T
Date/Amount of
Surveys
Started*Q
Total
Views*T
Replies*T
Link
visits*Q
Retweets*T
6/26/14 9:05am
6/20/14 10
6/21/14 1
6/24/14 1
1,016 9 23 4
7/8/14 9:53pm
7/1/14 3
7/2/14 4
7/5/14 2
7/7/14 1
7/8/14 4
581 3 19 1
7/15/14 10:19pm
7/10/14 1
7/11/14 3
7/15/14 2
648 —– 7 4
7/22/14 10:10pm
7/17/14 1
7/21/14 7
7/22/14 1
67 4 3 —–
8/1/14 7:14pm —— 32 2 —– —–
TOTALS: 41 2,344 18 52 9
*T: Recorded by Twitter and sent to the researcher’s Twitter account
*Q: Tallies per data gathered by Qualtrics
116
All five SocNets were checked every three days, but with Twitter and LinkedIn’s better
response rate, more time was spent on them more often than every three days. For example, over
31 hours was spent on three additional days allocated to Twitter and LinkedIn searches to find
possible participants that had not yet been contacted. After hours of recruitment searches and
postings in Facebook, Tumblr, and Yahoo Groups only one respondent from each site took the
survey. LinkedIn responses were numerous, but came from groups the researcher joined or
contacted, and not individuals, whereas Twitter responses primarily came from recruitment texts
sent to individuals. Table 31 shows the SocNet response tallies and includes tallies by
educational status and gender.
117
Table 31. SocNet Tallies of how Participants Found Out About the Study (Long /Short
SurveySocNetT)
SocNet
Female
ABD
Male
ABD
Female
PhD
Male
PhD
Totals
Another Student, Friend,
Adviser, Faculty
4
(6.56%)
3
(4.92%)
3
(4.92%)
1
(1.64%)
11
(18.03%)
Facebook 0
1
(1.64%)
0 0
1
(1.64%)
LinkedIn
9
(14.75%)
1
(1.64%)
6
(9.84%)
2
(3.28%)
18
(29.51%)
Tumblr
1
(1.64%)
0 0 0
1
(1.64%)
Twitter
10
(16.39%)
1
(1.64%)
7
(11.48%)
6
(9.84%)
24
(39.34%)
Yahoo Groups
3
(4.92%)
0
1
(1.64%)
0
4
(6.56%)
Totals
27
(44.26%)
6
(9.84%)
17
(27.87%)
9
(14.75%)
59***
(96.72%)
SocNetT: 59 of 61 particpants (1 declined to state gender and 1 declined to state SocNet).
*** Total participants
Demographics summary. The results of the amount of participants, the type of program
they attend/attended, their educational status, ethnicity/race, or gender could depend on the type
of SocNets used in recruitment, the number of recruitment attempts made, and when recruitment
began. Becoming “known” on different SocNets as someone who is a “regular” participant in
discussions or blogs about dissertation writing could have increased the number and diversity of
participants and is a consideration to explore. SocNets gather demographic information about
their members that could be assessed by future researchers when choosing which to use for their
118
recruitment efforts. No previous research on the SocNets used in this study was based on the
SocNet’s member demographics.
The demographic results show there were more White ABD participants (25) resulting in
40.98% of all participants and White PhDs (19) resulting in 31.15% of all participants.
Cumulatively, there were 44 White participants resulting in 72.13% of all survey participants.
White female participants (30) vastly outnumbered all other ethnicities/races (see Table 26) and
male Whites made up the next greatest number of participants with 13 (21.31%). Thus, 70.49%
(43) of the participants were White and the number of females outnumbered males and there
were more ABD (35) than PhD (26) participants.
In general, most participants attended public on-campus institutions (28) with the next
largest portion of participants (20) attending private on-campus institutions. Thus, participants
that attended on-campus C&Us (48) result in 78.96% of all survey participants. There were 11
DE students (18.03%) in all from public (3), private (3), and undisclosed C&U types. Females
make up 9 of the 11 DE students (81.82%).
The majority of participants were/are employed full time (28) during the dissertation
process (45.9%) and 17 were/are employed part-time (27.87%).
The majority of participants found out about the study from Twitter (24) and LinkedIn
(18) making up 68.85% (42) of all participants. The next highest amount of participants (11)
heard about the study from other students, friends, faculty, or advisers (18.03%). Twitter and
LinkedIn provided more female (32) than male (10) participants. Based on the manner of using
SocNets to recruit participants about dissertation completion it cannot be determined which
SocNet is best to recruit different types of participants such as females, males, ABDs, or PhDs.
119
Quantitative Results
SPSS statistical software version 22 was used to assess the quantitative data from the
survey responses to create frequencies and cross-tabulations (crosstabs) of variables. Crosstabs
were employed to categorize all question responses by educational status (ABD or PhD) and
gender. Distinguishing responses from these groups could shed more light of whether results are
more typical of a specific gender or educational status. Because there were two versions of the
survey (long and short), the numbering of questions were not aligned. The questions may be
viewed for each survey; the long survey is attached as Appendix C and short survey is located in
Appendix E.
An addition was made to the code created for each participant’s questionnaire to help
when using SPSS in the quantitative and open-ended analysis. A “prefix” of a lower-case “m” or
“f” was placed at the beginning of the code to indicate if the response given was made by a
“female” or “male.” A suffix was added to the code to distinguish a participant’s school and
program type. An example is f1ALCI098_PubO and m1PSDB099_PvtO. The participant
f1ALCI098_PubO is a female ABD, took the long survey, is participant 98, and attends/attended
an on-campus public institution and the second example, m1PSDB099_PvtO shows that the
participant is a male PhD, is participant 99, and attends/attended a private on-campus institution.
By assigning a prefix and a suffix to the code, some comments about advisers giving delayed
feedback could be quickly sorted into responses made by DE or on-campus and female or male
participants.
One important reason type of school and program were used in the assessment was
because 18.03% (11) of the participants were DE students and it was of interest to note whether
they responded to factors in the DE literature or whether traditional on-campus students
120
responded to the same issues as DE students. For the most part, the topics DE students generally
reported in past studies were feelings of isolation, lack of contact with their adviser/chair, or
other students.
The quantitative data was run by separating question type; questions were either 3, 4 or 5
point Likert-type questions or questions that asked participants to “Check all that apply.” All
survey questions had a number of options to check for each question and were designated option
a, option b, and so on. For example, the question that follows shows how one question has a
number of options:
1) I chose my dissertation topic (Check all that apply)
__ after completing all doctoral coursework (a)
__ because I always knew what I wanted my topic to be (b)
__ because one of my professors suggested one (c)
__ because my adviser suggested one (d)
__ but my adviser made me modify or change my topic (e)
__ but my adviser made me accept her/his choice of topic (f)
An example of a Likert question that follows shows how each variable for this type of
question was labeled a, b. c and so on by SPSS.
7) I was pessimistic about completing my dissertation at times because 1 2 3 4 5
(a) I did not receive motivational or emotional support
(b) I let things distract me from my writing schedule (self-handicapping)
All Likert and “Check all that apply” question responses will be presented in the results
with the lower case letter to indicate which response variable it is for that question. In addition, it
should be noted again that the question numbers on the longer survey (Appendix C) and the
shorter survey (Appendix E) differ for the same question.
121
There were four “Check all that apply” questions and if an option in the list was not
checked it could be considered “missing” by the statistical software (SPSS) and since it was not
missing but an option that did not apply to the participant, it was not tallied as “missing.” At the
beginning of question results that follow, any “Check all that apply” questions will be identified
before discussing its results. Each option in this example question could be a variable and they
were labeled a to f in SPSS. For the example “Check all that apply” question that follows, a
participant may have checked they always knew what they wanted their topic to be (b) and also
checked option e, that their adviser made them modify or change their topic.
A code indicating gender and educational status will be used when presenting results
throughout the quantitative analysis write ups as follows: fABD (female ABD), mABD (male
ABD), fPhD (female PhD), and mABD (male PhD).
Quantitative survey question results.
Question 1a to 1f.
Question 1a to 1f. Question 1, “I chose my dissertation topic. . . ” asked participants to
“Check all that apply” to any of the 6 options (a to f). The greatest number of responses for this
question was for two choices 1a (29) “. . . after completing all doctoral coursework” and 1b (29)
“. . . because I always knew what I wanted my topic to be.” Three participants did not answer
any of the options (“missing”) 2 fABDs and 1 fPhD.
The remaining options “1c” to “1f” had responses as follows
1c) 7 responses to “. . . because one of my professors suggested one”
1d) 4 responses to “. . . because my adviser suggested one”
1e) 13 responses to “. . . but my adviser made me modify or change my topic”
1f) 0 responses to “. . . but my adviser made me accept her/his choice of topic”
122
Of the 29 participants that checked option 1a, there were 17 ABDs (58.62%) and 12
PhDs (41.38%), and for 1b (29) there were 16 ABD (55.17%) and 13 PhD (44.827%)
participants. Garnering the third largest response (13) was option 1e, “but my adviser made me
modify or change my topic,” which could have been checked in conjunction with options 1a to
1d. Seven responses were checked for 1c professors and there were 4 responses for 1d advisers.
No participants checked “my adviser made me accept her/his choice of topic” (1f). Table 32
shows the number of responses for Question 1 broken down by educational status (ABDs, PhDs)
and gender (females [♀] and males [♂]).
Table 32. Question 1a to 1f “I chose my dissertation topic. . . ” Gender and Ed Stat
Options 1a to 1f AmtTO
♀
(45)
♂
(15)
35
ABDs
26
PhDs
1a) after completing all doctoral
coursework
29
21
(46.67%)
8
(53.33%)
17
(48.57%)
12
(46.15%)
1b) because I always knew what I
wanted my topic to be
29
22
(48.89%)
6
(40%)
16
(45.71%)
13
(50%)
1c) because one of my professors
suggested one
7
6
(13.33%)
1
(6.67%)
4
(11.43%)
3
(11.54%)
1d) because my adviser suggested one 4
3
(6.67%)
1
(6.67%)
2
(5.71%)
2
(7.69%)
1e) but my adviser made me modify
or change my topic
13
8
(17.78%)
4
(26.67%)
9
(25.71%)
4
(15.38%)
1f) but my adviser made me accept
her/his choice of topic
0
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
TO: Total number of responses for that option
Gender: Percentages in each column for females and males are based on the amount of female
(45) and male (15) study participants.
Ed Stat: Percentages in each column for ABDs and PhDs are based on the amount of ABD (45)
and PhD (15) study participants
123
Multiple options could have been checked by a participant such as checking that they
always knew what they wanted their topic to be but the participant declared/chose their topic
after completing doctoral coursework.
Question 2a to 2f.
Question 2a to 2f. Question 2 Who should be responsible for socialization / enculturation
into the dissertation process? has a 3-point Likert response option: No responsibility (NR), Some
responsibility (SR), and Major responsibility (MR). Each variable (2a – 2f) has the name of an
individual or group (i.e., adviser, peers, workshops) that could be responsible for socialization.
For all variables 2a – 2f the top three responses for who should have the MR fell on
advisers/dissertation chairs (43), then the student (40), followed by faculty in the discipline (28).
The highest checked response for who should have SR was peers (36), then workshops and
seminars (32), followed by and faculty in the discipline. The primary result for all NR, SR, and
MR for all question options 2a to 2f is located in Table 33.
124
Table 33. Question 2a to 2f “Who should be responsible for socialization / enculturation into the
dissertation process?”
Options 2a – 2f for Question 2 No Some Major
2a) the student (61) 1 (1.64%) 20 (32.79%) 40 (65.57%)
2b) peers (61) 19 (31.15%) 36 (59.02%) 6 (9.84%)
2c) faculty in our discipline (61) 3 (4.92%) 30 (49.18%) 28 (45.90%)
2d) adviser / chair (61) 2 (3.28%) 16 (26.23%) 43 (70.49%)
2e) doctoral coursework (61) 11 (18.03%) 23 (37.70%) 27 (44.26%)
2f) workshops/seminars (61) 9 (14.75%) 32 (52.46%) 20 (32.79%)
Variable 2a “the student” should have the responsibility for socialization had 61
participant responses for who should have No, Some, or Major Responsibility for socialization.
The majority of responses for students having MR is 40 (65.57%), for SR 20 (32.79%), followed
by 1 for NR. Overwhelmingly, participants felt that the MR falls on the student for their own
socialization into the dissertation process. For this variable (2a), there were a total of 17 fPhD
participating in the study and 14 of them (82.35%) checked that the student has the MR.
Additionally, of the 9 mPhDs participating in the study, 6 also checked MR (66.67%). Thus of
the 26 total fPhDs and mPhDs, 20 (76.92%) checked the student should have MR. Percentages
for all ABD and PhD choices are in Table 34 including ABD and PhD responses by gender.
125
Table 34. Results for 2a “the student” by Educational Status and Gender
2a)
ABD Gender
(61 participants)
PhD Gender
(61 participants)
35
ABDs
26
PhDs
No (1)
0 fABD (0%)
0 mABD (0%)
1 fPhD 1 (1.64%)
0 mPhD (0%)
0
(0%)
1
(3.85%)
Some (20)
9 fABD (9.84%)
3 mABD (4.92%)
5 fPhD (8.2%)
3 mPhD (4.92%)
12
(34.29%)
8
(30.77%)
Major1 ABD (40)
16 fABD (26.23%)
3 mABD (4.92%)
14 fPhD (22.95%)
6 mPhD (9.84%)
20
(57.14%)
20
(76.92%)
1 ABD: 1 ABD declined to state gender
Variable 2b “peers, peer groups, other dissertation writers” should have responsibility for
socialization had 61 participant responses with 6 selecting MR (9.84%), 36 for SR (59.02%), and
19 for NR (31.15%). The majority of responses for peers or other dissertation writers showed
that SR had the most responses with ABDs (19) and PhDs (17) almost agreeing identically on
this choice. In general, there were 6 mABDs and 9 mPhDs participating in the study and for this
variable (2b) 5 of 6 male ABDs (83.33%) and 8 of 9 mPhDs (88.89%) checked that “the student”
had SR. Thus of 15 males participating in the study overall, 13 felt that the student had the SR,
which tallies to 86.67% of 15 male participants.
Table 35. Results for 2b “peers, peer groups, other dissertation writers” by Educational Status
and Gender
2b)
ABD Gender
(61 participants)
PhD Gender
(61 participants)
35
ABDs
26
PhDs
No (19)
12 fABD (19.67%)
1 mABD (1.64%)
6 fPhD (9.84%)
0 mPhD (0%)
13
(37.14%)
6
(23.07%)
Some1 ABD (36)
13 fABD (21.31%)
5 mABD (8.2%)
9 fPhD (14.75%)
8 mPhD (13.11%)
19
(54.29%)
17
(65.38%)
Major (6)
3 fABD (4.92%)
0 mABD (0%)
2 fPhD (3.28%)
1 mPhD (1.64%)
3
(8.57%)
3
(11.54%)
1 ABD: 1 ABD declined to state gender
126
Variable 2c had 61 responses to the level of responsibility “faculty in discipline” should
have in socialization into the dissertation process. SR had the highest number of responses with
30 (49.18%), followed by MR with 28 (45.9%), and NR with 3 (4.92%). For SR and MR, ABDs
outnumbered PhDs; Table 36 shows that collectively for SR and MR ABDs totaled 33 (54.1%)
and PhDs 25 (40.98%). For ABD and PhD totals for MR, SR, and NR please see Table 36
(includes educational status with gender).
Table 36. Results for 2c “faculty in discipline” by Educational Status and Gender
2c)
ABD Gender
(61 participants)
PhD Gender
(61 participants)
35
ABDs
26
PhDs
No (3)
2 fABD (3.28%)
0 mABD (0%)
1 fPhD (1.64%)
0 mPhD (0%)
2
(5.71%)
1
(3.85%)
Some (30)
15 fABD (24.6%)
2 mABD (3.28%)
8 fPhD (13.11%)
5 mPhD (8.2%)
17
(48.57%)
13
(50%)
Major1 ABD (28)
11 fABD (18.03%)
4 mABD (6.56%)
8 fPhD (13.11%)
4 mPhD (6.56%)
16
(45.71%)
12
(46.15%)
1 ABD: 1 ABD declined to state gender
Variable 2d “adviser/dissertation chair” having responsibility for socialization had 61
participant responses with MR (43, 70.49%) having the highest amount of responses, followed
by SR (16, 26.23%), then NR (2, 3.29%). For responses to MR (43), females made up 52.82%
(31) of the respondents and ABDs (26, 42.62%) outnumbered PhDs (16, 26.23%). All 6 mABDs
participating in this study checked the adviser/dissertation chair should have MR for dissertation
process socialization and 5 of 9 mPhDs also checked MR resulting in 11 of 15 male participants
(73.33%) agreeing that an ABDs adviser/dissertation chair should have MR. In addition, 11
(64.71%) of the 17 fPhDs participating in this study also checked MR. Thus, of the 26 PhDs
participating in this study, 16 (44.44%) felt that the adviser/dissertation chair had MR for
socialization of the dissertation process.
127
Table 37. Results for 2d “adviser/dissertation chair” by Educational Status and Gender
2d)
ABD Gender
(61 participants)
PhD Gender
(61 participants)
35
ABDs
26
PhDs
No (2)
1 fABD (1.64%)
0 mABD (0%)
1 fPhD (1.64%)
0 mPhD (0%)
1
(2.86%)
1
(3.85%)
Some (16)
7 fABD (11.48%)
0 mABD (0%)
5 fPhD (8.2%)
4 mPhD (6.56%)
7
(20%)
9
(34.62%)
Major1 ABD (43
20 fABD (32.79%)
6 mABD (9.84%)
11 fPhD (18.03%)
5 mPhD (8.2%)
27
(77.14%)
16
(61.54%)
1 ABD: 1 ABD declined to state gender
Variable 2e “doctoral coursework” having responsibility for socialization had 61
participant responses with MR (27, 44.26%) having the highest amount of responses, followed
by SR (23, 37.7 %), then NR (11, 18.03%). For this option, of 9 mPhD participants 6 (66.67%)
selected SR.
Table 38. Results for 2e “doctoral coursework” by Educational Status and Gender
2e)
ABD Gender
(61 participants)
PhD Gender
(61 participants)
35
ABDs
26
PhDs
No (11)
6 fABD (9.84%)
1 mABD (1.64%)
4 fPhD (6.56%)
0 mPhD (0%)
7
(20%)
4
(15.38%)
Some (23)
9 fABD (14.75%)
2 mABD (3.28%)
6 fPhD (9.84%)
6 mPhD (9.84%)
11
(31.43%)
12
(46.15%)
Major1 ABD (27)
13 fABD (21.31%)
3 mABD (4.92%)
7 fPhD (11.48%)
3 mPhD (4.92%)
17
(48.57%)
10
(38.46%)
1 ABD: 1 ABD declined to state gender
Variable 2f asks participants how much responsibility “doctoral studies workshops or
seminars” should have in socialization. All 61 participants responded to this variable with SR
(32, 52.46%), having the highest amount of responses, followed by MR (20, 32.79%), then NR
(9, 14.75%). ABD (18) responses outnumber PhD (7) responses for SR and for MR (12 ABD, 7
128
PhD), which could suggest that the 30 ABDs (SR, MR) are still in the dissertation process and
may see a stronger need for doctoral studies workshops or seminars to socialize them.
Table 39. Results for 2f “workshops/seminars” by Educational Status and Gender
2f)
ABD Gender
(61 participants)
PhD Gender
(61 participants)
35
ABDs
26
PhDs
No (9)
4 fABD (6.56%)
1 mABD (1.64%)
3 fPhD (4.92%)
1 mPhD (1.64%)
5
(14.29%)
4
(15.38%)
Some (32)
16 fABD (26.23%)
2 mABD (3.28%)
7 fPhD (11.48%)
7 mPhD (11.48%)
18
(51.43%)
14
(53.85%)
Major1 ABD (20)
8 fABD (13.11%)
3 mABD (4.92%)
7 fPhD (11.48%)
1 mPhD (1.64%)
12
(34.29%)
7
(26.92%)
1 ABD: 1 ABD declined to state gender
Question 3a to 3h.
Question 3a to 3h. Participants were asked to “Check all that apply” to 8 variables for
Question 3 “My adviser. . . ” (3a to 3h). All 61 participants checked at least one of the eight
variables; there were 166 items checked for all 8 options. Fifty-nine participants checked
between 2 to 5 items for Question 3.
In Table 40 the choice with the most responses is 3g that their adviser became their
dissertation chair (30) followed by stayed in contact via telephone or email (3b, 29), their adviser
was assigned upon entering doctoral studies 3a, and 25 responded to 3c, that their adviser only
stayed in contact when the ABD/DC initiated it. The number of responses from highest to lowest
does not necessarily follow a pattern such as being assigned an adviser, then an adviser
becoming a chair, followed by means and/or frequency of contact between a chair and an
ABD/DC. The only instance of PhD responses outnumbering ABD responses for one variable is
3e “. . . met with me in person” (8 ABD, 16 PhD) and 3g “. . . became my dissertation chair” (14
129
ABD, 16 PhD). For all other Q3 variables ABDs outnumbered PhDs (see Table 40). Table 40
shows responses by ABDs, PhDs, and gender to all options a to h.
Table 40. Question 3a to 3h “My adviser. . .” Gender and Ed Stat
Options 3a to 3h AmtTO
♀
(45)
♂
(15)
35
ABDs
26
PhDs
3a) was assigned to me when I
entered doctoral studies
28
23
(51.11%)
5
(33.33%)
19
(54.29%)
9
(34.62%)
3b) stayed in contact with me via
email or telephone
29
21
(46.67%)
8
(53.33%)
15
(42.86%)
14
(53.85%)
3c) only stayed in contact with me
when I initiated it
25
21
(46.67%)
4
(26.67%)
16
(45.71%)
9
(34.62%)
3d) did not return my emails or
telephone messages
7
7
(15.56%)
0
(0%)
4
(11.43%)
3
(11.54%)
3e) met with me in person through
regularly scheduled meetings /
appointments1 ABD
24
15
(33.33%)
8
(53.33%)
8
(22.86%)
16
(61.54%)
3f) had a heavy workload & did not
have the time avail to be a mentor to
me
18
15
(33.33%)
3
(20%)
11
(31.43%)
7
(26.92%)
3g) became my dissertation chair 30
22
(48.89%
8
(53.33%)
14
(40%)
16
(61.54%)
3h) left the university before I
finished my dissertation
5
2
(4.44%)
3
(20%)
3
(8.57%)
2
(7.69%)
TO: Total number of responses for that variable
Gender: Percentages in each column for females and males are based on the amount of female
(45) and male (15) study participants.
Ed Stat: Percentages in each column for ABDs and PhDs are based on the amount of ABD (45)
and PhD (15) study participants
Multiple variables could have been checked by a participant such as checking that they
were assigned an adviser when they entered doctoral studies and the adviser became a
dissertation chair or their adviser stayed in contact via email or the telephone.
130
Question 4a to 4e.
Question 4a to 4e. Question 4 “I felt my adviser/dissertation chair was caring because
he/she. . .” has a 4-point Likert response option: Strongly disagree (SD), Disagree (D), Agree
(A), Strongly agree (SA). Each option had 61 items checked by 45 females (73.77%), 15 males
(24.59%), and one ABD (1.64%) declined to state gender.
Table 41. Question 4a to 4e “I felt my adviser / dissertation chair was caring because he/she. . . ”
Options a – e for Question 4 SD D A SA
4a) made me feel less isolated because
he/she stayed in touch with me (61)
13
(21.31%)
18
(29.51%)
15
(24.59%)
15
(24.59%)
4b) encouraged me to ask questions about
my dissertation or the process (61)
12
(19.67%)
8
(13.11%)
26
(42.62%)
15
(24.59%)
4c) helped me set research & writing goals
(61)
11
(18.03%)
12
(19.67%)
21
(34.43%)
17
(27.87%)
4d) was a mentor to me (61)
12
(19.67%)
12
(19.67%)
19
(31.15%)
18
(29.51%)
4e) got to know some things about me on a
personal level (61)
14
(22.95%)
11
(18.03%)
21
(34.43%)
15
(24.59%)
Variable 4a “. . . made me feel less isolated because he/she stayed in touch with me” had
affirmative responses for A 15 (24.59%) and SA (15, 24.59%) for a total of 30 participants who
felt their adviser exhibited care toward them by staying in touch with them. For the non-
affirmative responses, D (18, 29.51%) and SD (13, 21.31%) 31 participants did not feel that their
adviser exhibited care toward them by staying in touch. The 31 participants that D and SD
represent 50.82% of participants responding to variable 4a edging out the 30 (49.18%)
affirmative responses.
131
Table 42. Results for 4a “made me feel less isolated because he/she stayed in touch with me” by
Educational Status and Gender
4a)
ABD Gender
(61 participants)
PhD Gender
(61 participants)
35
ABDs
26
PhDs
SD (13)
9 fABD (14.75%)
0 mABD (0%)
4 fPhD (6.56%)
0 mPhD (0%)
9
(25.71%)
4
(15.38%)
D (18)
9 fABD (14.75%)
0 mABD (0%)
5 fPhD (8.2%)
4 mPhD (6.56%)
9
(25.71%)
9
(34.62%)
A (15)
5 fABD (8.2%)
5 mABD (8.2%)
2 fPhD (3.28%)
3 mPhD (4.92%)
10
(28.57%)
5
(19.23%)
SA1 ABD (15)
5 fABD (8.2%)
1 mABD (1.64%)
6 fPhD (9.84%)
2 mPhD (3.28%)
7
(20%)
8
(30.77%)
1 ABD: 1 ABD declined to state gender
Variable 4b, “. . . encouraged me to ask questions about my dissertation or the process”
shows that the majority of responses were for “Agree” (26, 42.62%) followed by 15 responses
(24.59 %) for SA, which could imply that being encouraged to ask questions made participants
feel that their adviser/chair exhibited caring per the response (4b) wording. Both the SA and A
responses were 67.21% of all 4b responses. There were 8 checked for D (13.11%) and 12 for SD
(19.67%).
132
Table 43. Results for 4b “encouraged me to ask questions about my dissertation or the process”
by Educational Status and Gender
4b)
ABD Gender
(61 participants)
PhD Gender
(61 participants)
35
ABDs
26
PhDs
SD (12)
7 fABD (11.48%)
0 mABD (0%)
4 fPhD (6.56%)
1 mPhD (1.64%)
7
(20%)
5
(19.23%)
D (8)
4 fABD (6.56%)
1 mABD (1.64%)
2 fPhD (3.28%)
1 mPhD (1.64%)
5
(14.29%)
3
(11.54%)
A1 ABD (26)
10 fABD (16.39%)
5 mABD (8.2%)
6 fPhD (9.84%)
4 mPhD (6.56%)
16
(45.71%)
10
(38.46%)
SA (15)
6 fABD (9.84%)
1 mABD (1.64%)
5 fPhD (8.2%)
3 mPhD (4.92%)
7
(20%)
8
(30.77%)
1 ABD: 1 ABD declined to state gender
Variable 4c “. . . helped me set research & writing goals” had more affirmative responses
with 21 that A and 17 that SA totaling 38 affirmative responses (62.3%). Because setting goals
and planning/scheduling enables dissertation completion, these participants viewed having an
adviser help with these tasks showed caring.
Table 44. Results for 4c “helped me set research & writing goals” by Educational Status and
Gender
4c) helped me set research
& writing goals (61)
ABD Gender
(61 participants)
PhD Gender
(61 participants)
35
ABDs
26
PhDs
SD (11)
6 fABD (9.84%)
0 mABD (0%)
5 fPhD (8.2%)
0 mPhD (0%)
6
(17.14%)
5
(19.23%)
D (12)
7 fABD (11.48%)
1 mABD (1.64%)
3 fPhD (4.92%)
1 mPhD (1.64%)
8
(22.86%)
4
(15.38%)
A (21)
9 fABD (14.75%)
3 mABD (4.92%)
4 fPhD (6.56%)
5 mPhD (8.2%)
12
(34.29%)
9
(34.62%)
SA1 ABD (17)
6 fABD (9.84%)
2 mABD (3.28%)
5 fPhD (8.2%)
3 mPhD (4.92%)
9
(25.71%)
8
(30.77%)
1 ABD: 1 ABD declined to state gender
133
Variable 4d “. . . was a mentor to me” had 19 participants that A (31.15%) and 18 that SA
(29.51%) showing that 60.66% (37) of all participants responding to this option had an
adviser/chair that exhibited a caring demeanor by being a mentor to them. Responses showed
that 24 participants (39.34%) did not agree that their adviser was a mentor to them.
Table 45. Results for 4d “was a mentor to me” by Educational Status and Gender
4d)
ABD Gender
(61 participants)
PhD Gender
(61 participants)
35
ABDs
26
PhDs
SD (12)
6 fABD (9.84%)
0 mABD (0%)
5 fPhD (8.2%)
1 mPhD (1.64%)
6
(17.14%)
6
(23.07%)
D (12)
9 fABD (14.75%)
1 mABD (1.64%)
1 fPhD (1.64%)
1 mPhD (1.64%)
10
(28.57%)
2
(7.69%)
A (19)
9 fABD (14.75%)
2 mABD (3.28%)
4 fPhD (6.56%)
4 mPhD (6.56%)
11
(31.43%)
8
(30.77%)
SA1 ABD (18)
4 fABD (6.56%)
3 mABD (4.92%)
7 fPhD (11.48%)
3 mPhD (4.92%)
8
(22.86%)
10
(38.46%)
1 ABD: 1 ABD declined to state gender
Variable 4e “. . . got to know some things about me on a personal level” had 36
participants that gave affirmative responses; 21 selected A and 15 selected SA showing that their
adviser got to know them. There were 11 participants that D and 14 that SD for a 40.98%
response that their adviser did not get to know them on a personal level.
134
Table 46. Results for 4e “got to know some things about me on a personal level” by Educational
Status and Gender
4e)
ABD Gender
(61 participants)
PhD Gender
(61 participants)
35
ABDs
26
PhDs
SD (14)
7 fABD (11.48%)
0 mABD (0%)
6 fPhD (9.84%)
1 mPhD (1.64%)
7
(20%)
7
(26.92%)
D (11)
5 fABD (8.2%)
2 mABD (3.28%)
3 fPhD (4.92%)
1 mPhD (1.64%)
7
(20%)
4
(15.38%)
A1 ABD (21)
10 fABD (18.03%)
3 mABD (4.92%)
2 fPhD (3.28%)
5 mPhD (8.2%)
14
(40%)
7
(26.92%)
SA (15)
6 fABD (9.84%)
1 mABD (1.64%)
6 fPhD (9.84%)
2 mPhD (3.28%)
7
(20%)
8
(30.77%)
1 ABD: 1 ABD declined to state gender
In general, for Question 4a to 4e (see Table 41) affirmative responses A and SA show
that participants did experience caring; the tallies for all options a -e are 102 responses for Agree,
80 for Strongly agree for 182 affirmative responses. The responses for Disagree (61) and
Strongly Disagree (62) total 123 responses that advisers did not exhibit caring. Because each of
the 5 options (a – e) had 61 participants, there are 305 possible responses cumulatively for
responses for the 4-point Likert responses SD, D, A, or SA. Thus, of 305 possible responses, the
affirmative responses A and SA (182) make up 59.67% of all responses showing that advisers
exhibited care toward their students in different ways each option offered.
Question 5a to 5i.
Question 5a to 5i. Question 5, “I considered leaving school because adviser /chair made
me feel marginalized /oppressed. . . ” asked participants to “Check all that apply.” There were 9
items (5a to 5i) with the last one 5i permitting a fill in response to “Other. Please explain.”
135
Although there were 61 participants in this study, Q5 had the fewest amount of
participants responding. There were 45 participants in all; however, 20 checked that they did not
feel marginalized, 5 checked “Other,” leaving 20 of the other responses checked. Of the 20 that
did not feel marginalized there were 10 ABDs (7 female, 3 male) and 10 PhDs (6 females and 4
males). One of the 5 participants that checked “Other” checked other options; the 4 participants
that only checked “Other” gave their reasons as: not being a “ready-made” Ph.D. student, not
being financially sound, not meeting the expectation of being a high achiever, did not blindly
accept the health of the job market, or adviser was positioned as radical left and a union leader,
ot that the adviser was generally unconcerned.
Percentages for the 20 participants checking at least one item 8 checked “or being older”
(40%), 7 “for being ethnically different” (35%) 6 “for being female” (30%), 5 “for religious
beliefs” (25%), followed by 3 each for “for being older” (15%) and “for sexuality” (15%).
Interestingly of the 15 males participating in this study none of them checked they felt
marginalized for being male. All items except “for being male” (5b) and “I did not feel
marginalized” (5h) had responses showing that even incrementally, marginalization in various
forms was felt by 20 (32.79%) of the overall participant pool of 61.
Even though some participants checked multiple responses, Table 47 shows responses for
each item by gender and educational status.
136
Table 47. “I considered leaving school because adviser /chair made me feel marginalized /
oppressed. . . ”
Options 5a to 5i AmtTO
♀
(45)
♂
(15)
35
ABDs
26
PhDs
5a) for being female 6
6
(13.33%)
0
(0%)
4
(11.43%)
2
(7.69%)
5b) for being male 0
0
(%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
5c) for being an older student 8
5
(11.11%)
3
(20%)
5
(14.29%)
3
(11.54%)
5d) for being physically challenged /
disabled
3
3
(6.67%)
0
(0%)
2
(5.71%)
1
(3.85%)
5e) for being gay, lesbian,
transgender, transsexual, or bi-
sexual
3
2
(4.44%)
1
(6.67%)
1
(2.86%)
2
(7.69%)
5f) for being ethnically / racially
different than him/her
7
5
(11.11%)
2
(13.33%)
3
(8.57%)
2
(7.69%)
5g) for my religious/spiritual beliefs 5
3
(6.67%)
2
(13.33%)
3
(8.57%)
2
(7.69%)
5h) I did not feel marginalized /
oppressed by my adviser
20
13
(28.89%)
7
(46.67%)
10
(28.57%)
10
(38.46%)
5i) Other. Please explain. 5
5
(11.11%)
0
(0%)
4
(11.43%)
1
(3.85%)
TO: Total number of responses for that option
Gender: Percentages in each column for females and males are based on the amount of female
(45) and male (15) study participants.
Ed Stat: Percentages in each column for ABDs and PhDs are based on the amount of ABD (45)
and PhD (15) study participants
Question 6a to 6d.
Question 6a to 6d. Participants were asked to “Check all that apply” to Question 6, “I got
stuck during the dissertation process. . . ” that had 4 items to choose from (6a to 6d). Four
137
participants did not answer any of the options creating a participant pool of 57 for each of the 4
options.
There were 123 responses for all 4 options because 36 participants checked more than
one option. Frequency of responses based on 57 participants are 47 for 6a (82.46%), 33 for 6b
(57.9%), 27 for 6c (47.37%), and 16 for 6d (28.07%). Percentage of ABDs and PhDs responding
to each option are presented in Table 48.
Table 48. Question 6a to 6d “I got stuck during the dissertation process. . . ”
Options 6a to 6d
ABD Gender
(57 participants)
PhD Gender
(57 participants)
35
ABDs
26
PhDs
6a) but found my own
ways to get past it (47)
20 fABD (35.09%)
6 mABD (10.53%)
14 fPhD (24.56%)
7 mPhD (12.28%)
26
(74.28%)
21
(60%)
6b) because I felt
hopeless at times1 ABD
(33)
16 fABD (28.07%)
3 mABD (5.26%)
9 fPhD (15.79%)
4 mPhD (7.02%)
20
(57.14%)
13
(37.14%)
6c) sometimes because
the amount of work was
depressing1 ABD (27)
12 fABD (21.05%)
3 mABD (5.26%)
7 fPhD (12.28%)
4 mPhD (7.02%)
16
(45.71%)
11
(31.43%)
6d) because I was not
taught/socialized1 ABD
(16)
7 fABD (12.28%)
2 mABD (3.51%)
4 fPhD (7.02%)
2 mPhD (3.51%)
10
(28.57%)
6
(17.14%)
1 ABD: 1 ABD declined to state gender
Option 6a “. . . but found my own ways to get past it” had 47 responses with interesting
results. First, of 15 male survey participants, 13 checked this option and of 9 mPhD participating,
7 checked this option as well as all 6 males participating in the study. The overwhelming
responses by males to this option shows that not only did males find ways to get past being stuck
in the process, but almost all males participating checked the option. In addition, by educational
status and gender, females had a significant amount of participants checking this option as well.
Of 28 fABD participants overall, 20 fABD that checked this option and of 17 fPhD survey
138
participants 14 checked this option. This is significant because the representation of ABDs and
PhDs (male and female) show that becoming stuck in the process was common to these
participants and that finding their own ways to get past it shows resiliency, or high self-
efficacy/esteem, or they received emotional/motivational support, or getting past writer’s block,
or having a strong will to complete. Any of the adviser or personal factors discussed in the
literature could have contributed to helping students get past being stuck.
The last option, 6d “. . . because I was not taught/socialized” had 16 responses. The 16
responses were assessed in conjunction with Question 2 (a – f) “Who should be responsible for
socialization. . . ” to note who these participants felt should be responsible because they felt they
were not socialized. Refer to Tables 33 to 39 for Question 2 tallies and percentages. Table 49
shows participant totals to Question 2 by the 16 participants that answered Question 6d.
Table 49. Participant Responses Who Checked 6d and Question 2a – 2f by Educational Status
and Gender6d/2a
ABD1 ABD PhD ♀ ♂ fABD mABD fPhD mPhD
10
(62.5%)
6
(37.5%)
11
(68.75%)
4
(25%)
7
(43.75%)
2
(12.5%)
4
(25%)
2
(12.5%)
6d/2a: Percentages based on 16 participants
1 ABD: 1 ABD declined to state gender
The 16 respondents that selected 6d gave their opinion that “adviser/chair” (11) should
have Major Responsibility followed by “the student” (9), and that “peers, peer groups, other
dissertation writers” (10) should have Some Responsibility (see Table 50 for percentages).
139
Table 50. Participant responses to Question 2a to 2f and by participants that checked 6d (All
Percentages based on 16 participants)
Participant responses for 2a –
2f who checked 6d
No Some Major
2a “the student” 0 (0%) 7 (43.75%) 9 (56.25 %)
2b “peers, peer groups, other
dissertation writers”
5 (31.25%) 10 (62.5%) 1 (6.25%)
2c “faculty in discipline” 1 (6.25%) 7 (43.75%) 8 (50%)
2d “adviser/dissertation chair” 1 (6.25%) 4 (25%) 11 (68.75%)
2e “doctoral coursework” 1 (6.25%) 7 (43.75%) 8 (50%)
2f “workshops/seminars” 3 (18.75%) 6 (37.5%) 7 (43.75%)
Ed. Status Participants
Checking 6d and 2a – 2f
No Some Major
2a “the student”
0 ABD
0 PhD
4 ABD (25%)
3 PhD (18.75%)
6 ABD (37.5%)
3 PhD (18.75%)
2b “peers, peer groups, other
dissertation writers”
4 ABD (25%)
1 PhD (6.25%)
6 ABD (37.5%)
4 PhD (25%)
1 PhD (6.25%)
2c “faculty in discipline” 1 ABD (6.25%)
5 ABD (31.25%)
2 PhD (12.5%)
4 ABD (25%)
4 PhD (25%)
2d “adviser/dissertation chair” 1 ABD (6.25%)
1 ABD (6.25%)
3 PhD (18.75%)
8 ABD (50%)
3 PhD (18.75%)
2e “doctoral coursework” 1 ABD
4 ABD (25%)
3 PhD (18.75%)
5 ABD (31.25%)
3 PhD (18.75%)
2f “workshops/seminars”
2 ABD (12.5%)
1 PhD (6.25%)
4 ABD (25%)
2 PhD (12.5%)
4 ABD (25%)
3 PhD (18.75%)
140
Question 7a to 7b.
Question 7a to 7b. Question 7 “I was pessimistic about completing my dissertation at
times because. . . ” has two response options (7a and 7b) in a 5-point Likert response format:
Strongly disagree (SD), Disagree (D), Neutral (N), Agree (A), Strongly agree (SA).
Table 51. Question 7a to 7b “I was pessimistic about completing my dissertation because. . . ”
Options a – b for Question 7 SD D N A SA
7a) I did not receive motivational or
emotional support (61)
6
(9.84%)
7
(11.48%)
15
(24.59%)
14
(22.95%)
19
(31.15%)
7b) I let things distract me from my
writing schedule (self-handicapping)
(61)
10
(16.39%)
7
(11.48%)
9
(14.75%)
23
(37.70%)
12
(19.67%)
Item 7a “. . . I did not receive motivational or emotional support” and option 7b had “I let
things distract me from my writing schedule (self-handicapping)” both had 61 responses.
The affirmative responses SA and A showed that 33 (54.1 %) of 61 participants felt that
the lack of motivational or emotional support contributed to pessimism about completing their
dissertation. Item 7a had a higher amount of affirmative responses; in this case question wording
shows that affirmative responses A (14) and SA (19) indicated participants did not get
motivational or emotional support that lead to pessimism about dissertation completion. Overall,
21 ABDs (of 35) and 12 PhDs (of 26) checked A and SA (see Table 52).
141
Table 52. Results for 7a “. . . I did not receive motivational or emotional support” by Educational
Status and Gender
7a)
ABD Gender
(61 participants)
PhD Gender
(61 participants)
35
ABDs
26
PhDs
Strongly disagree (6)
4 fABD (6.56%)
0 mABD (0 %)
0 fPhD (0 %)
2 mPhD (3.28%)
4
(11.43%)
2
(7.69%)
Disagree (7)
3 fABD (4.92%)
0 mABD (0 %)
4 fPhD (6.56%)
0 mPhD (0 %)
3
(8.57%)
4
(15.38%)
Neutral (15)
6 fABD (9.84%)
1 mABD (1.64%)
5 fPhD (8.2%)
3 mPhD (4.92%)
7
(20%)
8
(30.77%)
Agree1 ABD (14)
5 fABD (8.2%)
3 mABD (4.92%)
2 fPhD (3.28%)
3 mPhD (4.92%)
9
(25.71%)
5
(19.23%)
Strongly agree (19)
10 fABD (16.39%)
2 mABD (3.28%)
6 fPhD (9.84%)
1 mPhD (1.64%)
12
(34.29%)
7
(26.92%)
1 ABD: 1 ABD declined to state gender
Item 7b “. . . I let things distract me from my writing schedule (self-handicapping)” had
more affirmative responses SA (12, 19.67%) and A (23, 37.7%) for 35 (57.38%) of 61 responses
to this option. The responses for SA and A show that 21 of 35 ABD (60%) survey participants
checked the affirmative responses that they let things distract them from writing (see Table 53).
In addition, for A and SA 14 of 26 PhDs (53.85%) also checked that they become distracted
from writing.
142
Table 53. Results for 7b “. . . I let things distract me from my writing schedule (self-
handicapping)” by Educational Status and Gender
7b)
ABD Gender
(61 participants)
PhD Gender
(61 participants)
35
ABDs
26
PhDs
Strongly disagree (10)
5 fABD (8.2%)
1 mABD (1.64 %)
2 fPhD (3.28 %)
2 mPhD (3.28%)
6
(17.14%)
4
(15.38%)
Disagree (7)
2 fABD (3.28%)
2 mABD (3.28 %)
3 fPhD (4.92%)
0 mPhD (0 %)
4
(11.43%)
3
(11.54%)
Neutral (9)
4 fABD (6.56%)
0 mABD (0 %)
3 fPhD (4.92%)
2 mPhD (3.28%)
4
(11.43%)
5
(19.23%)
Agree (23)
11 fABD (18.03%)
2 mABD (3.28%)
6 fPhD (9.84%)
4 mPhD (6.56%)
13
(37.14%)
10
(38.46%)
Strongly agree1 ABD (12)
6 fABD (9.84%)
1 mABD (1.64%)
3 fPhD (4.92%)
1 mPhD (1.64%)
8
(22.86%)
4
(15.38%)
1 ABD: 1 ABD declined to state gender
Question 8a to 8c.
Question 8a to 8c. Question 8 “Being a perfectionist while writing my dissertation. . . ”
has a 5-point Likert response option: Strongly disagree (SD), Disagree (D), Neutral (N), Agree
(A), and Strongly agree (SA). The three response items (8a to 8c) addressed factors that could
result from perfectionism.
Table 54. Question 8a to 8c “Being a perfectionist while writing my dissertation. . . ”
8a – c (with response totals) SD D N A SA
8a) became a handicap / barrier to my
progress (59)
10
(16.95%)
10
(16.95%)
16
(27.12%)
14
(23.73%)
9
(15.25%)
8b) sometimes resulted in writer’s
block (60)
11
(18.33%)
6
(10%)
13
(21.67%)
17
(28.33%)
13
(21.67%)
8c) sometimes gave me time to clear
my mind (59)
12
(20.34%)
13
(22.03%)
18
(30.51%)
11
(18.64%)
5
(8.47%)
1 ABD: 1 ABD declined to state gender
143
For item 8a “. . . became a handicap/barrier to my progress” Neutral was checked most
(16, 27.12%) with Agree (14) being the second most checked item followed by SA (9) showing
that perfectionism lead to handicapping progress. Alternatively, responses to D (10) and SD (10)
showed that cumulatively (20 responses, 33.9%) perfectionism did not create a barrier for these
participants.
Table 55. Results for 8a “. . . became a handicap / barrier to my progress” by Educational Status
and Gender
8a)
ABD Gender
(59 participants)
PhD Gender
(59 participants)
35
ABDs
26
PhDs
SD (10)
5 fABD (8.47%)
2 mABD (3.39%)
1 fPhD (1.69%)
2 mPhD (3.39%)
7
(20%)
3
(11.54%)
D (10)
4 fABD (6.78%)
0 mABD (0%)
5 fPhD (8.47%)
1 mPhD (1.69%)
4
(11.43%)
6
(23.07%)
N (16)
7 fABD (11.86%)
2 mABD (3.39%)
4 fPhD (6.78%)
3 mPhD (5.08%)
9
(25.71%)
7
(26.92%)
A (14)
5 fABD (8.47%)
2 mABD (3.39%)
5 fPhD (8.47%)
2 mPhD (3.39%)
7
(20%)
7
(26.92%)
SA1 ABD (9)
5 fABD (8.47%)
0 mABD (0%)
2 fPhD (3.39%)
1 mPhD (1.69%)
6
(17.14%)
3
(11.54%)
For item 8b, “. . . sometimes resulted in writer’s block” there were 30 (50%) responses (A
17 and SA 13) in the affirmative that perfectionism sometimes resulted in writer’s block for
these participants. The number of participants that D (6) or SD (11) was a cumulative 28.33% of
all responses and Neutral (13) represented 21.67%. Thus, one-half of the participants felt writer’s
block was sometimes a result of their perfectionism.
144
Table 56. Results for 8b “. . . sometimes resulted in writer’s block” by Educational Status and
Gender
8b)
ABD Gender
(60 participants)
PhD Gender
(60 participants)
35
ABDs
26
PhDs
SD (11)
5 fABD (8.33%)
2 mABD (3.33%)
2 fPhD (3.33%)
2 mPhD (3.33%)
7
(20%)
4
(15.38%)
D (6)
3 fABD (5%)
2 mABD (3.33%)
0 fPhD (0%)
1 mPhD (1.67%)
5
(14.29%)
1
(3.85%)
N (13)
7 fABD (11.67%)
0 mABD (0%)
4 fPhD (6.67%)
2 mPhD (3.33%)
7
(20%)
6
(23.07%)
A (17)
6 fABD (10%)
2 mABD (3.33%)
5 fPhD (8.33%)
4 mPhD (6.67%)
8
(22.86%)
9
(34.62%)
SA1 ABD (13)
6 fABD (10%)
0 mABD (0%)
6 fPhD (10%)
0 mPhD (0%)
7
(20%)
6
(23.07%)
Item 8c, “. . . sometimes gave me time to clear my mind” had responses from 59
participants. For this item, more participants Disagreed (13, 22.03%) or Strongly Disagreed (12,
20.34%) showing that cumulatively, 25 (42.37%) participants did not think perfectionism gave
them time to clear their mind. Neutral responses (18) outnumbered all other individual responses
for this option resulting in 30.51% of the 59 responses. Participants that A (11) or SA (5) make
up a cumulative 27.12% of participants responding to this option. Thus, from the results of
participant responses to this item show that perfectionism was not helpful in clearing their mind.
145
Table 57. Results for 8c “. . . sometimes gave me time to clear my mind” by Educational Status
and Gender
8c)
ABD Gender
(59 participants)
PhD Gender
(59 participants)
35
ABDs
26
PhDs
SD (12)
5 fABD (8.47%)
2 mABD (3.39%)
4 fPhD (6.78%)
1 mPhD (%)
7
(20%)
5
(19.23%)
D1 ABD (13)
5 fABD (8.47%)
0 mABD (0%)
5 fPhD (8.47%)
2 mPhD (3.39%)
6
(17.14%)
7
(26.92%)
N (18)
11 fABD (18.64%)
1 mABD (1.69%)
5 fPhD (8.47%)
1 mPhD (1.69%)
12
(34.29%)
6
(23.07%)
A (11)
3 fABD (5.08%)
2 mABD (3.39%)
3 fPhD (5.08%)
3 mPhD (5.08%)
5
(14.29%)
6
(23.07%)
SA (5)
2 fABD (3.39%)
1 mABD (1.69%)
0 fPhD (0%)
2 mPhD (3.39%)
3
(8.57%)
2
(7.69%)
Overall, the issue of perfectionism showed that more often, participants acknowledged
that perfectionism did not help them because it resulted in writer’s block (8b) and handicapped
progress (8a). The responses to 8c, that perfectionism gave writer’s time to clear their mind
supports 8a and 8b because clearing the mind to refocus on writing did not occur for 42.37% of
participants (D 13, SD 12). Thus, perfectionism did not help dissertation writers.
Question 9a to 9d.
Question 9a to 9d. Question 9 “My self-esteem grew. . . ” has a 5-point Likert response
option: Strongly disagree (SD), Disagree (D), Neutral (N), Agree (A), and Strongly agree (SA).
Each of Question 9’s items (a – d) had missing responses and as each option is discussed, all
percentages will be based on the number of participants that responded to that item. The
considerable number of affirmative responses for options 9a – 9c shows that participants confirm
that their self-esteem grew and are detailed in the following section. In addition, For 9d the
146
number of affirmative responses were also numerous but not in affirming that self-esteem grew
but that it dipped when participants felt isolated and alone.
Table 58. Question 9a to 9d “My self-esteem grew. . .”
Options a – d for Question 9 SD D N A SA
9a) grew when I received emotional or
motivational support (58)
2
(3.45%)
0
(0%)
6
(10.34%)
31
(53.45%)
19
(32.76%)
9b) as I met my planned dissertation
progress deadlines (59)
2
(3.39%)
0
(0%)
12
(20.34%)
23
(38.98%)
22
(37.29%)
9c) grew when my adviser gave me
positive feedback about my progress
(59)
2
(3.39%)
3
(5.08%)
3
(5.08%)
27
(45.76%)
24
(40.68%)
9d) dipped when I felt isolated or
alone during the dissertation process
(58)
1
(1.72%)
1
(1.72%)
12
(20.69%)
20
(34.48%)
24
(41.38%)
1 ABD: 1 ABD declined to state gender
For 9a “. . . grew when I received emotional or motivational support” there were 58
responses (3 fABD missing). Overwhelmingly the affirmative responses A and SA totaled 50
participants (86.21%) that felt their self-esteem grew with emotional or motivational support.
There were no responses for D and 2 participants that Strongly disagreed; additionally 6
participants checked Neutral. Thus, of the 58 participants checking responses to 9a, the results
show that emotional and motivational support helped build self-esteem, which is related to
persistence/dissertation completion (Baker & Pifer, 2011; Cheeks, 2007; Harsch, 2008; Yeager
(2008).
147
Table 59. Results for 9a “. . . grew when I received emotional or motivational support” by
Educational Status and Gender
9a)
ABD Gender
(58 participants)
PhD Gender
(58 participants)
35
ABDs
26
PhDs
SD (2)
1 fABD (1.72%)
0 mABD (0%)
1 fPhD (1.72%)
0 mPhD (0%)
1
(2.86%)
1
(3.85%)
D (0)
0 fABD (0%)
0 mABD (0%)
0 fPhD (0%)
0 mPhD (0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
N (6)
3 fABD (5.17%)
0 mABD (0%)
2 fPhD (3.45%)
1 mPhD (1.72%)
3
(8.57%)
3
(11.54%)
A (31)
14 fABD (24.14%)
3 mABD (5.17%)
9 fPhD (15.52)
5 mPhD (8.62%)
17
(48.57%)
14
(53.85%)
SA1 ABD (19)
7 fABD (12.07%)
3 mABD (5.17%)
5 fPhD (8.62%)
3 mPhD (5.17%)
11
(31.43%)
8
(30.77%)
For 9b “. . . as I met my planned dissertation progress deadlines” had 59 responses with 2
missing by 2 fABD. Again as with 9a the greatest amount of responses were for A (23, 38.98%)
and SA (22, 37.29%) and cumulatively (45) represent 76.27% of the responses for this that
meeting progress deadlines increased self-esteem. One way to show partial corroboration to the
responses to 9b is through responses to Question 4c that had 38 of 61 (62.3%) participants
checking that their adviser/chair help them set research and writing goals. Setting goals and
deadlines with other advisers/chairs (Cheeks, 2007; Golde, 2005) or ABD/DCs/peers (Allan &
Dory, 2001; Cohen, 1998; Lenz, 1997) gives writers accountability for meeting them and a way
to “celebrate” their success. Again as with 9a there were few responses to D (0) and SD (2);
however, there were 12 that checked N.
148
Table 60. Results for 9b “. . . as I met my planned dissertation progress deadlines” by
Educational Status and Gender
9b)
ABD Gender
(59 participants)
PhD Gender
(59 participants)
35
ABDs
26
PhDs
SD (2)
1 fABD (1.69%)
0 mABD ()
1 fPhD (1.69%)
0 mPhD (0%)
1
(2.86%)
1
(3.85%)
D (0)
0 fABD (0%)
0 mABD (0%)
0 fPhD (%)
0 mPhD (%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
N (12)
5 fABD (8.47%)
1 mABD (1.69%)
4 fPhD (6.78%)
2 mPhD (3.39%)
6
(17.14%)
6
(23.07%)
A (23)
11 fABD (18.64%)
3 mABD (5.08%)
4 fPhD (6.78%)
5 mPhD (8.47%)
14
(40%)
9
(34.62%)
SA1 ABD (22)
9 fABD (15.25%)
2 mABD (3.39%)
8 fPhD (13.56%)
2 mPhD (3.39%)
12
(34.29%)
10
(38.46%)
For 9c “. . . grew when my adviser gave me positive feedback about my progress” had 59
responses with no answer given by 2 participants 2 fABD. The most responses were for A (27,
45.76%) and SA (24, 40.68%) showing that when an adviser chair gave positive feedback about
progress 51 of 59 participants (86.44%) felt it increased their self-esteem. Participants affirmed
the literature that adviser/chair positive feedback encourages ABD/DC success (Eley & Jennings,
2005; Kumar & Stracke, 2007; Protivnak & Foss, 2009). Responses not affirming that self-
esteem grew through positive feedback were Neutral (3), D (3), and SD (2).
149
Table 61. Results for 9c “. . . grew when my adviser gave me positive feedback about my
progress” by Educational Status and Gender
9c)
ABD Gender
(59 participants)
PhD Gender
(59 participants)
35
ABDs
26
PhDs
SD (2)
0 fABD (0%)
0 mABD (0%)
2 fPhD (3.39%)
0 mPhD (0%)
0
(0%)
2
(7.69%)
D (3)
1 fABD (1.69%)
1 mABD (1.69%)
1 fPhD (1.69%)
0 mPhD (0%)
2
(5.71%)
1
(3.85%)
N (3)
3 fABD (5.08%)
0 mABD (0%)
0 fPhD (0%)
0 mPhD (0%)
3
(8.57%)
0
(0%)
A (27)
12 fABD (20.34%)
3 mABD (5.08%)
9 fPhD (15.25%)
3 mPhD (5.08%)
15
(42.86%)
12
(46.15%)
SA1 ABD (24)
10 fABD (16.95%)
2 mABD (3.39%)
5 fPhD (8.47%)
6 mPhD (10.17%)
13
(37.14%)
11
(42.31%)
The last item, 9d “. . . dipped when I felt isolated or alone during the dissertation process”
had 58 responses. This is the only item for question 9 that did not affirm that self-esteem
increased; this item dealt with self-esteem decreasing in participants when they felt isolated or
alone during the dissertation process. This item had higher response amounts for SA (24) and A
(20) showing that in general, participants agreed (44 of 58) that their self-esteem dipped when
they felt isolated during the process which was 75.86% of all responses for this item.
150
Table 62. Results for 9d “. . . dipped when I felt isolated or alone during the dissertation process”
by Educational Status and Gender
9d)
ABD Gender
(58 participants)
PhD Gender
(58 participants)
35
ABDs
26
PhDs
SD (1)
0 fABD (0%)
0 mABD (0%)
0 fPhD (0%)
1 mPhD (1.72%)
0
(0%)
1
(3.85%)
D (1)
1 fABD (1.72%)
0 mABD (0%)
0 fPhD (0%)
0 mPhD (0%)
1
(2.86%)
0
(0%)
N (12)
6 fABD (10.34%)
0 mABD (0%)
5 fPhD (8.62%)
1 mPhD (1.72%)
6
(17.14%)
6
(23.07%)
A (20)
7 fABD (12.07%)
4 mABD (6.9%)
5 fPhD (8.62%)
4 mPhD (6.9%)
11
(31.43%)
9
(34.62%)
SA1 ABD (24)
12 fABD (%)
2 mABD (3.45%)
7 fPhD (12.07%)
2 mPhD (3.45%)
15
(42.86%)
9
(34.62%)
From the responses to all four variables for Question 9, it is clear that self-esteem can
grow from positive adviser feedback, emotional or motivational support, and meeting planned
deadlines, or it dipped when these participants (as dissertation writers) experienced isolation and
these results are corroborated in the literature (Allan & Dory, 2001; Pride, 2005).
Question 10a – 10d.
Question 10a – 10f. Question 9 “During the dissertation process. . .” has a 5-point Likert
response option: Strongly disagree (SD), Disagree (D), Neutral (N), Agree (A), and Strongly
agree (SA). Question 10 was created to elicit responses for “personal” factors that are
represented in each of the 6 items.
151
Table 63. Question 10a – 10f “During the dissertation process. . . ”
Items a – f for Question 10 SD D N A SA
10a) I felt I had control over my
ability to complete tasks involved in
research and writing (60)
4
(6.67%)
11
(18.33%)
8
(13.33%)
26
(43.33%)
11
(18.33%)
10b) I felt powerless about my
progress at times (61)
6
(9.84%)
11
(18.03%)
6
(9.84%)
23
(37.70%)
15
(24.59%)
10c) I felt confident that I could finish
my dissertation and graduate (60)
5
(8.33%)
7
(11.67%)
10
(16.67%)
25
(41.67%)
13
(21.67%)
10d) I felt rebellious sometimes due to
the workload or stress to meet
deadlines (60)
8
(13.33%)
13
(21.67%)
9
(15%)
24
(40%)
6
(10%)
10e) I procrastinated about writing
sometimes (60)
4
(6.67%)
4
(6.67%)
4
(6.67%)
29
(48.33%)
19
(31.67%)
10f) I made sure I had my materials
and work area prepared when I went
to write (61)
3
(4.92%)
2
(3.28%)
10
(16.39%)
33
(54.1%)
13
(21.31%)
Item 10a (60) “. . . I felt I had control over my ability to complete tasks involved in
research and writing” had a greater amount of affirmative responses A (26, 43.33%) and SA (11,
18.33%) that shows 61.67% of survey participants felt they had control of the tasks involved in
research and writing. Strongly Disagree (4) had the fewest responses but when added to the
amount that D (11), both cumulatively represent 25% of the participants that responded to this
option. Overall, this item was created to address participant locus of control and self-efficacy
(task completion) and the greatest number of participants affirmed they had control over the
tasks involved in dissertation research and writing.
152
Table 64. Results for 10a “. . . I felt I had control over my ability to complete tasks involved in
research and writing” by Educational Status and Gender
10a)
ABD Gender
(60 participants)
PhD Gender
(60 participants)
35
ABDs
26
PhDs
SD (4)
2 fABD (3.33%)
0 mABD (0%)
2 fPhD (3.33%)
0 mPhD (0%)
2
(5.71%)
2
(7.69%)
D1 ABD (11)
4 fABD (6.67%)
2 mABD (3.33%)
4 fPhD (6.67%)
0 mPhD (0%)
7
(20%)
4
(15.38%)
N (8)
5 fABD (8.33%)
1 mABD (1.67%)
1 fPhD (1.67%)
1 mPhD (1.67%)
6
(17.14%)
2
(7.69%)
A (26)
8 fABD (13.33%)
2 mABD (3.33%)
8 fPhD (13.33%)
8 mPhD (13.33%)
10
(28.57%)
16
(61.54%)
SA (11)
8 fABD (13.33%)
1 mABD (1.67%)
2 fPhD (3.33%)
0 mPhD (0%)
9
(25.71%)
2
(7.69%)
1 ABD: 1 ABD declined to state gender
“. . . I felt powerless about my progress at times” had 61 responses that were in the
affirmative indicating that 38 (62.3%) participants felt powerless at times; twenty-three
participants selected A (37.70%), while 15 checked SA (24.59%). Six participants checked N
(9.84%), while 11 checked D (18.03%), and 6 checked SD (9.84%). This variable addressed
locus of control showing that the majority of participants (A and SA) felt powerless at times,
which was discussed in the literature (Rovai & Wighting, 2005; Warren, 1984).
153
Table 65. Results for 10b “. . . I felt powerless about my progress at times” by Educational Status
and Gender
10b
ABD Gender
(61 participants)
PhD Gender
(61 participants)
35
ABDs
26
PhDs
SD (6)
4 fABD (6.56%)
0 mABD (0%)
1 fPhD (1.64%)
1 mPhD (1.64%)
4
(11.43%)
2
(7.69%)
D (11)
5 fABD (8.2%)
1 mABD (1.64%)
3 fPhD (4.92%)
2 mPhD (3.28%)
6
(17.14%)
5
(19.23%)
N (6)
2 fABD (3.28%)
1 mABD (1.64%)
2 fPhD (3.28%)
1 mPhD (1.64%)
3
(8.57%)
3
(11.54%)
A1 ABD (23)
10 fABD (16.39%)
2 mABD (3.28%)
7 fPhD (11.48%)
3 mPhD (4.92%)
13
(37.14%)
10
(38.46%)
SA (15)
7 fABD (11.48%)
3 mABD (4.92%)
4 fPhD (6.56%)
1 mPhD (1.64%)
10
(28.57%)
5
(19.23%)
1 ABD: 1 ABD declined to state gender
“. . . I felt confident that I could finish my dissertation and graduate” had 60 responses.
Participants checked A (25, 41.67%) and SA (13, 21.67%) more than any of the other choices for
this variable that they felt confident about dissertation completion. The responses for N (10)
represent the third highest responses (16.67%) followed by D (7, 11.67%) then SD with (5,
8.33%). The 20% of participants that D or SD that did not feel confidence in finishing had more
ABDs (8) than PhDs (4), could be interpreted that because ABDs are still in the dissertation
process their level of confidence is representative of their current progress.
154
Table 66. Results for 10c “. . . I felt confident that I could finish my dissertation & graduate” by
Educational Status and Gender
10c)
ABD Gender
(60 participants)
PhD Gender
(60 participants)
35
ABDs
26
PhDs
SD (5)
3 fABD (60%)
0 mABD (0%)
2 fPhD (3.33%)
0 mPhD (0%)
3
(8.57%)
2
(7.69%)
D (7)
4 fABD (6.67%)
1 mABD (1.67%)
2 fPhD (3.33%)
0 mPhD (0%)
5
(14.29%)
2
(7.69%)
N (10)
4 fABD (6.67%)
2 mABD (3.33%)
2 fPhD (3.33%)
2 mPhD (3.33%)
6
(17.14%)
4
(15.38%)
A1 ABD (25)
9 fABD (15%)
1 mABD (1.67%)
8 fPhD (13.33%)
6 mPhD (10%)
11
(31.43%)
14
(53.85%)
SA (13)
7 fABD (11.67%)
2 mABD (3.33%)
3 fPhD (5%)
1 mPhD (1.67%)
9
(25.71%)
4
(15.38%)
1 ABD: 1 ABD declined to state gender
Item 10d “. . . I felt rebellious sometimes due to the workload or stress to meet deadlines”
had 30 affirmative responses from participants who checked that they felt rebellious at times (A
24, SA 6). Nine participants checked N (15%), 13 checked D (21.67%) and 8 checked SD
(13.33%). Affirmative responses for A and SA had nearly equal representation of ABDs (14) and
PhDs (13) noting that those still in the process felt the same as their completer (PhD)
counterparts. The topic of rebelliousness (against system, stress, or workload) was discussed in
the literature review as a factor that could inhibit dissertation completion (Muszynski &
Akamatsu, 1991) and from the affirmative responses, 13 of the PhDs finished their dissertation
despite feeling rebellious at times. However, 16 ABDs that checked the affirmative responses are
still in the process of research and writing and it cannot be determined at this time if the
workload or stress has or will affect their completion or time to degree.
155
Table 67. Results for 10d “. . . I felt rebellious sometimes due to the workload or stress to meet
deadlines” by Educational Status and Gender
10d)
ABD Gender
(60 participants)
PhD Gender
(60 participants)
35
ABDs
26
PhDs
SD (8)
5 fABD (8.33%)
1 mABD (1.67%)
2 fPhD (3.33%)
0 mPhD (0%)
6
(17.14%)
2
(7.69%)
D (13)
5 fABD (8.33%)
0 mABD (0%)
4 fPhD (6.67%)
4 mPhD (6.67%)
5
(14.29%)
8
(30.77%)
N (9)
2 fABD (3.33%)
1 mABD (1.67%)
4 fPhD (6.67%)
2 mPhD (3.33%)
3
(8.57%)
6
(23.07%)
A (24)
10 fABD (16.67%)
4 mABD (6.67%)
7 fPhD (11.67%)
3 mPhD (60%)
14
(40%)
10
(38.46%)
SA1 ABD (6)
2 fABD (3.33%)
0 mABD (0%)
3 fPhD (60%)
0 mPhD (0%)
3
(8.57%)
3
(11.54%)
1 ABD: 1 ABD declined to state gender
Item 10e “. . . I procrastinated about writing sometimes” had 60 responses with 48 (80%)
responding in the affirmative (A 29, SA 19); ABDs are still in the process of researching and
writing their dissertation and contributed 27 of the affirmative responses (45%). There were 9
male PhDs and 6 ABDs participating in the study and cumulatively, their affirmative responses
show that 8 (88.89%) of the male PhDs and 5 (83.33%) of the male ABDs procrastinated at
times. In addition, female PhDs (13) and ABDs (21) also had high response rates for the amount
of PhD and ABD females participating in the study. Twenty-one of 28 fABDs (75%) and 13 of
17 fPhDs (76.47%) procrastinated at times. As stated in the review of literature, procrastination
ranks highly as a negative student behavior (Green, 2007) and that 75% “do it” in general, and
50% do it consistently (Steel, 2007).
156
Table 68. Results for 10e “. . . I procrastinated about writing sometimes” by Educational Status
and Gender
10e)
ABD Gender
(60 participants)
PhD Gender
(60 participants)
35
ABDs
26
PhDs
SD (4)
3 fABD (60%)
0 mABD (0%)
1 fPhD (1.67%)
0 mPhD (0%)
3
(8.57%)
1
(3.85%)
D (4)
1 fABD (1.67%)
1 mABD (1.67%)
1 fPhD (1.67%)
1 mPhD (1.67%)
2
(5.71%)
2
(7.69%)
N (4)
2 fABD (3.33%)
0 mABD (0%)
2 fPhD (3.33%)
0 mPhD (0%)
2
(5.71%)
2
(7.69%)
A (29)
13 fABD (21.67%)
3 mABD (60%)
7 fPhD (11.67%)
6 mPhD (10%)
16
(45.71%)
13
(50%)
SA1 ABD (19)
8 fABD (13.33%)
2 mABD (3.33%)
6 fPhD (10%)
2 mPhD (3.33%)
11
(31.43%)
8
(30.77%)
1 ABD: 1 ABD declined to state gender
“. . . I made sure I had my materials and work area prepared when I went to write” was
geared toward whether participants were prepared to write at a time that was part of a
schedule/plan or by opportunity. That there were more affirmative responses that writers
exhibited preparation to write; thirty-three participants (54.1%) Agreed and 13 SA (21.31%) that
they made sure they prepared for their writing time. Cumulatively the affirmative responses total
46 (76.67%) which also speaks to taking the work seriously. Ten participants responded they
were N (16.67%) and there were 2 that D and 3 that SD. Thus, preparedness was part of the
behavior process of 76.67% participants. Preparedness has to do with personal factors such as
self-regulation (regulating the location and availability of materials to research or write) (Graham
& Harris, 1997; Kolman, 2001; Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997), self-handicapping by creating
a preparedness barrier (Harsch, 2008), and planning skills that facilitate preparedness. Thus,
157
preparedness is a significant factor in completion and the 46 affirmative responses show that
75.41% of study participants exhibited self-regulation and limited self-handicapping.
Table 69. Results for 10f “. . . I made sure I had my materials & work area prepared when I went
to write” by Educational Status and Gender
10f)
ABD Gender
(61 participants)
PhD Gender
(61 participants)
35
ABDs
26
PhDs
SD (3)
3 fABD (4.92%)
0 mABD (0%)
0 fPhD (0%)
0 mPhD (0%)
3
(8.57%)
0
(0%)
D1 ABD (2)
0 fABD (0%)
0 mABD (0%)
1 fPhD (1.64%)
0 mPhD (0%)
1
(2.86%)
1
(3.85%)
N (10)
3 fABD (4.92%)
1 mABD (1.64%)
2 fPhD (3.28%)
4 mPhD (6.56%)
4
(11.43%)
6
(23.07%)
A (33)
14 fABD (22.95%)
2 mABD (3.28%)
12 fPhD (19.67%)
5 mPhD (8.2%)
16
(45.71%)
17
(65.38%)
SA (13)
8 fABD (13.11%)
3 mABD (4.92%)
2 fPhD (3.28%)
0 mPhD (0%)
11
(31.43%)
2
(7.69%)
1 ABD: 1 ABD declined to state gender
Question 11a to 11c.
Question 11a to 11c. Question 11 “During the dissertation process a sense of community
community/ies of practice, or feeling connected. . .” has a 5-point Likert response format:
Strongly disagree (SD), Disagree (D), Neutral (N), Agree (A), Strongly agree (SA). Strongly
Agree and Agree were checked most often for each item (a – c) confirming that sense of
community or connectedness to other dissertation writers, faculty, advisers, chairs, disciplinary
mentors, or SocNets was helpful during the dissertation process.
158
Table 70. Question 11a – 11c “During the dissertation process a sense of community
community/ies of practice, or feeling connected. . .”
Items 11a – 11c SD D N A SA
11a) made me feel less isolated (61)
6
(9.84%)
2
(3.28%)
10
(16.39%)
31
(50.82%)
12
(19.67%)
11b) gave me a way to vent my
frustration (60)
6
(10%)
5
(8.33%)
10
(16.67%)
25
(41.67%)
14
(23.33%)
11c) helped me through times when I
got stuck (60)
5
(8.33%)
8
(13.33%)
12
(20%)
23
(38.33%)
12
(20%)
1 ABD: 1 ABD declined to state gender
For 11a “. . . made me feel less isolated” of the 61 participants responding thirty-one
checked Agree (50.82%) and 12 checked SA (19.67%). Twenty-five of 35 ABDs (71.43%) and
18 of 26 PhDs (69.23%) participating in the study checked affirmative responses showing that
both groups felt less isolated when sense of community or connectedness was a part of the
process. Ten participants checked Neutral, 2 Disagreed, and 6 SD. Participants for this option
that A/SA have an increased likelihood of dissertation completion (Allan & Dory, 2001; Cheeks,
2007; Gardner, 2007; Golde, 2005; Kittell-Limerick, 2005; Kluever, 1997; Lundell 1999; Rovai
& Wighting, 2005; Strite, 2007; Turner & Edwards, 2006).
159
Table 71. Results for 11a “. . . made me feel less isolated” by Educational Status and Gender
11a)
ABD Gender
(61 participants)
PhD Gender
(61 participants)
35
ABDs
26
PhDs
Strongly disagree (6)
3 fABD (0 %)
2 mABD (0 %)
1 fPhD (0 %)
0 mPhD (0 %)
5
(14.29%)
1
(3.85%)
Disagree (2)
0 fABD (0 %)
0 mABD (0 %)
1 fPhD (0 %)
1 mPhD (0 %)
0
(0 %)
2
(7.69%)
Neutral (10)
5 fABD (%)
0 mABD (0 %)
3 fPhD (%)
2 mPhD (%)
5
(14.29%)
5
(19.23%)
Agree (31)
13 fABD (%)
2 mABD (%)
10 fPhD (%)
6 mPhD (%)
15
(42.86%)
16
(61.54%)
Strongly agree1 ABD (12)
7 fABD (%)
2 mABD (%)
2 fPhD (%)
0 mPhD (%)
10
(28.57%)
2
(7.69%)
1 ABD: 1 ABD declined to state gender
Item 11b “. . . gave me a way to vent my frustration” had 25 participants that Agreed
(41.67%) and 14 that SA (23.33%) that a sense of community/connection gave them a way to
vent their frustration at times. Responses for Disagree (5, 8.33%), and SD (6, 10%) cumulatively
make up 18.33% of the responses for this item, with Neutral (10) accounting for 16.67%. The
affirmative responses here that sense of community or connectedness helped some participants
vent frustration is corroborated in the literature (Gardner, 2010; Leatherman, 2000; Lovitts,
2008) as a way to learn that others feel the same way or can offer suggestions to make the
process more manageable.
160
Table 72. Results for 11b “. . . gave me a way to vent my frustration” by Educational Status and
Gender
11b)
ABD Gender
(60 participants)
PhD Gender
(60 participants)
35
ABDs
26
PhDs
Strongly disagree (6)
4 fABD (0 %)
1 mABD (0 %)
1 fPhD (0 %)
0 mPhD (0 %)
5
(14.29%)
1
(3.85%)
Disagree (5)
1 fABD (0 %)
2 mABD (0 %)
1 fPhD (0 %)
1 mPhD (0 %)
3
(8.57%)
2
(7.69%)
Neutral (10)
6 fABD (0 %)
0 mABD (0 %)
3 fPhD (0 %)
1 mPhD (0 %)
6
(17.14%)
4
(15.38%)
Agree (25)
11 fABD (0 %)
1 mABD (0 %)
8 fPhD (0 %)
5 mPhD (0 %)
12
(34.29%)
13
(50%)
Strongly agree1 ABD (14)
5 fABD (0 %)
2 mABD (0 %)
4 fPhD (0 %)
2 mPhD (0 %)
8
(22.86%)
6
(23.07%)
1 ABD: 1 ABD declined to state gender
Item 11c (60) “. . . helped me through times when I got stuck” had a majority of
affirmative responses (A 23, SA 12) from participants. Twelve participants checked Neutral with
5 of 9 mPhDs participating in the study (55.56%) checking this option. There were 8 responses
for Disagree (13.33%) and 5 for Strongly Disagree (8.33%) but it is unknown whether a sense of
community/connectedness did not help them.
The issue of getting stuck is a factor that can inhibit or delay dissertation completion
(Cardozo, 2006; Kiley, 2009) and was addressed in Question 6. Item 11c asks participants if a
sense of community or connectedness helped when they became stuck in the process, which
could be related to option 6a (they found their own ways to get past being stuck). A possibility
remains open that participants checking 6a (47) could have found peers, groups, or SocNets as a
support network, but there was no option for 6a for participants to detail how they got past being
stuck.
161
Table 73. Results for 11c “. . . helped me through times when I got stuck” by Educational Status
and Gender
11c)
ABD Gender
(60 participants)
PhD Gender
(60 participants)
35
ABDs
26
PhDs
Strongly disagree (5)
3 fABD (0 %)
1 mABD (0 %)
1 fPhD (0 %)
0 mPhD (0 %)
4
(11.43%)
1
(3.85%)
Disagree (8)
3 fABD (0 %)
1 mABD (0 %)
3 fPhD (0 %)
1 mPhD (0 %)
4
(11.43%)
4
(15.38%)
Neutral (12)
5 fABD (0 %)
1 mABD (0 %)
1 fPhD (0 %)
5 mPhD (0 %)
6
(17.14%)
6
(23.07%)
Agree (23)
10 fABD (0 %)
2 mABD (0 %)
9 fPhD (0 %)
2 mPhD (0 %)
12
(34.29%)
11
(42.31%)
Strongly agree1 ABD (12)
6 fABD (0 %)
1 mABD (0 %)
3 fPhD (0 %)
1 mPhD (0 %)
8
(22.86%)
4
(15.38%)
For question 11’s 3 items all of the highest responses were in the affirmative (A, SA) that
sense of community or connectedness helped lessen isolation, gave individuals a way to vent
their frustration, and helped them when they got stuck.
Correlation of questionnaire variables with the key variable Question 10c “I felt
confident I could finish my dissertation and graduate.”
Options to Likert-type questions 2, 4, 7, 8,9,10, and 11 provided 29 variables used in a
correlation with the key variable, Question 10c “I felt confident I could finish my dissertation
and graduate.” A correlation was performed with Question 10c and 29 variables from Likert-type
questions 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 (see Table 74). The 29 variables are the items (a-f) for
Questions 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 as follows in Table 74.
162
Table 74. List of twenty-nine Likert variables by their question number used in a correlation with
Question 10c “I felt confident I could finish my dissertation and graduate.”
2) Who should be responsible for socialization/enculturation into the dissertation process?
2a) the student
2b) peers, a peer group, or other dissertation writers
2c) faculty in our discipline
2d) an advisor/dissertation chair
2e) doctoral coursework
2f) doctoral studies workshops or seminars
4) I felt my adviser/dissertation chair was caring because he/she
4a) made me feel less isolated because he/she stayed in touch with me
4b) encouraged me to ask questions about my dissertation or the process
4c) helped me set research & writing goals
4d) was a mentor to me
4e) got to know some things about me on a personal level
7) I was pessimistic about completing my dissertation at times because
7a) I did not receive motivational or emotional support
7b) I let things distract me from my writing schedule (self-handicapping)
8) Being a perfectionist while writing my dissertation
8a) became a handicap/barrier to my progress
8b) sometimes resulted in writer’s block
8c) sometimes gave me time to clear my mind
9) My self-esteem
9a) grew when I received emotional or motivational support
9b) grew as I met my planned dissertation progress deadlines
9c) grew when my adviser gave me positive feedback about my progress
9d) dipped when I felt isolated or alone during the dissertation process
[Table 74 continued on next page]
163
Table 74 (continued from previous page) List of twenty-nine Likert variables by their question
number used in a correlation with Question 10c “I felt confident I could finish my
dissertation and graduate.”
10) During the dissertation process
10a) I felt I had control over my ability to complete tasks involved in research and writing
10b) I felt powerless about my progress at times
10c) I felt confident that I could finish my dissertation and graduate
10d) I felt rebellious sometimes due to the workload or stress to meet deadlines
10e) I procrastinated about writing sometimes
10f) I made sure I had my materials and work area prepared when I went to write
11) During the dissertation process a sense of community, community/ies of practice, or feeling
connected
11a) made me feel less isolated
11b) gave me a way to vent my frustration
11c) helped me through times when I got stuck
The results of the correlation were assessed and presented with those being statistically
significant presented in descending order by correlation (see Table 75). Note that five of the ten
variables, that is, half of the significant correlations, were about advisor activities that
communicated to the student that the advisor was caring.
164
Table 75. Correlations with variable “[I felt] Confident I could finish my dissertation and
graduate”
Pearson
1-tailed
sig
N
10a) During the dissertation process I felt I had control over
my ability to complete tasks involved in research &
writing
.663 .000 60
4a) I felt my adviser/dissertation chair was caring because
he/she made me feel less isolated because he/she stayed in
touch with me
.318 .0065 60
4b) I felt my adviser/dissertation chair was caring because
he/she encouraged me to ask questions about my
dissertation or the process
.280 .0075 60
4e) I felt my adviser/dissertation chair was caring because
he/she got to know some things about me on a personal
level
.253 .0255 60
4c) I felt my adviser/dissertation chair was caring because
he/she helped me set research & writing goals
.249 .0275 60
2a) Who should be responsible for socialization /
enculturation into the dissertation process? the student
.230 .0385 60
4d) I felt my adviser/dissertation chair was caring because
he/she was a mentor to me
.222 .044 60
10b) During the dissertation process I felt powerless about
my progress at times
-.280 .015 60
9d) My self-esteem dipped when I felt isolated or alone
during the dissertation process
-.327 .0065 57
7a) I was pessimistic about completing my dissertation: I did
not receive motivational or emotional support
-.384 .001 60
N: number of responses
Concluding quantitative remarks.
The results of the quantitative portion of the survey conclude here.
1a -1f. Overall, ABDs and PhDs were able to choose their dissertation topic freely with
adviser/chair guidance (Nelson & Sacks, 2007; Vilkinas, 2008).
165
2a – 2f. Results showed that individual students (60), advisers (59), and faculty (58) had
some or major responsibility for socialization into the dissertation process. Previous research
explains there are different ways students can become socialized including advisers, faculty,
coursework, and through their own efforts (Allan & Dory, 2001; Cohen, 1998; Gardner, 2007,
2008, 2010; Golde, 2005; Good, 2002; Lenz, 1997; Lin, 2003; Pride, 2005; Robole, 2003).
3a – 3h. Advisers became chairs (30), stayed in touch (29), and met for meetings with
students (24). Advisers that stay in contact with writers and/or meet writers regularly was also
discussed in the literature as providing motivational, and emotional support (Allan & Dory,
2001; Baker & Pifer, 2011; Cohen, 1998; Gardner, 2007; Good, 2002; Green, 1997; Harsch,
2008; Kluever, 1997; Leatherman, 2000; Lenz, 1997; Pride, 2005; Robole, 2003; Varney,
2003). Even though the adviser issues were positive for the most part, some reported that
advisers/chairs only had contact when the student imitated it (25) or did not return student
telephone calls or emails (7). Advisers that do not stay in touch with ABDs during the process
can inhibit dissertation completion (Baker & Pifer, 2011; White, 2006).
4a – 4e. Some participants reported that advisers displayed care by staying in touch that
limited feelings of isolation (30), and by getting to know the student on a personal level (36).
Adviser caring extended to students was in the form of encouragement to ask questions (41),
setting research and writing goals (38), and by becoming a mentor (37). Results reported by
participants corroborated points in the literature regarding advisers displaying care (Robole,
2003) by encouraging questions (Eley & Jennings, 2005), help with goal setting (Katz, 1997, p.
10), and interacting/getting to know their ABDs (Robole, 2003; Vilkinas, 2008; White, 2006).
An adviser that also serves as a mentor and develops supportive relationships can help students
persist (Eley & Jennings, 2005; Green, 1997; Pride, 2005; White, 2006).
166
5a – 5i. Responses to marginalization issues were low with 8 reporting being older as a
factor, 7 reporting racial/ethnic issues, 6 for being female, and 5 for religious/spiritual factors.
The literature explains that marginalization can be a problem for some students (Lenz, 1997) and
participants here corroborate previous studies that also confirm that women and older students
have reported feeling marginalized (Allan & Dory, 2001).
6a – 6d. Participants said they found ways to get past being/getting stuck during the
process (47), that they became stuck because the amount of work was depressing (27), or
because they felt hopeless at times (33). Some of the participants said they got stuck because
they were not socialized into the dissertation process (16). Study participants corroborate the
literature in that they could have gotten past being stuck using their resiliency. Students that
exhibit high levels of self-efficacy can determine the amount of effort they use to complete tasks
(Varney, 2003). Motivation, confidence, and persistence could be internal qualities employed as
well as having confidence in their skills and abilities, which in turn fuels motivation (Varney,
2003). In addition, being stuck “. . . can manifest as depression, a sense of hopelessness, ‘going
round in circles’ and so on” (Kiley, 2009, p. 293). Thus, some of the participants could have felt
hopelessness or a form of depression on this point, because being depressed was cited as a reason
some students left their program (Cheeks, 2007; Cohen, 1998; Green, 1997; Warren, 1984).
Socialization is part of “. . . the larger cultural context in which graduate students live and work”
(Lovitts, 2008, p. 315). Socialization is critical to navigate graduate school (Cardozo, 2006) and
ABD attrition results from students who are “‘unsocialized to the scope and meaning of [a]
dissertation’” (Cardozo, 2006, p. 144).
7a – 7b. Participants experienced pessimism about completing their dissertation due to a
lack of motivational or emotional support (33) or because they let themselves become distracted
167
at times (35). Participants corroborated the literature with their responses to Question 7 (a and b).
Motivational, and emotional support can come from a variety of sources such as
family/significant others, friends, advisers, sense of community and so on (Allan & Dory, 2001;
Baker & Pifer, 2011; Cheeks, 2007; Cohen, 1998; Gardner, 2007; Good, 2002; Green, 1997;
Harsch, 2008; Kluever, 1997; Leatherman, 2000; Lenz, 1997; Pride, 2005; Robole, 2003;
Varney, 2003). Even though the 33 survey participants responding they lacked motivational or
emotional support they did not have a way to indicate which sources failed to give support.
Distractions could lead to pessimism about accomplishing tasks because procrastination is
related to locus of control and pessimism (Harsch, 2008). Becoming pessimistic about finishing a
dissertation can be linked to distractibility as follows. Distractibility is related to procrastination
and procrastinators tend to get distracted (Steel, 2007, p. 82). The points of distraction stated by
participants were beginning a martial arts class and getting a horse. These examples are self-
regulatory in nature because participants chose to do them (Graham & Harris, 1997; Kolman,
2001; Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997). Writers do not exhibit self-control when they give in to
an “emotionally arousing cue” (Steel, 2007, p. 70) instead of managing the distracting cues.
8a – 8c. Results from participant comments were also mentioned in the literature with 23
agreeing/strongly agreeing that perfectionism was a barrier at times. Perfectionism is a form of
control individuals feel they have over outcomes (Harsch, 2008) and is a way of self-
handicapping their progress. Green (1997) explains that some use perfectionism to explain their
procrastination that could result in writer’s block and delay dissertation progress (Harsch, 2008).
There is a cyclical nature to perfectionism, procrastination, and writer’s block and 30 participants
checked they experienced writers block due to perfectionism. Twenty-five participants did not
find perfectionism was a way to clear their mind but the literature did contend that results from
168
the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale, completers were “more perfectionistic” and in some
cases, perfectionism had an enabling effect on students (Lenz, 1997, p. 72)
9a – 9d. Fifty participants said their self-esteem grew when they received emotional or
motivational support. Self-esteem grew for 45 participants when they reached their dissertation
progress deadlines and for 51 when their adviser gave them positive feedback about their
progress. The literature also had accounts of self-esteem growing when writers received
emotional or motivational support. Emotional and/or motivational support from peers or
dissertation support groups decreases feelings of isolation (Allan & Dory; 2001) and works to
build a network of accountability (Allan & Dory, 2001; Cohen, 1998; ; Green, 1997; Lenz, 1997)
where writers can celebrate successfully meeting goals or deadlines, that can build se-esteem.
Help meeting deadlines also comes from emotional support from departments (Gardner, 2010;
Harsch, 2008; Lenz, 1997; Lovitts, 2008) and/or motivational support from advisers/chairs
(Allan & Dory, 2001; Cohen, 1998; Eley & Jennings, 2005; Kumar & Stracke, 2007; Lenz,
1997; Pride, 2005; Protivnak & Foss, 2009; White, 2006). Meeting deadlines could mean that
writers have gotten past challenges (being stuck) (Kiley, 2009; Lovitts, 2005) that also works to
build self-efficacy/esteem. Participants also agreed/strongly agreed (51) that adviser feedback
built self-esteem that helped motivation grow (Lovitts, 2008). However, 44 participants said that
self-esteem dipped when ABD/DCs feel isolated through a lack of contact/interaction with
faculty or peers (Lundell, 1999; Pride, 2005). While isolated without input from others, an
ABD/DC may feel stuck in the process and that can tear away at self-confidence and self-esteem
(Kiley, 2009). Low or lack of self-esteem can inhibit dissertation completion (Allan & Dory,
2001; Pride, 2005) and feeling isolated is a reason non-completers gave for leaving doctoral
studies (Allan & Dory, 2001; Cheeks, 2007; Gardner, 2007; Golde, 2005; Kiley, 2009; Kittell-
169
Limerick, 2005; Kluever, 1997; Lundell 1999; Rovai & Wighting, 2005; Strite, 2007; Turner &
Edwards, 2006)
10a – 10f. Personal attributes helped participants at times during the process such as
maintaining control over task completion (37), feeling confident about completion (38), and self-
regulating by making sure when the time came to write or analyze data a dedicated area and
materials were at hand to make the writing process easier (46). However, personal attributes did
not always help during the dissertation process because some participants said they felt
powerless at times (38), procrastinated (48), or felt rebelliousness toward the amount of work
and the stress related to meeting deadlines (30).
Participants in this study responded similarly to results presented in the literature review
in that accomplishing writing tasks/goals builds locus of control and the perception of
capabilities becomes increasingly positive (Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997) increasing self-
efficacy and confidence that progress is being made (Varney, 2003) and the dissertation can be
finished. As confidence builds, self-efficacy grows and fuels motivation. Thirty-seven
participants here felt they had control and 38 felt confident they would finish their dissertation.
ABDs in past studies said they experienced powerlessness (Warren, 1984), which is a result of a
loss of locus of control (Rovai & Wighting, 2005). Rebelliousness and a low frustration level is a
component of procrastination (Muszynski & Akamatsu, 1991) so it is possible that frustration
over the workload and feeling rebellious over the time consumed occurred in these 30
participants. Writer self-regulation discussed in the literature refers to preparedness and
scheduling (Graham & Harris, 1997; Kolman, 2001; Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997) and
exhibiting locus of control. Participants (46) agreed/strongly agreed they had a work area and
materials ready for writing sessions (writer self-regulation). Forty-eight participants admitted to
170
procrastinating at times. Since these participants said they felt they had control over their
abilities (37), felt confident they would finish (38), and made sure they made preparations to
write (46) reasons for their procrastination could be academic procrastination that is not specific
to any task in particular (Green, 2007), and can result from other factors (i.e., distractibility,
impulsiveness, achievement motivation) (Steel, 2007).
11a – 11c. Emotional, motivational, and academic support motivation; self motivation
and being driven was gained through feeling connected to other writers, disciplinary faculty, or
communities of practice that helped writers get past challenges that come/came up (becoming
“unstuck”) (35), have others to talk to about the work/process or to vent frustration, (39), and
helped dissipate feelings of isolation (43). Overall, the quantitative results corroborate the
literature review on a number of points. Having others who are going or have gone through the
process can offer advice (Cardozo, 2006; Gardner, 2010; Lovitts, 2008), someone who they can
vent frustrations to (Pride, 2005). Feeling connected or part of a community of writers or faculty
offer motivational, emotional (Harsch, 2008; Lenz, 1997), and academic support that can
alleviate feelings of isolation (Janson et al., 2004). Getting motivation (Allan & Dory, 2001;
Varney, 2003) or being self motivated or driven comes through connection with others or a sense
of community that helps writers persist (Yeager, 2008).
Correlation results summary. The results show that 5 of 10 variables that correlated to
study participants feeling confident about being able to complete dissertation were related to
advisers exhibiting care toward them during the dissertation process. Participants noted that
advisers exhibited care by helping set goals for research and writing, encouraging questions from
them, staying in touch, being a mentor, or by getting to know them on a personal level. These
results correspond to points made in the review of literature that adviser caring was important in
171
dissertation completion/persistence to degree and in a timely manner (Allan & Dory, 2001;
Cohen, 1998; Donoghue, 2010; Good, 2002; Lenz, 1997; Robole, 2003; Vilkinas, 2008; White,
2006). Mentoring and developing key relationships was also important to persistence/dissertation
completion (Donoghue, 2010; Eley & Jennings, 2005; Green, 1997; Pride, 2005; Tanzer, 2001;
White, 2006) as was assisting with coordinating writing, research, and dissertation support
(Allan & Dory, 2001; Vilkinas, 2008), as well as helping set realistic goals (Katz, 1997).
The results of the qualitative portion of the survey’s open-ended questions are presented
next.
Qualitative Results
Qualitative analysis of open-ended questions.
The open-ended questions and their number on the long and short surveys are number 25
short and 36 long: Please list the things that have helped you most along the way to your PhD
and number 26 short and 37 long: Please list the things that have been most difficult in
completing the PhD. The qualitative analyses of the open-ended questions on long and short
surveys began by sorting responses into factors found in previous studies such as adviser issues
(pro and con) personal issues such as writing or planning skills, and so on. If an open-ended
response did not fit into a pre-determined factor-category, it was placed on a list with any other
factors not previously mentioned or distinguished in the literature. For example, there were two
responses about playing video games; one was helpful in providing a break when needed, and the
other comment was that playing games was a way to procrastinate. The factor-category created
was “diversions” with one type being favorable and one being detrimental to the dissertation
writing process. The category “diversions” is a personal factor and was placed on the list of
personal factors. All factors discussed in the open-ended questions were organized into
172
institutional or personal factors and into sub-categories such as structural or environmental. This
was done to make sure all factors could be assessed in the context the participants used. For
example, when a participant wrote that their adviser/chair did not provide feedback on written
sections submitted and delayed their progress, it was listed as an institutional-adviser issue. An
example of how personal factors were placed into categories and sub-categories is if a participant
said they had to learn how to write at the the dissertation level, it was considered a personal
structural issue. Another example is if family was helpful in providing motivation it was placed
on the personal-environmental factor list and if a student wrote they experienced depression, it
was considered a personal-internal issue.
After the open-ended responses were grouped and categorized the participant’s comment
was edited using fewer words for the same meaning to protect participant identity. This was done
in case a participant made a specific comment about their adviser or other situation that could
possibly identify them. Additionally, some open-ended responses contained information on two
topics that made completing a PhD difficult such as not having a cohort/student community and
a lack of institutional funding. The responses were placed into the applicable category resulting
in more comments made by the number of participants responding to open-ended questions. In
one instance, a participant cited eight factors that helped and six factors that made things
difficult. Therefore, one participant could be responsible for listing anywhere from 1 to 15
factors that helped and/or made things difficult. Appendix F shows the open-ended factors and
the frequency of each factor in the categories and sub-categories they were assigned to.
Overall, 19 PhDs and 27 ABD/DCs answered “what helped” and what was “most
difficult,” for a total of 46 responses to both questions. One PhD and one ABD/DC only made a
comment for “what helped” and one ABD/DC only answered the “most difficult” question (see
173
Table 76). Females (37) answered both questions (80.43% of 46 responses) and 9 (19.57%)
males contributed responses.
Table 76. Amount of Responses to Open-Ended Questions including Educational Status and
Gender.
Open-Ended
Responses
ABDs61-P PhDs61-P Total61- P Females60- P Males60- P Total60- P
Answered both
questions
27 (58.7%)
19
(41.3%)
46
(75.41%)
37
(61.67%)
9
(15%)
46
(76.67%)
No response to
either question
6
(9.84%)
6
(9.84%)
12
(19.67%)
6
(10%)
5
(8.33%)
11
(18.33%)
Only answered
“what helped”
1
(1.64%)
1
(1.64%)
2
(3.28%)
1
(1.67%)
1
(1.67%)
2
(3.33%)
Only answered
“difficult”
1
(1.64%)
0
1
(1.64%)
1
(1.67%)
0
1
(1.67%)
Totals
34
(55.74%)
26
(42.62%)
61
(100%)
45
(75%)
15
(25%)
60
(100%)
61-P: Percentages based on 61 survey participants
60-P: Percents based on 60 of 61 participants (1 declined to state gender)
The factors were tallied by hand a number of times to make sure their placement into
categories and sub-categories aligned with the context of the participant’s comments. The use of
quantitative software was used for some of the assessment; frequencies could be hand tallied but
some information was assessed using SPSS such as responses by educational status, gender, or
the type of school and program they attended.
Open-ended responses in the next sections are sequenced by responses for what “helped
most” and “most difficult.” Factors that do not appear in “helped most” and “most difficult” are
presented individually. One male and one female left studies as ABDs and are grouped with
ABD responses; however, only the male ABD responded to the open-ended questions. Table 77
shows the open-ended topics and the frequency of responses for each. “Most difficult” comments
174
do not always have equivalent numerical or contextual “helped most” responses. Following
Table 77 is a discussion of “most difficult” and “helped most” responses.
The frequency of topic-comments are given in Table 77 cumulatively totaling 129
“helpful” factor-comments and 124 “difficult” factor-comments. Of the 129 helpful comments
overall, 45 (34.88%) were institutional-based and 84 (65.12%) were personal-based. Of the 124
difficult comments overall, 69 (55.65%) were institutional-based and 55 (44.35%) were
personal-based. In the “helped most” institutional-based category, adviser support/help (14) had
the most responses followed by peers/cohort (8), and funding (7). Helped most personal-based
responses show the highest amount of responses were for motivation (13), personal internal
factors (13), followed by outside help (9) and three factors at 8 responses each (family, personal
structure/routine). There were a number of helped most factors (institutional and personal) with
low response counts and all counts appear in Table 77. Of the 124 difficult comments overall, 69
(55.645) were institutional-based and 55 (44.35%) were personal-based. In the “most difficult”
institutional-based category, adviser/chair factors (35) had the most responses followed by
processes, procedures (20). “Most difficult” personal-based responses show the highest amount
of responses for family (11) and personal internal factors (9) followed by work/employment and
time with 7 responses each. There were a number of most difficult factors (institutional and
personal) with low response counts and all counts appear in Table 77.
175
Table 77. Frequencies of Open-Ended Questions
Helped Institutional (45) Responses Difficult Institutional (69) Responses
Adviser support/help 14 Adviser/chair 35
Peers/cohort 8 Processes, procedures 20
Funding 7 Student employment 4
Institutional services 5 Dissertation committee 4
Classroom faculty 5
Unprepared: for dissertation
research, writing, progress
4
Faculty 4
Transition coursework to
dissertation
2
Dissertation committee 2
Helped Personal (84) Responses Difficult Personal (55) Responses
Motivation 13 Family 11
Personal internal (i.e., passion for
topic, determination, will)
13
Personal internal (i.e., stress,
overwhelmed, uncertainty)
9
Outside help 9 Work/employment 7
Non-school dissertation
writers/peers
8 Time 7
Family 8 Personal skills 5
Personal structure/routine 8 Money/finances 4
Spouse/partner/significant other 7 Writing/research 4
Social networks/web sites 6 Isolated/alone 3
Financial 5
Environmental (visa, car
accident)
3
Friends 5 Diversions 1
Diversions 2 Outside assistance (bad coaching) 1
Most difficult factors listed by participants are discussed first and followed by all helped
most factors.
176
Most difficult factors.
Most difficult institutional policies, procedures. Participants commented about policies
and procedures that made it difficult for them to finish their dissertation or finish on time.
Policies or procedures that delayed progress included advisers (1 fABD) or committees (1 fABD,
1 mPhD) being permitted ample time to respond to students about progress or paper sections or
that a two-chair review delayed completion (1 fABD). There were comments that policies or
procedures were not available such as guidance (4 fABD), workshops, seminars (1 fPhD),
institutional or departmental rubrics on how to proceed (1 fABD), or outlines that define
deadlines (1 fABD). In addition, there were a lack of seminars to socialize individuals on how to
be a doctoral student (1 fPhD), departmental support was poor (1 fABD), there was no student
community (1 mABD), there was a loss or lack of cohort (2 mABD), and students felt they were
left to find their own way (1 mABD). One participant noted that the amount of graduation
paperwork interfered with finishing final details during the dissertation process (1 fPhD).
Participants corroborated points made in the literature review that a lack of institutional
or departmental support is detrimental to dissertation/PhD completion (Harsch, 2008; Kluever,
1997) and that increasing student interaction, promoting stronger connections with the
institution, faculty, and peers (Rovai, Wighting, & Liu, 2005) helps build a social and intellectual
form of support. Issues of time management by dissertation writers is a concern in the literature
as well (Green & Kluever, 1997), and the policies that prolonged the process such as time given
to advisers or committees to respond to advisee questions or draft revisions requires that
ABD/DCs have a flexible timeline (Nelson & Sacks, 2007). However, policies that support
students such as having workshops, seminars, graduate “training” and socialization is also
critical to dissertation completion (Allan & Dory, 2001; Cohen, 1998; Gardner, 2007, 2010;
177
Golde, 2005; Good, 2002; Lenz, 1997; Robole, 2003; Tanzer, 2001). Student connectedness,
community, or cohorts are also beneficial to dissertation completion (Cardozo, 2006; Rovai &
Wighting, 2005; Terrell et al., 2009). Furthermore, Nerad and Miller (1997) explained that
policies and procedures that support students increased completion rates at UC Berkeley by 11%
(p. 89) and it is clear by participant responses here that policies did not serve all student needs.
Table 78. Most Difficult Processes, Procedures Factors by Gender and Educational Status.
♀ ♂ ABD PhD
Difficult: Processes, procedures (20) 14 6 16 4
11 fABD
5 mABD
3 fPhD
1 mPhD
Most difficult adviser/chair factors. Adviser/chair feedback had the most comments for a
“most difficult” institutional factor and there were different reasons given for why. Comments
made were not receiving timely feedback (2 fABD,1 fPhD) and lack of feedback (1 fABD, 1
mABD). A mABD said that he received feedback from three chairs but it did not help him and
he ended up having four chairs and another mABD commented that he had two chair failures
before finding a third chair (1). Neither mABD gave a reason for their chair failures and no
speculation can be made about the reasons. Other most difficult adviser/chair issues were a lack
of mentorship (1fABD), little or no guidance about the process (3 fABD, 1 fPhD), or no advice
or guidance about the transition from coursework to the dissertation research/writing process (1
mABD, 1 mPhD). More straightforward comments included an adviser/chair being abusive (1
fABD), toxic and neglectful (1 fABD), demoralizing (1 fPhD), unresponsive (1 fABD), the cause
of burnout (1 fABD), a struggle to deal with (1 fABD, 1 fPhD), or an ABD/DC was treated as if
they were a disturbance (1 fABD). Other comments were that an adviser/chair was unfamiliar
with the topic (1 fPhD) or qualitative methods (1 fPhD). One fABD said that a controlling chair
178
did not permit consulting with faculty, peers, or mentors for help or advice. One fPhD made a
troublesome comment that scheduling contact with a chair, committee, or finding faculty to
discuss research was difficult and because they had no guidance, direction, support, or
communication, their adviser/committee did not approve of the direction being taken. Another
fABD made a troublesome comment that she was worried/concerned because others ABDs that
had her adviser ended up leaving the program because of adviser harassment. The 35 “most
difficult” factors reported by participants involving advisers/chairs outnumbered the fourteen
“most helpful” adviser/chair comments. The review of literature was extensive regarding adviser
issues that delayed or inhibited completion.
Table 79. Most Difficult Adviser Factors by Gender and Educational Status.
♀ ♂ ABD PhD
Difficult: Adviser/chair (35) 29 6 24 11
18 fABD
6 mABD
11 fPhD
0 mPhD
Most difficult dissertation committee. Participants said that their committee displayed a
lack of support (1 fABD) or structured support (1 mABD), and no guidance (1 fPhD). Type of
support or guidance was not explained in detail so it is unknown what type or form of support or
guidance was lacking. One other comment about difficulty with a committee was that the ABD
entered the dissertation process as a grant recipient and the committee modified aspects of the
dissertation research and writing to fulfill grant parameters (1 fPhD). The literature reported that
issues with the committee could be problematic or delay the process (Green, 1997; Pride, 2005).
179
Table 80. Most Difficult Dissertation Committee Factors by Gender and Educational Status.
♀ ♂ ABD PhD
Difficult: Committee (4) 3 1 2 2
1 fABD
1 mABD
2 fPhD
0 mPhD
Most difficult preparedness and transition dissertation process factors. Three participants
said that doctoral coursework did not prepare them for dissertation research and writing (2
fABD, 1 fPhD). One participant said that not being prepared made the transition “disastrous” (1
mABD) while another participant said “dealing with it” was difficult (1 mPhD). Lastly, one
participant said there was no study guide for dissertation research and writing (1 fABD) and it is
not known whether the lack of a study guide refers to a departmental/disciplinary guide or a PhD
student handbook.
Participants corroborated findings in the literature that preparedness for the transition is
important (Allan & Dory, 2001; Baker & Pifer, 2011; Cohen, 1998; Gardner, 2010; Good, 2002;
Green 1997; Kiley, 2009; Lenz, 1997; Lovitts, 2008; Muszynski & Akamatsu, 1991; NSF, 1998;
Pride, 2005). Being under prepared for dissertation writing and research can contribute to non-
completion (Allan & Dory, 2001; Cohen, 1998; Gardner, 2009; Good, 2002; Lenz, 1997; Tanzer,
2001).
Table 81. Most Difficult Preparedness and Transition to the Dissertation Process Factors by
Gender and Educational Status.
♀ ♂ ABD PhD
Difficult institutional: Transition
coursework to dissertation (2)
0 2 1 1
0 fABD
1 mABD
0 fPhD
1 mPhD
Difficult institutional: Unprepared: for
dissertation research, writing, progress (4)
4 0 3 1
3 fABD
0 mABD
1 fPhD
0 mPhD
180
Most difficult funding and finance factors. Responses for funding and financial issues that
were most difficult were being on unemployment resulted in a limited income (1 mPhD), or that
stress resulted because finances were tight while in school (1 fABD), or having debt (1 fABD).
The participant stating having debt did not explain if debt was related to school. Based on the
literature, income is an important issue to students because they have to pay for school and earn a
livable wage to support themselves (Barnett, 2008; Cheeks, 2007; Green, 1997; Harsch, 2008;
Lee, 2003; Robole, 2003), which could cause stress or uncertainty that could affect dissertation
progress.
Table 82. Most Difficult Funding or Financial Factors by Gender and Educational Status.
♀ ♂ ABD PhD
Difficult personal: financial (4) 3 1 3 1
3 fABD
0 mABD
0 fPhD
1 mPhD
Most difficult marginalization factors. One of the two open-ended responses was related
to being marginalized by the school or department (1 fABD) with no further discussion of how
this participant was marginalized. The second open-ended response was more explanatory in that
this participant said males were favored over females by the department and professors and
offered a brief discussion that male students in her department had help and support, attended
weekly meetings, and were invited to lunches or non-school weekend gatherings and females
were not (1 fABD). Briefly, in Q5i participants said that they felt marginalized because an
adviser was “unconcerned” (1 fPhD), and another said the adviser was radically leftist and a
union leader (1 fABD). The other three 5i comments were that the student did not have blind
acceptance that the job market was healthy (1 fABD), they were not financially sound (1 fABD),
or that they were not a high-achieving, ready-made PhD student (1 fABD). The two open-ended
181
responses differed from those offered in question 5i, showing that marginalization took many
forms in all 7 comments.
In the literature, marginalization could occur on different levels such as by the institution,
department, the discipline, advisers, or other students. Marginalization in different forms was
discussed in the literature; students that do not meet expected norms or conventional standards
could feel marginalized (Golde, 2005; Rovai & Wighting, 2005) or in context with being female,
older, religious difference, face/ethnicity, or being gay or lesbian (Yeager, 2008). In some cases,
a doctoral student could feel that socialization is unequal based on whether they are an older or a
returning student, a person of color (Gardner, 2007), or “do not fit the majority profile”
(Gardner, 2008, p. 128). Therefore, the instances of marginalization participants gave in the
open-ended responses or for question 5i have substantiation in the literature.
Most difficult personal skills. Reports from participants were varied and touch on
different aspects of writing a dissertation. Comments were about planning and choice of topic.
Having the skills to plan is one aspect of placing these factors in this section as is having the
skills to create a project that will meet rigor and make a contribution to their discipline.
Comments regarding planning in general are trying to research literature and reading it was
difficult (1 mPhD), trying to create a study that fit the dissertation completion schedule (1
mABD), and developing a writing habit was difficult (1 fPhD). Comments about contributions to
their field are having the required a level of confidence that the work done is valid and valuable
(1 fABD) and that the choice of a topic includes whether a contribution to the field can be made
(1 fABD).
The literature was corroborated on factors reported by participants. Researching a
database for a literature review puts an ABD/DC in an anomalous state of knowledge (ASK)
182
(Marchionini, 1997) because “graduate students ‘don’t know what they don’t know’” (Cardozo,
2006, p. 145). In addition, evaluating research material (Graham & Harris, 1997) and pouring
over it is a factor. Another factor is that creating a habitual writing schedule can be difficult
(Graham & Harris, 1997). Other factors are that careful choice of topic is important (Lenz, 1997;
Nelson & Sacks, 2007; Vilkinas, 2008) as well as making sure of the suitability of the topic
(Vilkinas, 2008). Furthermore, an ABD/DC has to check to make sure the topic has not already
been undertaken extensively and that it is relevant to the discipline (Vilkinas, 2008). Finally,
making a contribution to their field/discipline is important (Good, 2002) and writers should have
content knowledge and knowledge of past literature relating to their project (CGS, 2008a;
Lundell, 1999; Nerad & Miller, 1997, p. 76).
Table 83. Most Difficult: Writing and Research Skills, Structure, and Routine Factors by Gender
and Educational Status.
♀ ♂ ABD PhD
Difficult Personal: Writing or Research (4) 2 2 1 3
1 fABD
0 mABD
1 fPhD
2 mPhD
Difficult Personal: Personal Skills (5) 3 2 3 2
2 fABD
1 mABD
1 fPhD
1 mPhD
Most difficult employment factors. The factors listed here involve student and traditional
off-campus employment. Comments about student employment had to do with being given a
heavy workload by advisers or other faculty (1 fABD, 1 fPhD). In addition, having difficult
fieldwork assigned (unspecified) (1 fPhD) or conducting research for faculty (1 fPhD) was time
consuming making it difficult to meet writing deadlines. Feelings of uncertainty about trying to
secure funding through campus or other employment made it stressful for a participant (1
fABD). Participants commented that employment issues made things difficult such as having to
183
work full time (3 fABD, 1 mABD), having job demands requiring long hours and travel (1
fPhD), or job uncertainty that causes stress and then changing jobs (1 mABD).
The literature included student employment as a teaching assistant or working for faculty
on research as being time consuming or possible taking time from research and writing (Lin,
2003). If the student employment is unfunded or a non-paid job, students still need to secure
funds to help with school, living, or personal expenses (Harsch, 2008). Participant comments
about work/employment being stressful and mentally taxing is documented in the literature
(Barnett, 2008; Cheeks, 2007; Green, 1997; Harsch, 2008, Robole, 2003; Yeager, 2008) as is
working full time, which takes time away from personal tasks and dissertation research/writing.
Gravois (2007a) reported that 80% of exit survey results cited that financial support was essential
to PhD completion.
Table 84. Most Difficult Employment Factors by Gender and Educational Status.
♀ ♂ ABD PhD
Difficult institutional: Student
employment (4)
4 0 2 2
2 fABD
0 mABD
2 fPhD
0 mPhD
Difficult personal: work/employment (7) 4 3 6 1
3 fABD
3 mABD
1 fPhD
0 mPhD
Most difficult outside assistance factor. One participant commented that a coach was
helpful but dishonest causing financial difficulty (1 fABD). Although coaching was briefly
mentioned in the literature as being beneficial, there was no mention of coaching being unethical
or dishonest because the review of literature was not focused on coaches or editors.
Most difficult environmental factors. Environmental factors that affected participants
were an automobile accident and visa issues (1 fPhD), that peers displayed negativity toward the
ABD because they wanted the topic (1 fABD), and one comment about the dissertation process
184
interrupting life (1 fABD). The literature review did not address these factors but did include
Nelson and Sacks (2007) discussion that planning and scheduling should have flexibility
included in the plan in case issues come up that can affect writing time. Planning for the process
interrupting life was not discussed in the review of literature but could be an issue of flexibility
so planning and scheduling permits time for family or personal time. Peers reacting negatively
toward an ABD was not discussed in the literature reviewed for this study.
Most difficult time issues. Seven comments were made about time being an important
factor. Balancing work/career and family during the process was difficult (2 fABD, 1 fPhD, 1
mPhD) and that working to make a livable income took time away from writing (1 fABD). Not
having time for oneself was mentioned (1 fABD) and one fABD said that doing other people’s
work took time, but there was no detail or context given. Time was addressed in the literature
review in that planning/scheduling time to write should include flexibility for unexpected issues
that could come up (Nelson & Sacks, 2007) and time management should be maintained to avoid
adverse consequences (Green & Kluever, 1997) such as delays. With planning and following a
schedule, participants could have time for family, work, and themselves.
Table 85. Most Difficult Personal Environmental Factors by Gender and Educational Status.
♀ ♂ ABD PhD
Difficult personal: outside assistance (1) 1 0 1 0
1 fABD
0 mABD
0 fPhD
0 mPhD
Difficult personal: environmental (3) 3 0 2 1
2 fABD
0 mABD
1 fPhD
0 mPhD
Difficult personal: time (7) 6 1 5 2
5 fABD
0 mABD
1 fPhD
1 mPhD
185
Most difficult “diversion” factors. The diversion factor was created because diversions
could lead to procrastination or take time away from writing. Diversions involved time
consuming activities such as “adopting a horse” (1 fABD) or learning “medieval marshal arts” (1
fABD). Diversions are ways individuals get distracted or focused on something other than
writing. Distractibility is a predictor of procrastination that can be detrimental to dissertation
completion (Green, 1997). Moreover, a diversion can be a way a writer self-handicaps by giving
importance to a task or situation that seems to be an uncontrollable situation or event (Harsch,
2008). The two comments here show that this type of diversion is not spontaneous and could
contribute to delaying dissertation writing or timely completion (Steel, 2007).
Most difficult spouse/family factors. Family factors include immediate family,
spouses/significant others/partners, and close relatives such as mothers, fathers, siblings, and so
on. Six participants listed family commitments, obligations, issues, or children (4 fABD, 2 fPhD)
as making dissertation progress difficult. Also listed as most difficult was spouse (2 fABD) and
ending a long-term relationship (1 fPhD). Two participants reported issues with their parents;
one had a sick mother (1 fABD) and another participant said the unexpected passing of a father
made the process difficult for another participant (1 fABD). Interestingly, no males commented
about family, family demands, or spouses being most difficult.
Issues of family or spouses were given in the review of literature such as family demands
or obligations can inhibit dissertation progress (Allan & Dory, 2001; Cheeks, 2007; Cohen,
1998; Gardner, 2010; Good, 2002; Green, 1997; Lee, 2003; Lenz, 1997; Protivnak & Foss,
2009). Lenz (1997) explained that family or spouses being inconsiderate about time can make
the process difficult and Cheeks (2007) reported that putting pressure or making demands on
writers can sabotage or undermine dissertation progress. Because support from or spouses is
186
helpful lack of emotional support is an issue that makes it hard to persist (Cheeks, 2007). Thus,
these family or spousal issues fall under factors that make persisting difficult.
Table 86. Most Difficult Spouse/Family Factors by Gender and Educational Status.
♀ ♂ ABD PhD
Difficult personal: Spouse/Family (11) 11 0 8 3
8 fABD
0 mABD
3 fPhD
0 mPhD
Most difficult personal internal factors. Some of the most difficult personal internal
factors involved how individuals managed or internalized different events or situations. For
example, high levels of uncertainty and stress made the process difficult (1 mABD) or affected
physical health (1 fABD). One participant said that the amount of work involved writing a
dissertation was paralyzing and caused despair about being able to complete it (1 fPhD). Writer’s
block developed as a result of trying to manage crises or personal trauma (1 fABD) while
another participant said that the internal issue of undiagnosed depression (1 fABD) made the
process difficult as well. Not having a self-care plan created a personal health issue for one
participant (1 fABD). One participant said that not having anyone to talk to kept them from
getting positive or negative feedback (1 fABD) which led to doubt and dwelling on whether the
right direction was being taken. One participant said that a lack of self-discipline or defining
short term goals (1 fABD) made the process most difficult.
Comments made by participants corroborated the literature review’s study findings.
Despair, stress (Green, 2007; Steel, 2007), loss of control (Green, 1997; Harsch, 2008; Varney,
2003), and writer’s block (Cohen, 1998; Green, 1997; Kolman, 2001) are personal issues that
could make completion difficult or extend time to degree. In addition, it was noted that writer’s
187
block can occur when ADB/DCs experience some internal factors (Cohen, 1998; Green, 1997;
Kolman, 2001).
Table 87. Most Difficult: Personal Internal Factors by Gender and Educational Status.
♀ ♂ ABD PhD
Difficult personal: internal (9) 8 1 8 1
7 fABD
1 mABD
1 fPhD
0 mPhD
Most difficult isolation factor. Three participants mentioned that the dissertation process
is a solitary endeavor that creates feelings of isolation (1 fABD, 1 mABD, 1 fPhD), which is
corroborated in the literature (Allan & Dory, 2001; Baker & Pifer, 2011; Cohen, 1998; Gardner,
2010; Good, 2002; Green 1997; Kiley, 2009; Lenz, 1997; Lovitts, 2008; Muszynski &
Akamatsu, 1991; NSF, 1998; Pride, 2005).
Helped most factors.
Helped most institutional policies, procedures, and services. Institutions or departments
that have services to help students during the dissertation process were considered most helpful
to study participants. Services participants said were helpful include diversity development
workshops (1 fABD), research boot camps (1 fABD), having a clear schedule and deadlines (1
fABD), and dissertation rubrics with specific details for what is needed for each chapter (1
fPhD). In addition, institutional or departmental workshops, coursework, seminars, or boot
camps helped doctoral students in dissertation research and writing, methodologies, dissertation
guidelines, referencing and citation help (Allan & Dory, 2001; Cohen, 1998; Good, 2002;
Harsch, 2008; Leatherman, 2000; Lenz, 1997; Tanzer, 2001), or how to use statistical software
and analyze results (Boscolo et al., 2007; Robole, 2003) facilitated dissertation completion. One
188
participant commented that having a sense of community that facilitates learning (1 fPhD) about
the discipline and the dissertation process was important whether the institution or department
facilitated it. The literature includes sense of community/connectedness as a means of support for
writers (Gardner, 2008; Terrell, Snyder, & Dringus, 2009).
Table 88. Helped Most Processes, Procedures Factors by Gender and Educational Status.
♀ ♂ ABD PhD
Helped: Institutional Services (5) 5 0 3 2 3 fABD 2 fPhD
Helped most adviser/chair factors. Participants listed 14 adviser-related factors that
helped them the most during the dissertation process. Factors mentioned were having the ability
and frequency of contact with an adviser/chair (1 fPhD, 1 mPhD), getting support (2 fPhD) or
assistance (1 fABD), feeling their adviser/chair was interested in them or understanding (1
fABD), and getting feedback (1 mPhD) that fueled confidence (1 fPhD). Other factors had to do
with adviser/chair computer skills that helped them such as being computer savvy in a number of
ways by using email, completing forms electronically, or make suggestions/edits with word
processing software (1 mPhD). Many of these factors facilitate completion as mentioned in the
literature review because ease and frequency of contact with an adviser/chair helps
writers/researchers answer questions (Kluever, 1997; Leatherman, 2000; Protivnak & Foss,
2009; Rovai & Wighting, 2005; Terrell et al., 2009)
Table 89. Helped Most Adviser Factors by Gender and Educational Status.
♀ ♂ ABD PhD
Helped: Adviser/chair (14) 7 7 5 9
3 fABD
2 mABD
4 fPhD
5 mPhD
189
Helped most dissertation committee. What helped most with an ABDs dissertation
committee was having a member with topic expertise from another school on the committee (1
fABD) and not having toxic members that makes things difficult (1 fABD). Difficulties could
arise about the direction the dissertation writer is taking or how the structure or revisions of the
dissertation are made. The review of literature shows that having a good relationship with
committee members helps when they give constructive feedback or help writers move past
writer’s block or other research/writing issues (Green, 1997; Nerad & Miller, 1997).
Table 90. Helped Most Dissertation Committee Factors by Gender and Educational Status.
♀ ♂ ABD PhD
Helped: Committee (2) 2 0 2 0
2 fABD
0 fPhD
0 fPhD
0 mPhD
Most helpful faculty factors. Most helpful faculty in and out of the classroom were most
helpful because they taught thought provoking courses and explored topics that became
foundational in choosing a topic (1 mABD), professors who gave support during coursework that
developed into support during the dissertation process when (1 fABD, 1 mABD). The review of
literature shows that making connections with faculty in or out of their discipline increased
retention (Allan & Dory, 2001; Cohen, 1998; Gardner, 2008; Golde, 2005; Good, 2002; Lenz,
1997; Lin, 2003; Pride, 2005; Robole, 2003). Faculty in the discipline can help socialize
students, offer forms of support such as encouragement (2 fABD, 1 fPhD, 1 mPhD), or as a
committee member (1 mPhD). There were no most difficult comments about classroom faculty.
190
Table 91. Helped Most Faculty Factors by Gender and Educational Status.
Female Male ABD PhD
Helped: Faculty (4) 3 1 2 2
2 fABD
0 mABD
1 f PhD
1 mPhD
Helped: Classroom faculty (5) 1 4 5 0
1 fABD
4 mABD
0 fPhD
0 mPhD
Most helpful peer/cohort factors. Peers or cohorts helped some participants most by
being a source of support (4 fABD, 1 fPhD, 1 mPhD), or by giving them ways to discuss
research to get past writer’s block (1 fPhD), and a cohort at the beginning of the doctoral
program was helpful to have peer support (1 mABD). Peers or cohort members can discuss the
dissertation process, gain valuable input, opportunity to collaborate, get emotional support (Allan
& Dory; 2001), limit feelings of isolation (Lundell, 1999; Pride, 2005), or frustration with the
process, advisers, (Gardner, 2010; Lovitts, 2008; Muszynski & Akamatsu, 1991), and share
topics of interest with each other (Golde, 2005; Terrell et al., 2009). Peer interaction can be
fostered by individual students or the institution, faculty, advisers, or chairs (Allan & Dory,
2001; Bair, 1999; Cheeks, 2007; Cohen, 1998; Cooke et al., 1995; Gardner, 2007, 2010; Good,
2002; Lenz, 1997; Lovitts, 2008; Robole, 2003).
Most helpful funding and finance factors. The comments in the helped most
(institutional) category were related to getting scholarship funding (1 mPhD), university
assistance (1 mABD), and research/grant funding (2 fPhD, fPhD). Funding from these sources
helped pay for travel to conferences and gave writers time to write their dissertation and not have
to go to work (1 fABD). One student commented that because research funding was available
they did not have to take out loans or teach to pay for school and living expenses (1 fPhD). One
participant said that getting advance notice of funding was very helpful because they did not
191
have to spend time locating funding sources and applying for them (1 fABD). Related financial
factors reported by participants was receiving unemployment checks (1 fPhD, 1 mPhD), and
having an undisclosed source of “financial support” (1 fABD). One other source of financial help
was that an employer gave paid time off from work (1 fABD) for the ABD/DC to complete their
dissertation. Comments made about funding or financial factors that were helpful corroborated
findings from studies in the review of literature. Lenz (1997) commented that paying for
supplies, items needed for personal or school use, and travel and Yeager (2008) said financial
support through grants was beneficial to students. In addition, Gravois (2007a) reported that 80%
of recent PhD completers stated on their exit survey financial support was instrumental in
completing their PhD. Thus, students offered comments that confirmed previous research
findings.
Table 92. Helped Most Funding or Financial Factors by Gender and Educational Status.
♀ ♂ ABD PhD
Helped institutional: funding or
finances (7)
5 2 4 3
3 fABD
1 mABD
2 fPhD
1 mPhD
Helped personal: financial (5) 4 1 2 3
2 fABD
0 mABD
2 fPhD
1 mPhD
Most helpful dissertation writers not from the home campus. Five participants said that
non-school related help came from friends or colleagues who were also writing a dissertation (2
fABD, 3 fPhD). One of the five also mentioned talking to others that had recently successfully
defended was helpful (1 fPhD) and another concurred explaining that PhDs helped her the most
(1 fABD). How participants made contact with recent PhDs or PhD holders was not stated.
Having other writers or PhDs to talk to was a way to vent and release some of the stress (1
192
fABD). Participants corroborated the literature review that having an interaction with others
helped by giving them support and connections to other students (Rovai, 2002a) or a sense of
community or connectedness (Terrell et al., 2009).
Most helpful outside help. Closely related to non-school writers being helpful was getting
outside assistance such as hiring editors (1 fABD, 1 mABD) or coaches (2 fABD), joining an
academic group/community of women of color (1 fABD), or simply finding a book on writing a
qualitative dissertation (1 fPhD). One of the hired coaches became a mentor to one of the
individuals and another participant said a therapist helped by giving practical tips to work more
efficiently (1 fPhD). One student commented, impromptu meetings were most helpful (1 fPhD)
such as writers (on or off campus), coaches, or recent PhDs that decided to meet at a coffee shop
or other social venue (Allan & Dory, 2001; Bair, 1999; Cohen, 1998; Gardner, 2007, 2010;
Good, 2002; Lenz, 1997; Lovitts, 2008; Robole, 2003).
Most helpful SocNets and web sites. Beside friends, SocNets provided input and support
from others. Using SocNets to talk to other writers or individuals that completed their PhDs was
helpful (2 fABD, 3 fPhD, 1 mPhD). The SocNets used by participants were Twitter (2 fPhDs),
LinkedIn (1 fABD), motivator emails (1 fABD), or Google Scholar (1 mPhD) that helped find
material for a dissertation literature review. Terrell et al. (2009) corroborated that use of Internet
sources could help students such as student portals “. . . online workshops. . . email, discussion
forums, blogs, wikis, social networking, and voice-over-Internet protocol [VoIP])” (p. 115). In
addition, some participants could form their own online discussion groups, blogs, or dissertation
support groups (Leatherman, 2000).
Most helpful support from friends. Friends were mentioned as being most helpful but
there was no elaboration on how friends were helpful (2 fABD, 2 fPhD) such as providing
193
emotional or motivational support or providing social interaction to take a break from writing
and so on. Friends from church was mentioned (1 fPhD) as providing support through prayer or
providing a meal now and then. The literature supports participant comments because friends are
a form of support (Baker & Pifer, 2011; Harsch, 2008; Yeager, 2008) or provide social support
when a group of individuals is involved.
Table 93. Helped Most Personal Environmental Factors by Gender and Educational Status.
♀ ♂ ABD PhD
Helped personal: non-school dissertation
writers/peers (8)
8 0 5 3
5 fABD
0 mABD
3 fPhD
0 mPhD
Helped personal: outside help (9) 8 1 7 2
6 fABD
1 mABD
2 fPhD
0 mPhD
Helped personal: social networks/web sites (6) 5 1 2 4
2 fABD
0 mABD
3 fPhD
1 mPhD
Helped personal: friends (5) 5 0 2 3
2 fABD
0 mABD
3 fPhD
0 mPhD
Most helpful spouse/significant other, and family factors. Participants commented about
support from family spouses/significant others, and close relatives such as mothers and fathers
that was very helpful. Some participants used words for the person they had a relationship with
that helped them such as spouse (1 fABD, 1 fPhD), partner (1 fPhD), “fiancé” listed by a female
ABD (1 fABD), and “boyfriend” listed by two female ABDs (2 fABD). A partner expecting a
baby (1 mPhD) was helpful, but no detail was given about why it was helpful. The points
corroborated in the literature about spouses follow the “most helpful” family section.
Family that was helpful includes immediate family, close relatives such as mothers and
fathers, or siblings, cousins, or in-laws. Eight participants (4 fABD, 3 fPhD, 1 mPhD) said that
family was very helpful but did not say how they were helpful.
194
Well developed support networks of family and friends was cited in the literature was
very important to participants (Baker & Pifer, 2011; Harsch, 2008; Yeager, 2008). Emotional
support and getting empathy from family and spouses/significant others helped (Cheeks, 2007)
as did helping ABD/DCs with tasks such as those female students would be responsible for
(Lenz, 1997).
Table 94. Helped Most Spouse/Family Factors by Gender and Educational Status.
♀ ♂ ABD PhD
Helped personal: Spouse / Partner /
Significant Other (7)
6 1 4 3
4 fABD
0 mABD
2 fPhD
1 mPhD
Helped personal: Family (8) 7 1 4 4
4 fABD
0 mABD
3 fPhD
1 mPhD
Most helpful structure/routine (personal). Three participants said that it was difficult to
schedule time to work on their dissertation (2 fABD, 1 mPhD) and one commented about making
notes of things to do and making the time to do them (1 fABD). To make sure there was a time to
write one participant said they kept a routine of waking up early (1 fPhD). One comment that
narrowing the focus of their research to a manageable scope made the process easier (1 mPhD),
while another participant made the process easier by developing dissertation ideas from
publications and conference papers as well as past coursework (1 mPhD). The literature review
discussed the importance of time management (Nelson & Sacks, 2007), scheduling, and planning
(Green, 1997; Leatherman, 2000; Steel, 2007) in dissertation completion. Participant responses
show that writing time, planning, and scheduling was also important to them.
195
Table 95. Helped Most Personal Writing, Research, Structure, Routine, and Skills Factors by
Gender and Educational Status.
♀ ♂ ABD PhD
Difficult Personal: Writing or Research (4) 2 2 1 3
1 fABD
0 mABD
1 fPhD
2 mPhD
Difficult Personal: Personal Skills (5) 3 2 3 2
2 fABD
1 mABD
1 fPhD
1 mPhD
Helped Personal: Structure/Routine (8) 5 3 4 4
4 fABD
0 mABD
1 fPhD
3 mPhD
Most helpful “diversion” factors. The diversions factor in this discussion served as a
diversion/distraction that gave writers a respite from work. Taking a break from writing and
research to relax was done by playing video games (1 mPhD) or watching baseball (1 mPhD).
Most helpful motivation. Individuals reported feeling motivated in a number of ways.
There were incentives such as wanting to work on something that matters and do meaningful
work (1 mABD, 1 fPhD), working on a topic that makes an intelligent contribution to their field
(1 fPhD), and having a topic they were passionate about (1 fPhD). Other sources of motivation
came from a love of learning and past graduate degree success that affirmed confidence in PhD
completion (1 fABD), and that they had been published previously (1 fABD, 1 mPhD). In some
cases, motivation came from different forms of support or insight such as past mentors and
professors, other women, sorority members, or groups such as Sisters of the Academy (1 fABD).
Support was mentioned but no context was given by some participants (1 fABD, 1 fPhD) and in
one case a participant said they were nourished by their church through talking, prayer, and
meals (1 fABD). In some cases, motivation was provided by a negative source such as job
burnout that made career change a goal (1 fPhD), that someone’s age motivated them to
196
complete their degree in “as short of time as possible” (1 fABD), and the “non-helping nature of
people” increased an individual’s energy level (1 fABD). In the spouse/family discussion,
support was given that implied motivation but was not explicitly stated and not added here.
The review of literature explained that motivation grew as writers met goals, deadlines,
or tasks because as these things are met it builds self-efficacy and confidence that fuels
motivation Bair (1999) (Varney, 2003; Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997). The cyclical nature of
building motivation and self-efficacy work toward building resiliency and persistence (Varney,
2003) which affirms the individual has the skills and abilities needed to complete a dissertation.
The comments by participants show that motivation was built or sustained in certain ways that
also affirm results of past studies.
Most helpful personal internal comments. Participants discussed a range of personal
attributes or strengths that help(ed) them persist. Examples participants gave were having the
will or willingness to persist (1 fABD, 1 fPhD), being self-motivated (1 mPhD), belief in oneself
(1 fPhD), and taking care of themselves (1 fABD). Taking care of oneself involved therapy to
help manage personal issues (1 fABD). One participant stated that being determined, flexible,
and consistent (1 fABD) was important, while another said that perseverance and a commitment
to excellence (1 mABD) was essential. Two participants said their faith in God led them to
persist (2 fABD). Thus, from these contributions, participants offer a variety of personal internal
attributes that keep students focused on persistence. The literature addressed some of these
attributes such as internal fortitude (Allan & Dory, 2001), will or willingness, determination,
perseverance, sticking-to-it (Lovitts, 2008), self motivation, being driven (Yeager, 2008), self-
regulating (Graham & Harris, 1997; Kolman, 2001; Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997), and
197
maintaining locus of control (Harsch, 2008). In addition, belief in oneself (1 fPhD) is a social
cognitive factor (Harsch, 2008; Varney, 2003) that improves persistence.
Table 96. Helped Most Personal Internal and Motivation Factors by Gender and Educational
Status.
♀ ♂ ABD PhD
Helped personal: motivation (13) 11 2 9 4
8 fABD
1 mABD
3 fPhD
1 mPhD
Helped personal: internal (13) 10 3 10 3
8 fABD
2 mABD
2 fPhD
1 mPhD
Qualitative results closing summary.
The most difficult and helped most open-ended responses participants made concurred
with factors presented in the literature review. The results show that of the 61 study participants,
49 participated in the open-ended portion of the survey providing 253 comments. Of the 253
comments, 197 were made by females (77.87%), 56 by males (22.13%), 162 by ABDs (64.03%),
and 91 by PhDs (35.97%). From another perspective, the gender and educational status of open-
ended participants shows that there were 132 comments from female ABDs (52.17%), 30 from
male ABDs (11.86%), 65 from female PhDs (25.69%), and 26 from male PhDs (10.28%).
Overall, female and male ABDs (162) contributed the majority of the “helped” and “difficult”
comments. ABDs are still in the dissertation process and are commenting from the point of view
of experiencing factors as they arise, whereas the PhD participants have had factors happen that
ABDs may not have experienced yet. Since PhDs could have completed their dissertation from
2009 to the present, they may have had different services, policies, or procedures than current
ABDs. The review of literature included interventions that may have been put into place since
2009 such as family friendly policies (Millman, 2007), instigating cohorts based on “similar
198
interests and research agendas” (Terrell et al., 2009), an increase in institutional
funding/assistantships, writer’s retreats (Kumar & Stracke, 2007, workshops geared toward
helping students past procrastination (“Campus Times,” 2013), or foster peer and faculty
interaction . These types of interventions have been developed and instigated for many years, but
the review of literature discussed some recent factors that have been addressed such as student
diversity or students who have become parents or adoptive parents. Furthermore, some
institutions have helped student persistence by giving males paternal leave of absence, mortgage
assistance, and free counseling (Millman, 2007). Although Millman’s article was written in
2007, the colleges mentioned in the article were Princeton, Stanford University, UC Berkeley,
and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) were leaders in instigating interventions such
as these and as more intervention results show they help with ABD attrition, more intervention
models could have been instigated.
The negative (most difficult) responses about advisers, committees, or institutional
policies show that current ABDs and recent PhDs will experience difficult situations; however
the positive comments about advisers, committees, faculty, or policies show that ABDs and
PhDs had helpful experiences during the process. The results from open-ended questions about
what helped shows that dissertation writers can draw from personal attributes such as resiliency,
self-efficacy, will, and a number of other personal qualities, peers, friends, and family.
Motivation and support are important to dissertation writers and participants responded by
offering their comments in the affirmative about these factors. Overall, the open-ended responses
confirmed that males did not feel marginalized for being male but for spiritual, sexuality, and
ethnicity but females still experience marginalization for being female along with factors such as
sexuality and so on.
199
How responses answer research questions to corroborate or refute study hypotheses
follow in Chapter 5.
200
CHAPTER 5
Conclusion
Findings
The findings presented in the following include responses to research questions that
support or refute this study’s hypotheses.
Findings using research questions to corroborate hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1 (Hyp1). When students reach ABD/DC status, adviser caring, regular contact, and
timely, constructive feedback are helpful to their progress or dissertation/degree completion.
Research Question 1 (RQ1). Does student interaction with faculty, advisers, dissertation chairs,
or committees help dissertation writers?
Survey responses regarding advisers are used to answer RQ1 and corroborate Hyp1. RQ1
is answered by responses to Questions 3b, 3e, 4a-4e, and 9c. First, Question 3b had to do with
advisers staying in touch via email or telephone and Question 3e was my adviser/chair me in
person through regularly scheduled meetings/appointments. Twenty-nine participants checked 3b
with 14 being PhD “completers” (8 fPhD, 6 mPhD) and 24 checking 3e with 16 being PhD
“completers” (10 fPhD, 6 mPhD). Combined, 30 of 53 (56.6%) students that interacted with
advisers/chairs completed their PhD.
Second, Question 4 dealt with advisers/chairs exhibiting caring toward students. Item 4a
asked if students felt less isolated when advisers/chairs stayed in touch. Fifteen checked Strongly
Agree (SA) and 15 checked Agree (A) for a total of 30 of 61 participants (49.18%). Item 4b
advisers/chairs encouraged questions about the dissertation or process. Fifteen checked SA and
26 checked A totaling 41 of 61 participants (67.21%). Item 4c advisers/chairs helped set research
and writing goals had 17 checking SA and 21 checking A totaling 38 of 61 participants (62.3%).
201
Item 4d advisers/chairs were mentors had 18 who SA and 19 A for a total of 37 of 61
participants (60.66%). Item 4e advisers/chairs got to know students on a personal level garnered
15 SA and 21 A totaling 36 of 61 participants (59.02%). For question 4 (all items) their advisers
served a role of facilitator and helped socialize ABD/DCs via limiting isolation, assisting with
goal setting, answering questions, being a mentor, and getting to know students. RQ 1 is
answered because interaction with advisers helps dissertation writers, thus strongly corroborating
Hyp1.
Lastly, Question 9 dealt with self-esteem growing in students when receiving emotional
or motivational support (9a) or positive feedback (9c) from their adviser/chair. For 9a, 19 SA and
31 A showing a total of 50 of 59 participants (84.75%) felt their self-esteem grow via support.
For 9c, 24 checked SA and 27 checked A for a total of 51 of 59 participants (86.44%) saying
their self-esteem grew with adviser/chair positive feedback.
The results of adviser/chair factors given by participants show they correspond to the
factors in the literature review. Timely feedback (Cardozo, 2006; Eley & Jennings, 2005; Kumar
& Stracke, 2007) is important to dissertation completion as is adviser/chair availability
(Leatherman, 2000; Lenz, 1997), accessibility (Baker & Pifer, 2011; Good, 2002; Kluever, 1997;
Pride, 2005), adviser/chair mentoring (Donoghue, 2010; Green, 1997; Tanzer, 2001; White,
2006), and having a “fit” or no feelings of dissatisfaction or discontent with an adviser/chair
(Kluever, 1997; Strite, 2007). In the literature review, Pride (2005) commented that in her study
participants had “significant problems with advisors, dissertation chairs, or other committee
members” (p. 163) and Green (1997) said that procrastination could occur if relationships with
committee members was not developed. Moreover, working closely with faculty or being
encouraged to explore course topics can facilitate preparation and possible connections with
202
faculty in their discipline (Gardner, 2008; Golde, 2005; Lin, 2003; Pride, 2005). Tinto (1993)
was cited in the literature review regarding increasing student interaction to create support for
students socially and intellectually as well as promoting stronger connections with their
institution, faculty, and peers (as cited in Rovai, Wighting, & Liu, 2005).
Results of the correlation answers RQ1 that also corroborates Hyp1. Five of ten variables
in Table 75, “Correlations with variable ‘[I felt] Confident I could finish my dissertation and
graduate’” show that adviser caring was important to dissertation completion/persistence. The
five variables regarding adviser caring meet points made in Hyp1; Hyp1 includes regular contact
as being helpful to ABD/DCs and one of the five variables focused on adviser caring noted that
when advisers stayed in touch, ABD/DCs felt less isolated. Thus, five of the ten variables in the
correlation supports points noted in Hyp1 and answers RQ1 because adviser/dissertation chairs
staying in contact (Q 4a) helped ABD/DCs. The correlation corroborates the literature about
adviser/chair interaction being very important to dissertation completion/persistence (Allan &
Dory, 2001; Cohen, 1998; Donoghue, 2010; Eley & Jennings, 2005; Good, 2002; Green, 1997;
Katz, 1997; Lenz, 1997; Pride, 2005; Robole, 2003; Tanzer, 2001; Vilkinas, 2008; White, 2006)..
Hypothesis 2 (Hyp2). When students reach ABD/DC status, institutional policies such as
academic support services, funding opportunities, paid assistantships, or family-friendly
policies are helpful to their progress or dissertation/degree completion.
Research Question 2 (RQ2). Do institutional services or policies help dissertation writers?
In response to RQ2, the data gathered from the open-ended responses show that services
and policies were not helpful. Open-ended responses were that advisers or committees were
given too much time to review or return dissertation drafts or that paperwork for PhD graduation
was time consuming and caused delays in completion (2 fABD, 1 fPhD, 1 mPhD). Participants
203
commented that academic support services such as workshops, seminars, and departmental
support guides or rubrics were either non-existent or not helpful in learning skills such as
writing/research, giving guidance or direction in how to plan or proceed through the dissertation
process or in defining expectations or deadlines (6 fABD, 1 fPhD). In this case, RQ2 could not
be used to corroborate Hyp2 in an affirmative sense; comments show that policies or procedures
worked against progress or dissertation/degree completion.
One other point in Hyp2 that RQ2 could corroborate is that scholarship funding (1
mPhD), university assistance (1 mABD), and research/grant funding (1 fABD, 2 fPhD) helped
by providing funds or giving ABDs more time to spend writing. However, one participant said
they had to change their dissertation focus to align with what the chair/committee felt would
meet the criterion of the grant (1 fPhD). In another instance, ABD/DCs that worked for an
adviser or faculty member were either given a heavy workload (1 fPhD), difficult fieldwork (1
fPhD), or conducting research for them (1 fPhD). Thus, full corroboration of Hyp2 could not be
made unless comments about policies being a negative influence were used.
The open-ended results corroborates the literature that services such as
workshops/seminars, coursework, or materials that prepare or train doctoral students in writing,
research, methodologies, guidelines, their program, or department requirements can be helpful
during the dissertation process (Allan & Dory, 2001; Bair, 1999; Boscolo et al., 2007; Cohen,
1998; Ehrenberg et al., 2007; Gardner, 2007, 2010; Good, 2002; Harsch, 2008; Lenz, 1997;
Lovitts, 2008; Protivnak & Foss, 2009; Robole, 2003; Sowell, 2008; Tanzer, 2001). Furthermore,
students attending boot camps improves the opportunity to learn about writing or research
(Leatherman, 2000) and learning how to plan or manage a writing/research schedule helps
ABD/CDs make steady progress (Gardner, 2010; Harsch, 2008; Lenz, 1997; Lovitts, 2008;
204
Lundell, 1999). Fostering policies that improve the environment or procedures of programs,
departments, or administrative areas (Sowell, 2008, p. 5) is important because as Harsch (2008)
and (Kluever (1997) explain a lack of institutional or departmental support is detrimental to
dissertation/PhD completion, which participants corroborated as being most difficult issue.
Within the department, emotional support comes from helping students disambiguate processes
involved with policies or requirements or meeting deadlines (Gardner, 2010; Harsch, 2008;
Lenz, 1997; Lovitts, 2008). In addition, the importance of institutional employment opportunities
was found to be significant to persistence and degree completion (Lee, 2003; Robole, 2003;
Smallwood, 2004) whereas having a heavy workload could slow down degree completion even
though students in some disciplines depended on assistantships (45% humanities students, 25%
social science students (Yeager, 2008).
Hypothesis 3 (Hyp3). When students reach ABD/DC status, some find that doctoral
coursework, workshops, or faculty/adviser interaction do not prepare them for research and
writing at the dissertation level or give them a formal structure or enculturate/socialize them in
the dissertation process, which made their progress or dissertation/degree completion difficult.
Hypothesis 5 (Hyp5). When students reach ABD/DC status not knowing how to transition from
coursework to the dissertation process made their progress or dissertation/degree completion
difficult (Pr-I).
Research Question 4 (RQ4). Does socialization/enculturation/training in dissertation research
or writing help dissertation writers? This research question addresses Hyp3 and Hyp5.
Survey question 6d and open-ended responses help answer RQ4 and corroborate Hyp 3
and Hyp5. First, Question 6 dealt with getting stuck during the dissertation process and 6d that
getting stuck occurred because students were not taught/socialized about all of the tasks involved
205
in the dissertation process. Sixteen of 57 (28.07%) participants checked that a deterrent to
completion was getting stuck due to a lack of socialization, which can be part of institutional
policies or procedures.
In addition, Hyp3 included that in general, doctoral coursework, workshops, or
faculty/adviser interaction did not provide a formal structure for the dissertation process or for
research and writing at the dissertation level. Open-ended responses about academic support
services were discussed in RQ2 Hyp2 in that workshops, seminars, and departmental support
guides or rubrics were either non-existent or not helpful in getting guidance, direction, or
learning the skills needed to plan, research, and write a dissertation (6 fABD, 1 fPhD).
Furthermore, open-ended responses from participants noted that there were no seminars on how
to be a doctoral student (1 fPhD) or that they were left to find their own way (1 mABD).Thus,
Hyp2 and Hyp5 are corroborated because as RQ4 asks, does socialization/training help
dissertation writers and is answered by Question 6d and the open-ended responses.
In the literature, student socialization/enculturation into graduate studies and/or
disciplinary or departmental standards or culture was found to help dissertation/PhD completion
(Allan & Dory, 2001; Cohen, 1998; Gardner, 2007, 2010; Golde, 2005; Good, 2002; Lenz, 1997;
Robole, 2003). Because participants did not feel they were socialized into doctoral studies or the
dissertation process (Question 6a), they became stuck at times (Question 6). Becoming stuck in
the process can tear away at self-confidence and self-esteem because becoming stuck can
precede accomplishing a challenging situation or threshold (Cardozo, 2006; Kiley, 2009).
ABD/DCs must make the transition from coursework to the dissertation process when their “‘. . .
entire support structure virtually. . . .vanishes’” (Cardozo, 2006, p. 145) and they can become
stuck with planning and scheduling their progress, not knowing what to do, or how to research or
206
write at the dissertation level. Socialization in these areas is critical to produce “higher quality
dissertations” (Lovitts, 2008, p. 316) and to whether an ABD/DC stays in their program or
completes their degree in a timely manner (Kiley, 2009).
Hypothesis 4 (Hyp4). When students reach ABD/DC status, sense of community, communities
of practice, or feeling connected with either their advisers or peers/peer group(s) are helpful to
their progress or dissertation/degree completion.
Research Question 3 (RQ3). Does a sense of community, connectedness, or CoP help
dissertation writers?
Survey Question 11 items a, b, c and open-ended responses are used to answer RQ3 and
corroborate Hyp4. Survey Question 11 specifically addressed if “sense of community
community/ies of practice, or feeling connected” (ComCon) was helpful during the dissertation
process. Item 11a was if ComCon made participants feel less isolated and had 12 SA and 31 A
showing that 43 of 61 participants (70.49 %) felt ComCon got them through feeling isolated.
Item 11b was that ComCon gave participants a way to vent frustration about writing or the
process. Their choices were 14 SA and 25 A showing that 39 of 61 participants found ComCon
was helpful. Item 11c addressed if ComCon helped when participants got stuck during
dissertation writing or the process; Item 6d addressed getting stuck occurred because they were
not taught/socialized (discussed in Hyp3 and 5, RQ4 section). Results of 11c are that 12 SA and
23 A that ComCon helped when they got stuck. The responses for SA and A total 35 of 60
responses (58.33 %). Thus, responses for ComCon (11a-c) answers RQ3 and corroborates Hyp4.
Open-ended responses also answered RQ3 in the affirmative in that ComCon groups
helped. Participants noted peers/other ABD/DCs (7 fABD, 4 fPhD, 1 mPhD), a cohort (1
mABD), recently successful defendees or other PhDs (1 fABD, 1 fPhD), SocNet sites (1 fABD,
207
3 fPhD, 1 mPhD), professional associations (1 fPhD), and groups or individuals interested in
their topic (2 fABD, 1 fPhD) were helpful. Question 11a-c and open-ended responses answer
RQ3 and corroborate of Hyp4.
In addition to answering RQ3 and corroborating Hyp4, responses to survey question 11
(a, b, and c) and the open-ended responses, the literature was also supported in that ABD/DCs
had a way to commiserate, vent or blow off steam (Leatherman, 2000), learn about issues others
were facing and form bonds or informal networks (Gardner, 2010; Harsch, 2008; Lovitts, 2008;
Protivnak & Foss, 2009), Feeling connected with others or having a sense of community was a
point made in the literature that helps by providing writing/research support (Gardner, 2008;
Terrell, Snyder, & Dringus, 2009).
Hypothesis 6 (Hyp6). When students reach ABD/DC status, personal factors such as stress,
depression, perfectionism, procrastination, self-handicapping, negative perceptions of
competency, or a lack of motivation, locus of control, or self-efficacy made their progress or
dissertation/degree completion difficult.
Research Question 5 (RQ5). Do student personal issues affect dissertation writers positively or
negatively?
Survey and open-ended responses are used to answer RQ5 and corroborate Hyp6. Since
RQ5 asks about issues that positively or negatively affect dissertation writers, negative effects
are given first followed by positive effects.
208
RQ4 Negative/difficult effects of personal issues on dissertation writers.
Table 97 contains the questions that show negative personal internal issues, skills, or
behaviors that made it difficult during the dissertation process. Overall, consensus per SA and A
comments show that personal issues such as loss of self-esteem due to feelings of isolation was
the most serious issue 75.86%. The next most personal issue was feeling powerless (62.3%)
(locus-of control), followed by pessimism. Check all that Apply questions also showed that
feeling hopeless (33) and feeling depressed about the workload (27). Open-ended responses
about personal issues that made the process difficult were grouped and presented Appendix F;
personal difficult issues listed were Lack of Personal Skills (5), Personal Internal (9),
Isolated/Alone (3), and Diversions (1). For a list of issues under each of these categories, see
Appendix F.
209
Table 97. Negative Effects of Personal Issues on Dissertation Writers
A SA AgrAG Total%
6b) Feeling hopeless at times (Check all that Apply) n/a n/a 33 n/a
6c) Amount work depressing at times (Check all that Apply) n/a n/a 27 n/a
7a) Pessimistic about completing diss when no motivational
or emotional support (61)
14 19 33 54.1%
7b) Pessimistic about completing diss when became distracted
(61) (self-handicapping)
23 12 35 57.38%
8a) Perfectionism became a handicap/barrier to progress (60) 14 9 23 38.33%
8b) Perfectionism sometimes resulted in writer’s block (60)
(self-handicapping)
17 13 30 50%
9d) Self-esteem dipped when felt isolated/alone during
process (58)
20 24 44 75.86%
10b) During process felt powerless about progress at times
(61)
23 15 38 62.3%
10d) During process felt rebellious sometimes due to
workload or stress to meet deadlines (60)
24 6 30 50%
10e) During process procrastinated about writing sometimes
(60)
29 19 48 80%
%: Percent of responses of SA and A to number of participants responding
AG:Aggregate total of SA and A
The results for negative/difficult personal internal issues, skills, or behaviors also
corroborates the literature in that “. . . depression, a sense of hopelessness, ‘going round in
circles’ and so on” (Kiley, 2009, p. 293) can manifest from being stuck in the process that could
be a component of perfectionism (Harsch, 2008), academic procrastination (Green, 2007;
Muszynski & Akamatsu, 1991; Steel, 2007), being easily distracted or other self-handicapping
behavior (Harsch, 2008; Steel, 2007) can inhibit dissertation completion.
210
RQ4 Positive/helpful effects of personal issues on dissertation writers.
Table 98 contains the questions that show positive personal internal issues that were
helpful during the dissertation process. Overall, consensus per SA and A comments show that
personal issues, skills, or behaviors that were helpful during the dissertation process were
overwhelmingly related to the growth of self-esteem via emotional or motivational support
(86.21%), meeting progress deadlines (76.27%), and getting positive feedback from
advisers/chairs (86.44%). Self-efficacy grows as well, which leads to feeling “in control” (10a,
61.67%) and building confidence that they could complete their dissertation (63.33%).Open-
ended responses about personal issues that helped the most during the dissertation process were
grouped and presented Appendix F; personal issues listed that were helpful were Personal
Structure/Routine (8), Personal Internal (13), and Motivation (13). For a list of issues under each
of these categories see Appendix F.
Table 98. Positive Effects of Personal Issues on Dissertation Writers
A SA AgrAG Total%
9a) Self-esteem grew when received emotional or motivational
support (58)
31 19 50 86.21%
9b) Self-esteem grew. . . as planned dissertation progress
deadlines were met (59)
23 22 45 76.27%
9c) Self-esteem grew when my adviser gave me positive
feedback about my progress (59)
27 24 51 86.44%
10a) During process had control over ability to complete tasks
(60) (self-efficacy)
26 11 37 61.67%
10c) During process confident could finish diss & grad (60)
(self-efficacy)
25 13 38 63.33%
10f) During process made sure materials & work area prepared
(61) (personal structure/routine)
33 13 46 75.41%
%: Percent of responses of SA and A to number of participants responding
AG:Aggregate total of SA and A
211
The literature reviewed was also corroborated by the positive/helpful results. Dissertation
writers that had control over ability to complete tasks, confidence in ability to complete a
dissertation, and prepared for research and writing were either resourceful, persistent (Lovitts,
2008), self-motivated (Yeager, 2008), resilient (Varney, 2003), took the time to recognize their
emotions and manage or deal with them (Robole, 2003), or had confidence in their skills and
abilities (Harsch, 2008; Varney, 2003).
The results of positive/helpful and negative/difficult results answer RQ5, and corroborate
Hyp6 in that personal issues can affect or cause delays dissertation completion.
Hypothesis 7 (Hyp 7). When students reach ABD/DC status, a lack of motivational support, or
feelings of isolation or alienation made their progress or dissertation/degree completion
difficult.
Research Question (RQ1). Does student interaction with faculty, advisers, dissertation chairs,
or committees help dissertation writers?
Research Question (RQ3). Does a sense of community, connectedness, or CoP help dissertation
writers?
Question 4a was that advisers that stayed in touch with students made them feel less
isolated resulting in 15 that SA and 15 that A for 30 of 61 (49.18%). Affirmative responses for
Q7a that writers were pessimistic about completing their dissertation when no motivational or
emotional support was given showed that 33 of 61 participants (54.1%) SA (19) and A (14).
Question 9d addressed self-esteem dipping when writers felt isolated or alone during the
dissertation process and their responses showed this to be true with 24 SA and 20 A for 44 of 58
(75.86%) participants saying self-esteem dipped. Question 11a-c addressed the benefits of
ComCon and the results were that it was true. For 11a, 43 of 61 participants (70.49%) concurred
212
that they felt less isolated when they felt ComCon by checking they SA 12 times and A 31 times.
Moreover, Q11b and 11c gave participants possible reasons why they felt interaction via
ComCon was helpful. For 11b having a way to vent frustration was helpful for 39 of 60
participants (65%) who checked 14 that they SA and 25 that A. For 11c, ComCon helped
students that got stuck 35 of 60 (58.33%) with 12 that SA and 23 that A.
Open-ended responses revealed that lack of structure, guidance, direction, support, or
communication resulted when it was difficult finding an adviser/chair, committee, or finding
faculty to discuss research with (3 fABD, 1 mABD). Some explained that departmental support
was poor (1 fABD), there was no student community (1 mABD) or cohort (2 mABD), and
students felt they were left to find their own way (1 mABD). However, some open-ended
comments showed that peers were helpful and a source of support (4 fABD, 1 fPhD, 1 mPhD)
giving writers ways to discuss research and get help with writer’s block (1 fPhD).
The survey and open-ended responses confirm points made in the literature. Harsch
(2008) and Kluever (1997) noted that a lack of institutional or departmental support was
detrimental to dissertation/PhD completion and when interacting with students increased and
stronger connections with the institution, faculty, and peers were promoted it was beneficial to
writers (Rovai, Wighting, & Liu, 2005). ABDs that feel less isolated have an increased
likelihood of dissertation completion (Allan & Dory, 2001; Cheeks, 2007; Gardner, 2007; Golde,
2005; Kittell-Limerick, 2005; Kluever, 1997; Lundell 1999; Rovai & Wighting, 2005; Strite,
2007; Turner & Edwards, 2006). The literature confirmed that isolation can affect the level of
self-esteem in an ABD/DC, that can lead to procrastination (Harsch, 2008) ) and making
dissertation completion difficult (Allan & Dory, 2001; Pride, 2005). Moreover, Pride (2005)
213
explains that supportive relationships and a strong sense of self-esteem can help ABD/DCs
manage the dissertation process.
Emotional and motivational support from different sources helped build self-esteem,
which is related to persistence/dissertation completion (Baker & Pifer, 2011; Cheeks, 2007;
Harsch, 2008; Yeager (2008). Motivational, and emotional support can come from a variety of
sources such as family/significant others, friends, advisers, sense of community and so on (Allan
& Dory, 2001; Baker & Pifer, 2011; Cheeks, 2007; Cohen, 1998; Gardner, 2007; Good, 2002;
Green, 1997; Harsch, 2008; Kluever, 1997; Leatherman, 2000; Lenz, 1997; Pride, 2005;
Robole, 2003; Varney, 2003). Departmental support is needed to disambiguate processes
involved with policies or requirements or meeting deadlines (Gardner, 2010; Harsch, 2008;
Lenz, 1997; Lovitts, 2008). Lastly, peer support from students further along in the process had
already worked through some of the frustrations associated with research or writing, advisers, the
department, or the institution (Gardner, 2010; Lovitts, 2008). Peers help by sharing progress,
ideas, concerns, or providing a sounding board to “blow off steam” (Leatherman, 2000) was
helpful to their progress. Thus, Hyp7
RQ1 and RQ3 are answered by the survey and open-ended questions in that interaction
with faculty, advisers, dissertation chairs, committees, and ComCon is beneficial; conversely the
lack of these types of interaction lead to lower self-esteem, feelings of isolation, and pessimism
about dissertation completion.
Closing summary of RQs to corroborate this study’s hypotheses. The RQs corroborates
all of the study hypotheses; the material in the review of literature was corroborated by study
results in that this study’s findings were consistent with prior findings.
214
Study limitations.
First, a small participant sample (61) limited the opportunity to generalize results. A
second limitation was having too few male participants overall (16 males, 44 females). A third
limitation was the male to female ABD participant ratio (6:28) where 24.43% of all ABDs were
male. Fourth, the method of recruitment on social networks was not efficient in locating
participants that are current ABDs or recent PhD graduates (SocNet member demographics). A
fifth limitation was only using 5 SocNets (5) for recruitment instead of developing more of a
presence on more SocNets.
Recommendations
Recommendations for institutions.
Maintain student contact information. Keeping student contact information up to date is
important (Bair, 1999, p. 3). Students might change telephone numbers, addresses, or use an
alternative email address other than their student email. Moreover, the information can be made
accessible to departments and chairs to make sure there is always a way to contact students.
Updated contact information could help follow up with students who do not enroll for
subsequent semesters (they may be leaving studies), to advisers/chairs giving them a way to
maintain contact during the dissertation process, for the university to send out exit surveys, and
so on.
Create exit surveys. An exit survey for recent PhD graduates could be part of exit
requirements such as submitting their dissertations, requests to participate in commencement,
and so on. If students fail to enroll in a subsequent or consecutive semester/quarter they could be
contacted via email to remind them to enroll or if they are not going to enroll, to please fill out
the brief exit survey in the email. The survey could ask students what factors they experienced
215
during the dissertation process that was most helpful or most difficult to them. Knowing what
was most helpful or what made things most difficult during the dissertation process can help
institutions create interventions or ways for ABD/DCs to manage different aspects to the process.
Bair (1999) noted that most students that leave studies are “under the radar” or have fallen
between the cracks at their institutions or their advisers.
Prepare departments and faculty to assist ABD/DCs. Departments or advisers could tell
students about dissertation “how to” help sheets that are available such as handouts or web site
documents/downloads with contact information for the campus writing center, campus research
librarians in their discipline, communities of practice, or alumni mentors. In addition, dissertation
topics could be posted in student emails or the student resources web site so other ABD/DCs can
form their own study, writing, or support groups.
Recommendations for faculty.
There are a number of things faculty advisers/dissertation chairs can do for ABD/DCs.
First, respond to student calls or responses in a way that is convenient for you and your advisee.
For example, ABDs stay in touch via email or texting. When advisers/chairs have not heard from
students, find a way to create a “tickler” file that reminds you to contact certain students. A
tickler file is a system using date labeling as a reminder to take action on something, and in this
case, a simple calendar can be used. When a student reaches ABD/DC status, a dissertation chair
should set a date to contact the student about chapters that need to be submitted, or to report their
progress. Contact can be made via email or other forms of contact used with that student in the
past.
Be stricter in your evaluation of student research and writing assignments to help students
build rigor into their research and writing. Use “forced learning” by assigning papers that require
216
use of academic library databases. The assignment could include having doctoral students write
up a brief paragraph about which database they used and some of the words or terms they used in
the search; your university librarians give instruction on how to search and students need to hone
those skills to write a literature review in their dissertation. Writing should be assessed for how
students approach their topic; writing is more than just grammar. Look for use of extensive block
quotes, that in-text or end of paper references are done correctly per the style guide for your
discipline. In addition, have students submit a plan for a research paper assignment; the plan
should include a timeline that fits their schedule and the paper deadline. For example, they could
write how long they plan to conduct research to gather articles or books, how they will set up
their approach to writing (create an outline, reading research materials, if they will make notes
for their paper sections, and so on). These are ways of socializing/enculturating your students
into doctoral-level writing and the dissertation process.
Let your students know there are many areas where they could “get stuck” in the
dissertation process and if they get stuck working on your writing assignments, they should not
avoid asking for help. Let them know that getting stuck could happen at any stage of a research
or writing assignment, and sharing these instances could help others get through the same type of
issues.
As faculty you might be familiar with student learning pathways, attention span, students
that write but say nothing substantive, or their ability to manage a heavy academic course load
and complete assignments. Most or all of these points are part of dissertation process that needs
to be managed, and the “practice” they get in your course will build their skill level and their
self-efficacy that they can and will complete their assignment per the deadline set for them.
217
Tell students it is OK to ask questions about research and writing, and especially when
they reach ABD/DC standing. Since the dissertation process is a solitary endeavor, let students
know they should get comfortable with working alone, and accountable to themselves to hit
deadlines or goals. Accountability to advisers/chairs is important, but ABD/DCs working alone
do not have daily/weekly deadlines unless they set them and meet them. Also let students know
that the work is going to consume time and the workload can get depressing because it can seem
never ending. If your institution has peer groups, faculty, or communities of practice that can
help with research, writing, qualitative or quantitative methods ask your department to have the
resources put on their web site.
Recommendations for ABD/DCs.
Ask questions about the process, aspects of writing and research, and about deadlines. If
you do not know what is expected or what to do next, check with your adviser/chair about
deadlines or procedures you need to comply to and check your department web site to see if
there are ABD/DC peer groups or communities of practice that could offer support; peers that are
further along could offer suggestions on how to manage or plan ways that helped them progress.
The dissertation process has planning requirements, deadlines for chapter submissions,
and the quality of chapter content that should be part of your planning and mini-goals you set to
meet deadlines so it is important to stay focused on the goals you set because it will get you
closer to dissertation completion and could build momentum or motivation. Since the
dissertation process is a solitary endeavor, you might have to manage feelings of isolation at
times or feeling overwhelmed with a never ending quagmire work. Each mini-goal you set such
as reading a certain amount of literature you gathered, writing a section of a chapter in your
dissertation, or setting a schedule to review and analyze the data you gathered for your study.
218
Find a coping mechanism that can be planned to give you time off from writing. For example,
plan time to relax or do something that you like to do. Time is a valuable, irreplaceable
commodity, so you must be mindful when planning time for your dissertation, employment,
family, and relaxing.
Because your dissertation will be reviewed by your committee, scholars, and ABD/DCs
conducting literature reviews, it is important to produce work that meets or exceeds the level of
rigor expected by your peers and your discipline.
Recommendations for ABD/DC researchers.
Recommendations for social media recruitment. There are different issues to consider
when using social networks/sites. One issue to consider is the time of year you are recruiting;
holidays or C&U “spring break” times could result in fewer participants who may be focused on
holidays or vacations. No matter which site or groups you want to use for recruitment for any
study requires research about the site. For example, check how the site can be searched so you
can locate participants or groups that post or blog about your topic. Check for the site’s protocols
for contacting members to make sure you can recruit through posts or blogs, or sending
recruitment requests. While checking for these things, also see if there is a way to pin-point
certain demographic factors such as age, US or non-US users, gender, race/ethnicity, or belief
systems.
Track your social media research for
(a) which sites are best for your recruitment by site protocols, search abilities, or
demographics
(b) words or terms used in searches to note which are most fruitful or not, and to use
them across different sites
219
(c) screen name or name for a participant on a site to make sure there is no redundancy in
contact
(d) track which sites provided the most responses to recruitment posts, blogs, or texts
(e) establish a presence on sites you are considering for recruitment such as participating
in discussions about the topic being careful not to overtly recruit until IRB consent or
to comply with site “terms of service” (TOS).
Recommendations for future research.
Increasing the number of male participants. In this study, there were fewer male
participants from all three participant groups recruited (current ABD/DCs, recent PhDs, or
ABD/DCs that did not complete their dissertation). Increasing male participants in all three
groups could inform C&Us about factors that enabled or inhibited dissertation completion.
Ask institutions to share exit survey data. A study can be conducted using exit survey
data from completers and non-completers to determine which factors affected each group. Data
can remain generic and maintain privacy/confidentiality; demographic data needed would be
gender, age entering their program and at departure, the discipline, and race/ethnicity.
Closing Statement.
ABD/DC attrition is complex because it involves institutional and personal factors.
Limiting attrition and completing doctoral studies is beneficial for institutions and students
financially, and with regard to reputation and time. The ABD/DC attrition phenomena can be
managed if we learn what enables or inhibits PhD completion.
220
References
Allan, P., & Dory, J. (2001, March). Understanding doctoral program attrition: An empirical
study. Faculty working paper, No. 195, pp. 1-19. Lubin School of Business, Center for
Applied Research. Pace University. Persistent link:
http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lubinfaculty_workingpapers/17/
Bair, C. R. (1999). Doctoral student attrition and persistence. A meta-synthesis. Ph.D.
dissertation, Loyola University, Chicago. Retrieved November 1, 2010 from
Dissertations & Theses: Full Text (Publication No. AAT 9917754) [155 pages].
Baker, V. L., & Pifer, M. J. (2011, March). The role of relationships in the transition from
doctoral student to independent scholar. Studies in Continuing Education, 33(1), 5-17.
doi:10.1080/0158037X.2010.515569
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Barnett, D. L. (2008). Experiences influencing degree completion articulated by doctoral
students in education administration. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Louisville.
Dissertations & Theses Database. Retrieved September 22, 2010 from Dissertations &
Theses: Full Text (Publication No. AAT 3352034) [247 pages].
Barton, M. D. (2005). Dissertations: Past, present, and future. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
South Florida. Retrieved September 27, 2008 from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text
(Publication No. AAT3188394) [204 pages]. Persistent link:
http://digital.lib.usf.edu:8080/fedora/get/usfldc:E14-SFE0001200/DOCUMENT
Boscolo, P., Arfe, B., & Quarisa, M. (2007, August). Improving the quality of students’
academic writing: An intervention study. Studies in Higher Education, 32(4), 419-438.
doi:10.1080/03075070701476092
221
Bridgmon, K. D. (2007). All but dissertation stress among counseling and clinical psychology
students. Ph.D. dissertation, Northern Arizona University. Retrieved September 28, 2008
from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text (Publication No. AAT 3257723) [165 pages].
Campus Times (Editorial). (2013).Turn to ‘procrastination’ for finals. Campus Times, May 10,
2013 (Editorial). University of La Verne. Available: http://laverne.edu/campus-
times/2013/05/turn-to-procrastination-for-finals/
Cardozo, K. M. (2006). Demystifying the dissertation. Profession, (17), 138-154. Modern
Language Association (MLA). doi:10.1632/prof.2006.2006.1.138. Retrieved October 7,
2010 from http://www.mlajournals.org/toc/prof/2006/1 (also available at
http://staff.aub.edu.lb/~webwrite/pdf/Demystifying_the_Dissertation_Article )
Caruth, G. D. (2013). Demystifying mixed methods research design: A review of the literature.
Online Submission, Mevlana International Journal of Education, 3(2), 112-122. (ERIC
ED544121) Available online:
http://www.eric.ed.gov.ccl.idm.oclc.org/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED5
44121
Cheeks, B. S. (2007). Surviving the ivory tower: Influence of attribution style and academic
experiences on doctoral student attrition. Ph.D. dissertation, Claremont Graduate
University. Retrieved February 5, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text
(Publication No. AAT 3254338) [125 pages].
Cohen, M. R. (1998). The pause that represses: The experience of working through writer’s
block during the dissertation writing process. Psy.D., Massachusetts School of
Professional Psychology. Retrieved September 27, 2008 from Dissertations & Theses:
Full Text (Publication No. AAT 9930434164) [164 pages].
222
Cooke, D., Sims, R., & Peyrefitte, J. (1995). The relationship between graduate student attitudes
and attrition. The Journal of Psychology, 129(6), 677-88. Retrieved 1 May 2010, from
ABI/INFORM Global (Document ID: 9154942). Persistent link:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g923690895
Council of Graduate Schools. (2008a). “Ph.D. completion and attrition: Analysis of baseline
program data from the Ph.D. completion project.” Washington, DC. The Council of
Graduate Schools (CGS) published the “Ph.D. Completion and Attrition: Analysis of
Baseline Program Data from the Ph.D. Completion Project” (2007). Persistent link:
http://www.phdcompletion.org/information/book2.asp
Council of Graduate Schools (CGS-Qd-T2). (2008b). Quantitative data. Attrition data. Table 2.
Cumulative ten-year attrition rates by institution type and broad field. Ph.D. Completion
Project. Retrieved April 11, 2010 from
http://www.phdcompletion.org/quantitative/book1_quant.asp
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating
Quantitative and Qualitative Research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, G. A. (1997, Fall). Research methodologies and the doctoral process.
New Directions for Higher Education, 99, 33-46. doi:10.1002/he.9903
Donoghue, F. (2010, April 4). An open letter from a director of graduate admissions [Section:
The Chronicle Review; Opinion & Ideas]. The Chronicle of Higher Education, [Sunday].
Persistent link: http://chronicle.com/article/An-Open-Letter-From-a-Director/64882/
“Drop-out.” (2010, April). Glossary of United States Educational Terminology. World Education
Services, New York. Retrieved from http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US5/REF/glossary.html
223
Ehrenberg, R., Jakubson, G. H., Groen, J. A., So, E., & Price, J. (2007). Inside the black box of
doctoral education: What program characteristics influence doctoral students’ attrition
and graduation probabilities? Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 29(2), 134-50.
Retrieved 1 May 2010, from OmniFile Full Text Mega database. Accession Number:
200715203465005 doi:10.3102/0162373707301707
Eley, A., & Jennings, R. (2005). Effective postgraduate supervision: Improving the
student/supervisor relationship. Berkshire, GBR: McGraw-Hill Education. Persistent
link: http://site.ebrary.com/lib/claremont/Doc?id=10161298&ppg=105
Fakis, A., Hilliam, R., StonEley, H., & Townend, M. (2014). Quantitative analysis of qualitative
information from interviews: A systematic literature review. Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, 8(2), 139-161. doi:10.1177/1558689813495111
Gardner, S. (2007). “I heard it through the grapevine:” Doctoral student socialization in
chemistry and history. Higher Education, 54(5), 723-740. doi:10.1007/s10734-006-9020-
x
Gardner, S. (2008). Fitting the mold of graduate school: A qualitative study of socialization in
doctoral education. Innovative Higher Education, 33(2), 125-138. doi:10.1007/s10755-
008-9068-x
Gardner, S. (2009). Student and faculty attributions of attrition in high and low-completing
doctoral programs in the United States. Higher Education, 58(1), 97-112. Retrieved 1
May 2010, from OmniFile Full Text Mega database. doi:10.1007/s10734-008-9184-7
Gardner, S. K. (2010). Contrasting the socialization experiences of doctoral students in high- and
low- completing departments: A qualitative analysis of disciplinary contexts at one
institution. Journal of Higher Education, 81(1), 61-81. doi:10.1353/jhe.0.0081. Persistent
224
link:
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_higher_education/summary/v081/81.1.gardner.ht
ml
Golde, C. M. (2005). The role of the department and discipline in doctoral student attrition:
Lessons from four departments. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(6), 669-700.
Retrieved 1 May 2010, from OmniFile Full Text Mega database. Accession Number:
200530502330007. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3838782
González, A. M. (2007). Shaping the thesis and dissertation: Case studies of writers across the
curriculum. Ph.D. dissertation, Texas Christian University. Retrieved September 27,
2008 from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text (Publication No. AAT 3278278) [296
pages].
Good, C. E. (2002). Factors affecting dissertation progress. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Arkansas. Retrieved September 27, 2008 from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text
(Publication No. AAT 3079070 [104 pages].
Goodchild L. F., & Miller, M. M. (1997, Fall). The American doctorate and dissertation: six
developmental stages. New Directions for Higher Education, 99, 17-32.
doi:10.1002/he.9902
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1997, January). Self-regulation and writing: Where do we go from
here? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22(1), 102-114.
doi:10.1006/ceps.1997.0920[Article No. EP970920]
Gravois, J. (2007a, December 21). Graduate schools reduce Ph.D. attrition rates [Section: The
Faculty]. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(17), 12. Persistent link:
http://chronicle.com/article/Graduate-Schools-Reduce-PhD/20531/
225
Gravois, J. (2007b, July 27). In humanities 10 years may not be enough to get a Ph.D. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(47), 1. [Friday]. Persistent link:
http://chronicle.com/article/In-Humanities-10-Years-May/16231/
Green, K. E. (1997, Fall). Psychosocial factors affecting dissertation completion. New Directions
for Higher Education, 99, 57-64. doi:10.1002/he.9905. Persistent link:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/he.9905/abstract
Green, K. E., & Kluever, R. C. (1997). The dissertation barriers scale. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Chicago, IL, March
24-28, 1997) 1-12. Retrieved on September 2, 2007 from ERIC database [ED410253]
from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtS
earch_SearchValue_0=ED410253&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED4102
53
Harsch, D. M. (2008). The role of self-efficacy, locus of control, and self-handicapping in
dissertation completion. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Akron. Retrieved
September 26, 2010 from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text (Publication No. AAT
3338455) [133 pages].
Hoyle, R. H., Harris, M. J., & Judd, C. M. (2002). Research methods in social relations (7th ed).
USA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Janson, A., Howard, L., & Schoenberger-Orgad, M. (2004). The odyssey of Ph.D. students
becoming a community of practice. Business Communication Quarterly, 67(2), 168-181.
doi:10.1177/1080569904265421
226
Katz, E. L. (1997, Fall). Key players in the dissertation process. New Directions for Higher
Education, 99, 5-16. doi:10.1002/he.9901
Kiley, M. (2009). Identifying threshold concepts and proposing strategies to support doctoral
candidates. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 46(3), 293-304.
doi:10.1080/14703290903069001
Kittell-Limerick, P. (2005). Perceived barriers to completion of the academic doctorate: A
Delphi study. Ed.D. Texas A&M University – Commerce. Retrieved September 28, 2008
from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text (Publication No. AAT 3196394) [143 pages].
Kluever, R. C. (1997, Autumn [Fall]). Students’ attitudes toward the responsibilities and barriers
in doctoral study. New Directions for Higher Education, 99, 47-56. doi:10.1002/he.9904
Kolman, M. (2001). The all-but-dissertation phenomenon (ABD): Training psychologists to be
dissertation coaches. Psy.D. Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology. Retrieved
September 28, 2008 from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text (Publication No. AAT
3052705) [261 pages].
Kumar, V., & Stracke, E. (2007, August). An analysis of written feedback on a PhD thesis.
Teaching in Higher Education, 12(4), 461-470. doi:10.1080/13562510701415433
Leatherman, C. (2000, March 24). A new push for ABDs to cross the finish line. Chronicle of
Higher Education, 46(29), A18-A20. Persistent link:
http://chronicle.com/search/?search_siteId=5&contextId=&action=rem&searchQueryStri
ng=A+new+push+for+ABDs+to+cross+the+finish+line
Lee, B. T. (2003). Factors affecting non-completion of doctoral degrees as evidenced by students
labeled All But the Dissertation (ABD). Ed.D. Tennessee State University. Retrieved
227
September 27, 2008 from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text (Publication No. AAT
3086772) [206 pages].
Lenz, K. S. (1997, Fall). Nontraditional-aged women and the dissertation: A case study
approach. New Directions for Higher Education, 99, 65-74. doi:10.1002/he.9906
Lin, H. I. (2003). Learning to write the candidacy examination: Professors and students talking
about academic genres and authorship. Ph.D. dissertation. Ohio State University.
Retrieved September 1, 2009 from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text (Publication No.
AAT 3124113) [234 pages].
Lovitts, B. (2005). How to grade a dissertation. Academe, 91(6), 18-23. doi:10.2307/40252858.
Persistent link: http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2005/ND/Feat/lovi.htm
[Link on article’s page Table 1:
http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2005/ND/Feat/lovisb.htm] [Link on
article’s page Table 2:
http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2005/ND/Feat/lovisb2.htm]
Lovitts, B. (2008). The transition to independent research: Who makes it, who doesn’t, and why.
The Journal of Higher Education, 79(3), 296-325. doi:10.1353/jhe.0.0006
Lundell, D. B. (1999). Joining the conversation as professionals: An examination of graduate
students writing the dissertation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota. Retrieved
September 27, 2008 from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text (Publication No. AAT
9952330) [266 pages].
Lundell, D. B., & Beach, R. (2003). Dissertation writers’ negotiations with competing activity
systems. In C. Bazerman & D. R. Russell (Eds.), Writing selves/writing societies:
Research from activity perspectives (pp. 483-514). Fort Collins, Colorado: The WAC
228
Clearinghouse and Mind, Culture, and Activity. Retrieved October 11, 2010 from
http://wac.colostate.edu/books/selves_societies/Lundell_beach/Lundell_beach (also
available at http://wac.colostate.edu/books/selves_societies/Lundell_beach/)
Mainhard, T., Rijst, R., Tartwijk, J., & Wubbels, T. (2009). A model for the supervisor–doctoral
student relationship. Higher Education, 58(3), 359-373. doi:10.1007/s10734-009-9199-8
Malone, T. L. (1981). A history of the doctor of philosophy dissertation in the United States
1861-1930. Ph.D. Wayne State University. Retrieved January 13, 2011 from
Dissertations & Theses: Full Text (Publication No. AAT 8117081) [166 pages].
Persistent link: http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/dissertations/AAI8117081
Marchionini, G. (1997). Information seeking in electronic environments. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press. Cambridge Series on Human-Computer Interaction.
Millman, S. (2007, April 13). Princeton expands family-friendly benefits for graduate students
with children [Section: The Faculty]. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(32), 13.
Persistent link: http://chronicle.com/article/Princeton-Expands/23977/
Muszynski, S. Y., & Akamatsu, T. J. (1991, April). Delay in completion of doctoral dissertations
in clinical psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 22(2), 119-123.
Persistent link: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6X00-
46VM2G2-
5&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1991&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_
origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681288953&_rerunOri
gin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5b317
14759f23cb07e77fcf1dc393279&searchtype=a
229
National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Studies (1998). Summary of
workshop on graduate student attrition. Arlington, VA: Author NSF 99-314, Project
Officer, Alan I. Rapoport (Arlington, VA 1998). Available:
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf99314/pdf/front
Nelson, J. P., & Sacks, J. L. (2007, September/October). Faculty advisement on theses and
dissertations: Tips for organizing the process departments. Nurse Educator, 32(5), 195-
196. Persistent link: http://www.lww.com/product/Nurse-Educator/?0363-3624
Nerad, M., & Miller, D. S. (1997, Fall). The institution cares: BerkEley’s efforts to support
dissertation writing in the humanities and social sciences. New Directions for Higher
Education, 99, 75-90. doi:10.1002/he.9907
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Pride, M. (2005). The journey through the dissertation writing process: Do relationships matter?
Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University. Retrieved September 1, 2009 from
Dissertations & Theses: Full Text (Publication No. AAT 3204780) [189 pages].
“Procrastination.” (2010). Dictionary of Psychology. http://dictionary-
psychology.com/index.php?a=term&d=Dictionary+of+psychology&t=Procrastination
Protivnak, J. J., & Foss, L. L. (2009, June). An exploration of themes that influence the
counselor education doctoral student experience. Counselor Education & Supervision,
48(4), 239-256. Academic Search Premier, Accession Number: 43169988. Persistent
likn: http://www.counseling.org/Publications/Journals.aspx
Robole, D. D. (2003). Zooming in: The impact of primary relationships on doctoral student
persistence. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, Retrieved September
230
1, 2009 from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text (Publication No. AAT3118067) [232
pages].
Rovai, A. (2002). Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in
asynchronous learning networks. Internet and Higher Education, 5(4), 319-32. doi:
10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00130-6
Rovai, A., & Wighting, M. (2005). Feelings of alienation and community among higher
education students in a virtual classroom. Internet and Higher Education, 8(2), 97-110.
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.03.001
Rovai, A., Wighting, M., & Liu, J. (2005). School climate: Sense of classroom and school
communities in online and on-campus higher education courses. Quarterly Review of
Distance Education, 6(4), 361-74. Retrieved from Education Full Text database.
Persistent link: http://www.infoagepub.com/index.php?id=89&i=14
Schmidt, P. (2008, September 19). Longer road to Ph.D.’s for women and minority members
[Section: The Faculty]. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(4), 10 [Friday]. Persistent
link: http://chronicle.com/article/Longer-Road-to-PhDs-for/36532/
“Self-esteem.” (2012). Glossary of Psychological Terms. American Psychological Association
Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/research/action/glossary.aspx#s
“Self-handicapping.” (2012). Glossary of Psychological Terms. American Psychological
Association Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/research/action/glossary.aspx#s
Smallwood, S. (2004, January 16). Doctor dropout [Section: The Faculty]. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 50(19), 10, A10-A12. [Friday]. Persistent link:
http://chronicle.com/article/Doctor-Dropout/33786/ or
http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v50/i19/19a01001.htm
231
“Socialization.” (2012). Glossary of Psychological Terms. American Psychological Association
Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/research/action/glossary.aspx#s
Sowell, R. (2007, December 7). Ph.D. completion and attrition: Analysis of baseline data [24
pages]. Council of Graduate Schools [CGS]. CGS Annual Meeting, December 7, 2007.
Sowell, R. (2008, March 31). Ph.D. completion and attrition: Analysis of baseline data [23
pages]. Council of Graduate Schools [CGS]. NSF Workshop: A Fresh Look at Ph.D.
Education.
Spillman, L. (2014). Mixed Methods and the Logic of Qualitative Inference. Qualitative
Sociology, 37(2), 189-205. doi:10.1007/s11133-014-9273-0
Steel, P. (2007, January). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review
of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 65-94.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65
Strite, C. (2007). Completing the doctoral dissertation: A qualitative case study. Ed.D., Ed.D.
dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University. Retrieved September 9, 2009 from
Dissertations & Theses Database: Full Text (Publication No. AAT AAT 3269117) [316
pages].
Survey audience. (2005). SuperSurvey Knowledge Base (Ipathia Inc.). Retrieved October 16,
2012 from http://knowledge-base.supersurvey.com/survey-audience.htm (Last Update:
Friday, 18-Mar-2005 20:40:32 EST).
Tanzer, A. M. (2001). An examination of doctoral training from the students’ perspective. Ph.D.
dissertation, The University of Tennessee. Retrieved September 28, 2008 from
Dissertations & Theses: Full Text (Publication No. AAT 3022770) [127 pages].
232
Terrell, S. R. (2012). Mixed-methods research methodologies. Qualitative Report, 17(1), 254-
280. Retrieved on November 23, 2014 from ERIC database [EJ973044] from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ973044
Terrell, S. R., Snyder, M. M., & Dringus, L. P. (2009, June). The development, validation, and
application of the doctoral student connectedness scale. Internet and Higher Education,
12(2), 112-116 [Peer Reviewed Preview Special Issue of the AERA Teaching and
Learning Online Special Interest Group]. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.06.004
Thurgood, L., Golladay, M. J., & Hill, S. T. (2006). U.S. Doctorates in the 20th Century. Special
Report [NSF 06-319]. Division of Science Resources Statistics (SRS), The National
Science Foundation. Retrieved October 20, 2010 from [last updated 2008, July 10]
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf06319/
Turner, J. D., & Edwards, P. A. (2006, November). When it’s more than you, Jesus, and the
pencil: Reflections on an academic writing mentorship. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 50(3), 172-178. doi:10.1598/JAAL.50.3.1
Varney, J. J. (2003). A study of the relationships among doctoral program components and
dissertation self-efficacy on dissertation progress. Ed.D. Aurora University. Retrieved
September 27, 2008 from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text (Publication No. AAT
3171591) [218 pages].
Vilkinas, T. (2008, March). An exploratory study of the supervision of Ph.D./research students’
theses. Journal Innovative Higher Education, 32(5), 297-311. doi:10.1007/s10755-007-
9057-5
Warren, D. J. (1984). Zen in the art of dissertation writing: a phenomenological study of self-
discovery through the dissertation process. Ph.D. dissertation, Pacific Graduate School of
233
Psychology. Retrieved September 16, 2009 from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text
(Publication No. AAT 8502629). [235 pages].
White, C. S. (2006). Graduate student mentor program: Exploring what a diverse student
population needs. Ed.D. Fielding Graduate University. Retrieved September 28, 2008
from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text (Publication No. AAT 3230496) [170 pages].
Wighting, M., Liu, J., & Rovai, A. (2008). Distinguishing sense of community and motivation
characteristics between online and traditional college students. Quarterly Review of
Distance Education, 9(3), 285-295, 347-348 [author biographical data]. Retrieved from
Education Full Text database. Persistent link:
http://www.infoagepub.com/index.php?id=89&i=2
“Writer’s Block.” (2012). merriam-webster.com. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-
webster.com/medical/writer%27s%20block
Yale University. (2007). Yale History Dissertations. Retrieved November 22, 2010 from
http://www.Yale.edu/history/gradstudents/dissertations/index.html
Yeager, B. J. (2008). PhD or ABD: To be or not to be? Ph.D. dissertation, University of Denver.
Retrieved September 28, 2008 from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text (Publication No.
AAT 3310970) [10 pages].
Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1997, January). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social
cognitive perspective [Research for the Future]. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
22(1), 73-101. doi:10.1006/ceps.1997.0919 [Article No. EP970919]
234
Appendix A
Definitions
All but the dissertation (ABD): refers to doctoral students who have completed all coursework,
examinations, and/or other requirements for the doctoral degree except writing and defense
of the dissertation (Bair, 1999). Could be synonymous with doctoral candidate (DC).
Attrition: When a student discontinues doctoral studies or “drops out” (Bair, 1999).
Cohort: In general, a group of students entering a program of study at the same time progressing
through the program to completion; however, some students may not progress in the program
at the same rate.
Completion: Successful completion of the doctoral degree including oral defense of the
dissertation (Bair, 1999, Good, 2002).
Dissertation: “The formal writing requirement — often an original contribution to knowledge —
for a doctoral degree” (“Dissertation,” 2010a). “. . . An extended scholarly essay, usu. based
upon original research, submitted for a degree or other academic qualification”
(“Dissertation,” 2010b).
Dissertation advisor/director/chair: Faculty member that provides guidance for a doctoral
student at the dissertation stage: assistance or direction in choosing a topic, reviewing
dissertation drafts, setting timelines, making sure expectations remain high and are clearly
articulated to students, offering intellectual support, and at times emotional support where
warranted and permitted by the institution (Good, 2002).
Dissertation process: The process of writing a dissertation from choosing a topic, submission of
formal proposal and having it approved, researching for literature review, study
implementation, data collection and analysis, write-up of results and analysis, defense of the
dissertation, and its submission (Good, 2002).
Doctoral candidate (DC): in general, refers to doctoral students who have completed all
coursework, examinations, and/or other requirements for the doctoral degree except writing
and defense of the dissertation (Bair, 1999). Could be synonymous with (ABD).
Drop-out: “A person who has withdrawn from all courses. One who leaves school entirely is
known as a ‘dropout’” (“Drop-out,” 2010).
Environmental factors: External student obligations that could influence their behavior,
completion, or non-completion (Harsch, 2008) (such as work, family, etc., also called
external factors).
[Appendix A. Definitions continued on next page]
235
Appendix A (Definitions continued)
External factors: Factors from external sources such as work or family; however, some external
factors could be structural such as time needed to learn particular skills needed for
dissertation completion (i.e., research, statistics, writing also called environmental factors).
Locus of control: an individual’s internal locus of control is having control over what happens
to them; an external locus of control is when an individual believes external forces or
individuals are in control.
Mentor: A person who fosters personal or academic growth in another; a person who supports,
advises/teaches another person in professional, career, personal, business, or academic areas
(Varney, 2003).
Non-completion: When a student fails to complete a degree according to the academic program
or degree requirements.
Perfectionism: Aspiring to be perfect at tasks; high personal standards or internal motivation to
achieve highest quality or proficiency.
Persistence: The continuance by a doctoral student in a doctoral program/program of study until
coursework, qualifying examinations, dissertation, and defense completed–all degree
requirements met and conferred (Bair, 1999).
Procrastination: Delaying tasks until a later time that could be a psychological mechanism “for
coping with the anxiety associated with starting or completing any task or decision…. [and]
often mischaracterised simply as laziness, a lack of willpower, or lack of ambition”
(“Procrastination,” 2010).
Psychological factors: Psychological factors are internal to the student’s mental state such as
lacking self-confidence or self-efficacy.
Retention: Retaining students from enrollment to degree completion.
Self-efficacy: An individual’s belief in their capabilities to perform at a certain level of
expectation or efficiency (Good, 2002). “. . . beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and
execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations” (Bandura, 1997, p.
2).
Self-esteem: “A generalized evaluative attitude toward the self that influences both moods and
behavior and that exerts a powerful effect on a range of personal and social behaviors”
(“Self-esteem,” 2012).
[Appendix A. Definitions continued on next page]
236
Appendix A (Definitions continued)
Self-handicapping: “The process of developing, in anticipation of failure, behavioral reactions
and explanations that minimize ability deficits as possible attributions for the failure” (“Self-
handicapping,” 2012).
Socialization: “The lifelong process whereby an individual’s behavioral patterns, values,
standards, skills, attitudes, and motives are shaped to conform to those regarded as desirable
in a particular society” (“Socialization,” 2012).
Stopping out: When a student leaves graduate school for an undetermined amount of time,
whereas dropping out means a student has left studies permanently. Nettles and Millett
(2006) identified students “who dropped out of doctoral cohorts but later returned to pursue
their degree. . . .as ‘stop-outs” (Yeager, 2008, p. 8). Stopping or dropping out are both
counted in attrition numbers.
Structural factors (Institutional): Requirements such as timelines for various stages of
completion (Harsch, 2008); institutional or departmental programs or services, coursework
that prepares doctoral students for the dissertation process.
Structural factors (Personal): Financial concerns (Harsch, 2008), writing and research or
planning and scheduling skills and training.
Time-to-Degree: Amount of time from beginning to completion of doctoral degree (Good,
2002)
Writer’s Block: “a psychological inhibition preventing a writer from proceeding with a piece of
writing” (“Writer’s Block,” 2012).
[Appendix A. End of Definitions]
237
Appendix B
(Long Survey Consent Form)
AGREEMENT TO PARTICIPATE IN
Factors Related to Dissertation Completion Survey
STUDY LEADERSHIP: You are being asked to take part in a research project headed by Gail E. Cugno,
MLIS, MAWS, Doctoral Candidate a graduate student at Claremont Graduate University who is being
supervised by Professor David Drew in the School of Educational Studies.
PURPOSE: The purpose of his study is to find factors that enable or inhibit dissertation completion in all
but dissertation (ABD) students or doctoral candidates.
ELIGIBILITY: To be in this study, you are or were one of the following:
(a) an ABD or doctoral candidate currently writing your dissertation
(b) did not complete your dissertation after reaching ABD or doctoral candidate status and left doctoral
studies temporarily or permanently (between 2009 to 2013)
(c) you completed a dissertation between 2009 to 2013
PARTICIPATION: During the study, you will be asked to complete an online questionnaire that will take
approximately 25 to 35 minutes. You will be asked questions about factors that enabled or inhibited
completion of your dissertation.
RISKS OF PARTICIPATION: The risks you run by taking part in this study are minimal. The risks could
include scheduling time to take the survey, sitting at a computer for 25 to 35 minutes, using an online
format to complete the survey. Another possible minimal risk could be recalling past events related to the
dissertation process.
To minimize or alleviate the level of risk you might experience:
(a) the researcher has prepared brief, easy to follow instructions of how to use the online survey
(b) the researcher has created an email address to help you resolve any technical issues or questions:
CugnoDissSurvey@aol.com
– online survey technical support will be contacted on your behalf to help resolve your issue as
soon as possible
BENEFITS OF PARTICIPATION: We do not expect the study to benefit you personally. However, you
may benefit from being able to voice your opinion about what enabled or inhibited your dissertation
completion.
The results from this study could possibly benefit future ABDs or doctoral candidates by informing
colleges and universities in the creation workshops, courses, or other interventions to enable dissertation
completion. Another possible benefit is that this study could add to the body of knowledge in the field of
educational studies.
COMPENSATION: There is no direct compensation to you for participating in this study. We gather no
information that personally identifies you in order to protect your privacy and compensation cannot be
offered when there is no way to identify who you are or your contact information.
[Appendix B. Long Survey Consent Form continued on next page]
238
Appendix B (continued)
(Long Survey Consent Form)
VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary.
You may refuse to answer any particular question for any reason or stop or withdraw from the study at
any time without it being held against you. Your decision whether or not to participate will have no effect
on your current or future connection with your college or university or CGU.
CONFIDENTIALITY: Your individual privacy will be protected in all papers, books, talks, posts, or
stories resulting from this study. We may share the data we collect with other researchers, but we will not
reveal your identity with it. In order to protect the privacy and confidentiality of your responses, all
surveys will be assigned a number. The same number will be assigned to this consent form so your name
will not be associated with your survey maintaining your privacy and confidentiality.
Your anonymous survey data will be stored in a dedicated storage area on the secure site of the online
survey company and will only be accessible to this researcher. Once the survey closes, your data will be
downloaded by the researcher and deleted from the secure site. The researcher will keep your survey data
for a period no longer than five years on a dedicated external hard drive stored in a locked file box for
possible future data analysis.
FURTHER INFORMATION: If you have any questions or would like additional information about this
study, please contact Gail Cugno at CugnoDissSurvey@aol.com or P. O. Box 787, Claremont, CA.
91711. You may contact the project supervisor, Professor David Drew at (909) 621-8075 in the School of
Educational Studies, at Claremont Graduate University.
The CGU Institutional Review Board has approved this project. You may contact the CGU Board with
any questions or issues at (909) 607-9406, irb@cgu.edu, or at Claremont Graduate University, Harper
Hall Room 152, 150 East Tenth St, Claremont, CA 91711. If you would like a copy of this form or the
survey instructions, I will be happy to send you a copy via email. Please print your email address so it can
be easily read. Your email address will not be revealed anywhere where you could be identified, and it is
not associated or linked to your survey questionnaire. Your email address: _______________________
CONSENT:
Your signature below means that you understand the information on this form, that someone has
answered any and all questions you may have about this study, and you voluntarily agree to participate in
it. Your printed name below acts as your digital signature to consent to participate in this study.
Printed Name of Participant _____________________________ Date _________________
[Appendix B End of Long Survey Consent Form]
239
Appendix C
(Long Survey 36 Questions)
Dissertation Completion Factors Survey
1) What is/was your discipline/subject area? (Specify such as Education, Psychology, Business, and so
on):________________________________
2) What is/was your dissertation topic? ____________________________________
3) I chose my dissertation topic (Check all that apply)
__ after completing all doctoral coursework
__ because I always knew what I wanted my topic to be
__ because one of my professors suggested one
__ because my adviser suggested one
__ but my adviser made me modify or change my topic
__ but my adviser made me accept her/his choice of topic
4) I was given a structure/plan/schedule to help me transition from doctoral
coursework to the independence of dissertation writing and research
(Check all that apply)
Yes No
by peers, a peer group, or other dissertation writers
by my adviser/dissertation chair
through doctoral courses
in a transition workshop or seminar
in a dissertation guide I purchased
from someone I paid versed in dissertation planning or task scheduling
I created one on my own without anyone’s assistance
5) I learned about the quality of writing required in a dissertation (Check all that apply)
__ from my own efforts to learn
__ from peers, a peer group, or other dissertation writers
__ from my adviser/dissertation chair
__ through socialization/enculturation into the dissertation process
__ from the writing center
__ through dissertation writing workshops or seminars
__ from a professional thesis/dissertation editor I paid
[Appendix C. Long Survey continued next on page]
240
Appendix C (Long Survey continued)
1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = agree 4 = strongly agree
6) My doctoral training/socialization helped me complete my dissertation because I
learned
1 2 3 4
how to create a good plan or schedule for research and writing
write a dissertation (writing quality, structure, outline, organization)
integrate my skills, previous knowledge, or background to accomplish my writing goals
about peer tutors for dissertation writers
about the writing center
about free workshops/seminars that taught how to write a dissertation (such as writing
quality, structure, outlines, organization)
about student-faculty social gatherings to discuss dissertation topics or progress
No = no responsibility Some = some responsibility Major = major responsibility
7) Who should be responsible for socialization/enculturation into the
dissertation process?
No Some Major
the student
peers, a peer group, or other dissertation writers
faculty in our discipline
an advisor/dissertation chair
doctoral coursework
doctoral studies workshops or seminars
8) My adviser (Check all that apply)
__ was assigned to me when I entered doctoral studies
__ stayed in contact with me via email or telephone
__ only stayed in contact with me when I initiated it
__ did not return my emails or telephone messages
__ met with me in person through regularly scheduled meetings/appointments
__ had a heavy workload and did not have the time available to be a mentor to me
__ became my dissertation chair
__ left the university before I finished my dissertation
1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = agree 4 = strongly agree
9) I felt my adviser/dissertation chair was caring because he/she 1 2 3 4
made me feel less isolated because he/she stayed in touch with me
encouraged me to ask questions about my dissertation or the process
helped me set research and writing goals
was a mentor to me
got to know some things about me on a personal level
[Appendix C. Long Survey continued next on page]
241
Appendix C (Long Survey continued)
10) I considered changing advisers during doctoral studies to one (Check all that apply)
__ I had a better fit with
__ who made me feel less isolated
__ who made me feel like they were truly interested in my dissertation topic
__ who had knowledge about my dissertation topic
__ who made me feel like they cared about my writing and research needs
__ did not let staff or other students interrupt our appointments
11) I considered leaving school because my adviser/chair made me feel marginalized or
oppressed (Check all that apply)
__ for being female
__ for being male
__ for being an older student
__ for being a physically challenged or disabled
__ for being gay, lesbian, transgender, transsexual, or bi-sexual
__ for being ethnically or racially different than him/her
__ for my religious or spiritual beliefs
1 = no services 2 = some services 3 = full services
12) My university provided family services such as 1 2 3
on-campus infant or child care
leave of absence for new mothers or fathers (birth or adoptive parents)
student housing for male or female students who have children
free drop-in counseling on a limited basis or for off-campus referrals
13) I got stuck during the transition from coursework to the dissertation process
(Check all that apply)
__ because I did not have a formal plan or structure to follow
__ because I did not always know what to do next
__ because doctoral courses did not prepare me (train/socialize) about the complexities or tasks
involved in the dissertation process
14) I got stuck during the dissertation process (Check all that apply)
__ but found my own ways to get past it and make progress
__ because I felt hopeless at times
__ sometimes because the amount of work was depressing
__ because I was not taught/socialized about all of the tasks involved (such as writing a consent form,
recruitment or participant cover letter)
1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neutral 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree
15) I was pessimistic about completing my dissertation at times because 1 2 3 4 5
I did not receive motivational or emotional support
I let things distract me from my writing schedule (self-handicapping)
[Appendix C. Long Survey continued next on page]
242
Appendix C (Long Survey continued)
16) Being a perfectionist while writing my dissertation 1 2 3 4 5
became a handicap/barrier to my progress
sometimes resulted in writer’s block
sometimes gave me time to clear my mind
17) My self-esteem 1 2 3 4 5
grew when I received emotional or motivational support
grew as I met my planned dissertation progress deadlines
grew when my adviser gave me positive feedback about my progress
dipped when I felt isolated or alone during the dissertation process
18) During the dissertation process 1 2 3 4 5
I felt I had control over my ability to complete tasks involved in research and writing
I felt powerless about my progress at times
I felt confident that I could finish my dissertation and graduate
I felt rebellious sometimes due to the workload or stress to meet deadlines
I procrastinated about writing sometimes
I made sure I had my materials and work area prepared when I went to write
19) My spouse/significant other/domestic partner (primary relationship) 1 2 3 4 5
gave me time to write by helping with household tasks or the children
imposed demands on my time that took time away from my writing
recommended I leave doctoral studies because it was taking up all my time
20) Sometimes my dissertation progress was slowed because I (Check all that apply)
__ did not have a formal plan or structure to follow
__ did not always know what to do next
__ had health issues to deal with (diabetes, allergies, migraines, etc)
__ am disabled and it was uncomfortable/painful to sit and write for long periods
__ had mental health factors (managing stress, anxiety, depression, bi-polar, etc)
__ have a learning disability
__ created handicaps/barriers for myself by not sticking to my writing schedule
1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neutral 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree
21) I felt a sense of connection or community with 1 2 3 4 5
no one from the university
peers, a peer group, or other dissertation writers
faculty in my discipline
my adviser/dissertation chair
community/ies of practice or professional organizations in my discipline
[Appendix C. Long Survey continued next on page]
243
Appendix C (Long Survey continued)
22) During the dissertation process a sense of community, community/ies of
practice, or feeling connected
1 2 3 4 5
made me feel less isolated
gave me a way to vent my frustration
helped me through times when I got stuck
1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neutral 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree
23) I developed coping mechanisms to finish my dissertation such as (Check all that apply)
__ spending time with my friends or family
__ daily exercise
__ venting my frustration about research or writing with other dissertation writers
24) I considered leaving school after reaching ABD/candidacy because
(Check all that apply)
__ there was no sense of community on campus for ABDs/dissertation writers
__ I needed a break from the dissertation process
__ I could not obtain federal student loans
__ I no longer received a fellowship, scholarship, assistantship, or dissertation grant
__ my employer gave me an ultimatum: dedicate myself to work or school
__ I became unemployed
__ my employer no longer helped pay for tuition or materials
25) I found out about this study from (Check all that apply) Yes No N/A
another student, friend, adviser/faculty
a Facebook posting, blog, or group discussion
a LinkedIn posting, blog, or group discussion
a Tumblr posting or blog
a Twitter posting or blog
a Yahoo posting, blog, or group discussion
26) Gender: ___ female ___ male ___ decline to state
27) Your age at graduation/PhD completion: ____ ___ I cannot remember
___decline to state ___ I have not graduated yet ___ I left school before graduating
[Appendix C. Long Survey continued next on page]
244
Appendix C (Long Survey continued)
28) What is your ethnicity/race? (Check all that apply)
__ Asian / Asian-American
__ Black / African-American
__ Latino / Hispanic
__ White / European-American
__ Middle Eastern
__ Native American/Pacific Islander
__ Unknown
__ Other (optional: specify type of ethnicity if
you choose) ______________________
29) Please check the category that best describes your current educational status (Check one)
__ currently working on my dissertation
__ finished my dissertation and attained a PhD, PsyD, EdD, or other doctorate
__ left studies after reaching ABD/candidacy, but before I finished my dissertation
30) I attend, or attended, doctoral studies (Check all that apply)
__ at a private college or university
__ at a public/state college or university
__ through traditional on-campus coursework (you might have taken an online course)
__ primarily through distance education/online classes
31) I had an exit interview when
__ I completed my doctoral degree
__ I left doctoral studies before finishing my dissertation
__ I have not had an exit interview because I am not finished with my dissertation
32) I have been/was an ABD/doctoral candidate for
__ years __ months and I am still working on my dissertation(Can be approximated)
__ years __ months when I left doctoral studies (Can be approximated)
__ years __ months when I received my PhD (Can be approximated)
33) Doctoral degree you attained, still working on, were enrolled in:
__ EdD
__ PhD
__ PsyD
__ JD
__ other. Please specify (optional) _____________
34) Employment status while you were/are completing your dissertation
__ full time
__ part time
__ unemployed
__ on disability/disabled
__ Other (optional) __________________________
[Appendix C. Long Survey continued next on page]
245
Appendix C (Long Survey continued)
35) Please list the things that have helped you most along the way to your PhD. ____________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
36) Please list the things that have been most difficult in completing the PhD. ______________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
[Appendix C. End of Long Survey]
246
Appendix D
(Short Survey Consent Form)
AGREEMENT TO PARTICIPATE IN
Factors Related to Dissertation Completion Survey 2
STUDY LEADERSHIP. You are being asked to take part in a research project headed by Gail E. Cugno,
MLIS, MAWS, Doctoral Candidate a graduate student at Claremont Graduate University who is being
supervised by Professor David Drew in the School of Educational Studies.
PURPOSE: The purpose of his study is to find factors that enable or inhibit dissertation completion in all
but dissertation (ABD) students or doctoral candidates.
ELIGIBILITY: To be in this study, you are or were one of the following:
(a) an ABD or doctoral candidate currently writing your dissertation
(b) did not complete your dissertation after reaching ABD or doctoral candidate status and left doctoral
studies temporarily or permanently (between 2009 to 2013)
(c) you completed a dissertation between 2009 to 2013
PARTICIPATION: During the study, you will be asked to complete an online questionnaire that will take
approximately 15 minutes. You will be asked questions about factors that enabled or inhibited completion
of your dissertation.
RISKS OF PARTICIPATION: The risks you run by taking part in this study are minimal. The risks could
include scheduling time to take the survey, sitting at a computer for approximately 15 minutes, using an
online format to complete the survey. Another possible minimal risk could be recalling past events related
to the dissertation process.
To minimize or alleviate the level of risk you might experience the researcher has created an email
address to help you resolve any technical issues or questions: CugnoDissSurvey@aol.com
– Survey technical support will be contacted on your behalf to help resolve your issue as soon as
possible
BENEFITS OF PARTICIPATION: We do not expect the study to benefit you personally. However, you
may benefit from being able to voice your opinion about what enabled or inhibited your dissertation
completion.
The results from this study could possibly benefit future ABDs or doctoral candidates by informing
colleges and universities in the creation of workshops, courses, or other interventions to enable
dissertation completion. Another possible benefit is that this study could add to the body of knowledge in
the field of educational studies.
COMPENSATION: Compensation is being offered in the form of a drawing among participants who
complete the questionnaire and request entry. Compensation consists of three Amazon.com gift cards
given away in the following amounts: $20.00, $15.00, and $10.00. Drawings for Amazon gift cards will
be made 30 days after close of the survey. You may enter the drawing by putting an email address on the
signature line of the consent form instead of only initialing it to confirm your consent to participate in the
survey. We gather no information that personally identifies you in order to protect your privacy. The
email address you enter will only be used as an entry into the drawing and for no other contact with you.
[Appendix D. Short Survey Consent Form continued next on page]
247
Appendix D (Short Survey Consent Form continued)
Amazon.com Drawing: Each email address given to request entry will be assigned a number. The number
will be placed into a box and 30 days after the survey has closed, three numbers will be drawn. The first
number drawn will be for the $10.00 gift card, the second number drawn will be awarded the $15.00 gift
card, and the third number drawn will be awarded the $20.00 gift card. Each winner will be notified by
email of their prize and how to redeem it on Amazon.com.
VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary.
You may refuse to answer any particular question for any reason or stop or withdraw from the study at
any time without it being held against you. Your decision whether or not to participate will have no effect
on your current or future connection with your college or university or CGU.
CONFIDENTIALITY: Your individual privacy will be protected in all papers, books, talks, posts, or
stories resulting from this study. We may share the data we collect with other researchers, but we will not
reveal your identity with it. In order to protect the privacy and confidentiality of your responses, all
surveys will be assigned a number. The same number will be assigned to this consent form so your name
will not be associated with your survey.
Your anonymous survey data will be stored in a dedicated storage area on the secure site of the online
survey company and will only be accessible to this researcher. Once the survey closes, your data will be
downloaded by the researcher and deleted from the secure site. The researcher will keep your survey data
for a period no longer than five years on a dedicated external hard drive stored in a locked file box for
possible future data analysis.
FURTHER INFORMATION: If you have any questions or would like additional information about this
study, please contact Gail Cugno at CugnoDissSurvey@aol.com or P. O. Box 787, Claremont, CA.
91711. You may contact the project supervisor, Professor David Drew at (909) 621-8075 in the School of
Educational Studies, at Claremont Graduate University.
The CGU Institutional Review Board has approved this project. You may contact the CGU Board with
any questions or issues at (909) 607-9406, irb@cgu.edu, or at Claremont Graduate University, Harper
Hall Room 152, 150 East Tenth St, Claremont, CA 91711. If you would like a copy of this form or the
survey instructions, I will be happy to send you a copy via email. Please type in your email address on the
following page. Your email address will not be revealed anywhere where you could be identified, and it is
not associated or linked to your survey questionnaire.
CONSENT: Your initials below mean that you understand the information on this form, that someone has
answered any and all questions you may have about this study, and you voluntarily agree to participate in
it. Initials below act as your digital signature to consent to participate in this study. If you wish to be
entered into the Amazon.com gift card drawing, please put your email address below so you can be
entered into the drawing and receive notification if you are a winner.
Continue to question #1 below to initial your consent, and provide an email address if you would like the
survey results, or to be entered in the drawing for an Amazon.com gift card.
[Appendix D. Short Survey Consent Form continued next on page]
248
Appendix D (Short Survey Consent Form continued)
1) Put your initials in the space below to consent to the study, and put your email address in the space if
you want study results, or enter the Amazon.com gift card drawing
Please put your initials here to “sign” the consent form and put the date you signed (example:
05/25/14) _____________________________
Please put your email address here if you would like a copy of the results of this study
_____________________________
Please put your email address here if you would like to be entered into the Amazon.com gift card
drawing _____________________________
[Appendix D. End of Short Survey Consent Form]
249
Appendix E
(Short Survey 26 Questions)
Dissertation Completion Factors Survey – 2
1) QUESTION 1: Qualtrics makes the line to initial consent count as #1
2) What is/was your discipline/subject area? (Specify such as Education, Psychology, Business, and so
on):________________________________
3) What is/was your dissertation topic? ____________________________________
4) I chose my dissertation topic (Check all that apply)
__ after completing all doctoral coursework
__ because I always knew what I wanted my topic to be
__ because one of my professors suggested one
__ because my adviser suggested one
__ but my adviser made me modify or change my topic
__ but my adviser made me accept her/his choice of topic
If you have not completed your dissertation, please skip question 4 below
1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = agree 4 = strongly agree
5) My doctoral training/socialization helped me complete my dissertation because I
learned
1 2 3 4
how to create a good plan or schedule for research and writing
write a dissertation (writing quality, structure, outline, organization)
integrate my skills, previous knowledge, or background to accomplish my writing goals
about peer tutors for dissertation writers
about the writing center
about free workshops/seminars that taught how to write a dissertation (such as writing
quality, structure, outlines, organization)
about student-faculty social gatherings to discuss dissertation topics or progress
No = no responsibility Some = some responsibility Major = major responsibility
6) Who should be responsible for socialization/enculturation into the
dissertation process?
No Some Major
the student
peers, a peer group, or other dissertation writers
faculty in our discipline
an advisor/dissertation chair
doctoral coursework
doctoral studies workshops or seminars
[Appendix E. Short Survey continued next on page]
250
Appendix E (Short Survey continued)
7) My adviser (Check all that apply)
__ was assigned to me when I entered doctoral studies
__ stayed in contact with me via email or telephone
__ only stayed in contact with me when I initiated it
__ did not return my emails or telephone messages
__ met with me in person through regularly scheduled meetings/appointments
__ had a heavy workload and did not have the time available to be a mentor to me
__ became my dissertation chair
__ left the university before I finished my dissertation
1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = agree 4 = strongly agree
8) I felt my adviser/dissertation chair was caring because he/she 1 2 3 4
made me feel less isolated because he/she stayed in touch with me
encouraged me to ask questions about my dissertation or the process
helped me set research and writing goals
was a mentor to me
got to know some things about me on a personal level
9) I considered leaving school because my adviser/chair made me feel marginalized or
oppressed (Check all that apply)
__ for being female
__ for being male
__ for being an older student
__ for being a physically challenged or disabled
__ for being gay, lesbian, transgender, transsexual, or bi-sexual
__ for being ethnically or racially different than him/her
__ for my religious or spiritual beliefs
10) I got stuck during the dissertation process (Check all that apply)
__ during the transition from coursework to the dissertation process
__ but found my own ways to get past it and make progress
__ because I felt hopeless at times
__ sometimes because the amount of work was depressing
__ because I was not taught/socialized about all of the tasks involved (such as writing a consent form,
recruitment or participant cover letter)
1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neutral 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree
11) I was pessimistic about completing my dissertation at times because 1 2 3 4 5
I did not receive motivational or emotional support
I let things distract me from my writing schedule (self-handicapping)
[Appendix E. Short Survey continued next on page]
251
Appendix E (Short Survey continued)
12) Being a perfectionist while writing my dissertation 1 2 3 4 5
became a handicap/barrier to my progress
sometimes resulted in writer’s block
sometimes gave me time to clear my mind
13) My self-esteem 1 2 3 4 5
grew when I received emotional or motivational support
grew as I met my planned dissertation progress deadlines
grew when my adviser gave me positive feedback about my progress
dipped when I felt isolated or alone during the dissertation process
14) During the dissertation process 1 2 3 4 5
I felt I had control over my ability to complete tasks involved in research and writing
I felt powerless about my progress at times
I felt confident that I could finish my dissertation and graduate
I felt rebellious sometimes due to the workload or stress to meet deadlines
I procrastinated about writing sometimes
I made sure I had my materials and work area prepared when I went to write
1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neutral 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree
15) During the dissertation process a sense of community, community/ies of
practice, or feeling connected
1 2 3 4 5
made me feel less isolated
gave me a way to vent my frustration
helped me through times when I got stuck
16) I found out about this study from (Check all that apply) Yes No N/A
CGU student or alumni email
another student, friend, adviser/faculty
a Facebook posting, blog, or group discussion
a LinkedIn posting, blog, or group discussion
a Tumblr posting or blog
a Twitter posting or blog
a Yahoo posting, blog, or group discussion
17) Gender: ___ female ___ male ___ decline to state
18) Your age (Can be approximated)
now while I am still working on my dissertation ___ years
when I left doctoral studies ___ years
when I received my PhD ___ years
___ decline to state
[Appendix E. Short Survey continued next on page]
252
Appendix E (Short Survey continued)
19) What is your ethnicity/race? (Check all that apply)
__ Asian / Asian-American
__ Black / African-American
__ Latino / Hispanic
__ White / European-American
__ Middle Eastern
__ Native American/Pacific Islander
__ Unknown
__ Other (optional: specify type of ethnicity if
you choose) ______________________
20) Please check the category that best describes your current educational status (Check one)
__ currently working on my dissertation
__ finished my dissertation and attained a PhD, PsyD, EdD, or other doctorate
__ left studies after reaching ABD/candidacy, but before I finished my dissertation
21) I attend, or attended, doctoral studies
__ at a private college or university
__ at a public/state college or university
__ Other. Please explain _____________________________
22) The type of program I attend or attended
__ through traditional on-campus coursework (you might have taken an online course)
__ primarily through distance education/online classes
__ Other. Please explain _____________________________
23) Doctoral degree you attained, still working on, were enrolled in:
__ EdD
__ PhD
__ PsyD
__ JD
__ other. Please specify (optional) _____________
24) Employment status while you were/are completing your dissertation
__ full time
__ part time
__ unemployed
__ on disability/disabled
__ Other (optional) __________________________
25) Please list the things that have helped you most along the way to your PhD.
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
26) Please list the things that have been most difficult in completing the PhD.
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
[Appendix E. End of Short Survey]
253
Appendix F
Open-Ended Responses Placed in Four Groups then Categorized by Topic
1) Helped Institutional Table HI-1. Institutional-based things that helped with completion
2) Helped Personal Table HP-1. Personal-based things that helped with completion
3) Difficult Institutional Table DI-1 Institutional-based things that made completion
difficult
4) Difficult Personal Table DP-1 Personal-based things that made completion difficult
Table HI-1. Please list the things that have helped you most along the way to your PhD (Helped
Institutional)
Helped Institutional
Classroom Faculty (frequency 5)
▪ outstanding professors in some key classes
(mABD)
▪ thought provoking classes that encourage self-
reflection (mABD)
▪ exploration of topics via classes & discussions that
became foundation for dissertation (mABD)
▪ outstanding instructors displaying a level of
understanding & excellence not found in all
universities (mABD)
▪ support, advice, progress while taking classes
(fABD)
Institutional (services) (frequency 5)
▪ getting organized via faculty diversity
development workshops (fABD)
▪ research boot camp (fABD)
▪ having proper deadlines & schedule (fABD)
▪ rubric w/specific details requirements for each
chapter (fPhD)
▪ personal learning network & community of
practice on campus, in the field, with professional
associations (fPhD)
Faculty (frequency 4)
▪ faculty encouragement (fABD, fPhD)
▪ mentorship & support from faculty (mostly on
committee, and off it) (mPhD)
▪ incredibly supportive faculty members (fABD)
Peers/Cohort (frequency 8)
▪ Cohort at beginning of program (mABD)
▪ dissertation support group of peers facilitated by
faculty member (fABD)
▪ peer support [unspecified] (fABD, fABD, mPhD)
▪ discussed research with peers – helped with
writer’s block (fPhD) – gave moral support
(fPhD)
▪ great students (fABD)
[Appendix F. Table HI-1 Helped Institutional continued next page]
254
Appendix F (Table HI-1 continued)
Open-Ended Responses Placed in Four Groups then Categorized by Topic (continued)
Table HI-1 (continued). Please list the things that have helped you most along the way to your
PhD (Helped Institutional)
Helped Institutional
Adviser Support/Help (frequency 14)
▪ adviser [not specific] (fABD)
▪ receiving help from advisor/dissertation chair
(fABD)
▪ having great/understanding dissertation chair
(fABD)
▪ support from dissertation adviser (fPhD)
▪ extremely supportive advisor w/regular meetings
(fPhD)
▪ consistent meeting with chair (mPhD)
▪ finally getting committee chair that wants to work
with me (mABD)
▪ a dedicated & interested dissertation chair – found
after 2 dissertation chair failures (mABD)
▪ in-depth feedback from supervisor (mPhD)
▪ read chapters & gave in-depth feedback that built
confidence (fPhD)
▪ being able to contact chair via text message or
other form of quick communication – Email
w/chair (mPhD)
▪ chair computer savvy (mPhD)
▪ chair able to provide efficient editing using MS
Word track changes function (mPhD)
▪ extremely critical adviser in the end the approach
helped create a quality final product (fPhD)
Committee (frequency 2)
▪ finding a committee member outside home
campus (fABD)
▪ getting toxic committee member off committee
(fABD)
Funding (frequency 7)
▪ Scholarship funding (mPhD)
▪ university help with financial aid (mABD)
▪ research funding – didn’t have to teach or take out
loans to pay expenses (fPhD)
▪ awarded research grant based on dissertation
proposal great financial support while working
on dissertation (fPhD)
▪ paid for travel to conferences and research
(fABD)
▪ advance notice saves time applying or locating
funding sources (fABD)
▪ gives time write rather than work (fABD)
[Appendix F. Tables HP-1, DI-1, DP-1 continued next page]
255
Appendix F (Table HP-1)
Open-Ended Responses Placed in Four Groups then Categorized by Topic (continued)
Table HP-1. Please list the things that have helped you most along the way to your PhD (Helped
Personal)
Helped Personal
Spouse/Partner/Significant Other (frequency 7)
▪ spouse (fABD, fPhD)
▪ boyfriend (2 fABD)
▪ partner (fPhD)
▪ partner expecting baby (mPhD)
▪ fiancé (fABD)
Family (frequency 8)
(4 fABD, 3 fPhD, mPhD)
Friends (frequency 5)
▪ in general (2 fABD, 2 fPhD)
▪ from church (fPhD)
Personal Internal (frequency 13)
▪ faith in God helped (2 fABD)
▪ commitment to excellence (mABD)
▪ flexibility (fABD)
▪ determination (fABD)
▪ willingness (fABD)
▪ consistency (fABD)
▪ perseverance (mABD)
▪ self motivation (mPhD)
▪ believing in self (fPhD)
▪ just my will (fPhD)
▪ self-care is a must (fABD)
▪ three therapists (fABD)
Personal Structure/Routine (frequency 8)
▪ scheduling time to work (2 fABD, mPhD)
▪ remembering to stay focused by making notes
to myself (fABD)
▪ accomplishing a list of “things to do” during
time set aside to write (fABD)
▪ routine waking up early (fPhD)
▪ narrowing research focus to a manageable scope
(mPhD)
▪ using coursework, conference papers, &
publications to develop dissertation ideas
(mPhD)
Outside Help (frequency 9)
▪ Sistah Docs – student-organized fellowship of
black female PhD students/junior faculty helped
find writing partner/develop community around
dissertation (fABD)
▪ making as many contacts with community
groups as possible interested in topic (fABD)
▪ a therapist who gave good practical tips – the
way I was working was not working (fPhD)
▪ a book I picked up about writing a qualitative
dissertation (fPhD)
▪ hired dissertation Coach (2 fABD)
▪ hired a dissertation coach that also served as a
mentor (fABD)
▪ hired editors (fABD), found fantastic editor
(mABD)
[Appendix F. Table HP-1 Helped Personal continued next page]
256
Appendix F (Table HP-1 continued)
Open-Ended Responses Placed in Four Groups then Categorized by Topic (continued)
Table HP-1 (continued). Please list the things that have helped you most along the way to your
PhD (Helped Personal)
Helped Personal
Motivation (frequency 13)
▪ support system (not specific/ambiguous) (fABD,
fPhD)
▪ extremely passionate about topic – what I have to
say is important & meaningful intellectual
contribution to my field (fPhD)
▪ dedication to meaningful dissertation on
something that matters (mABD)
▪ job burn out – wanting to change careers greatest
incentive (fPhD)
▪ my age helped to remain focused degree
completion in as short of time as possible (fABD)
▪ non-helping nature of people help me to grow my
energy level (fABD)
▪ my church prayed, fed, listened to me (fABD)
▪ previous published writing experience (fABD),
(mPhD)
▪ love to learn, I know I can do it, because I
maintained a 4.0 during MBA (fABD)
▪ Sisters of the Academy was first lifeline (fABD)
▪ sorors, past mentors & professors & women
(insight & support) (fABD)
Diversions (frequency 2)
▪ PS3 (mPhD)
▪ baseball (mPhD)
Financial (frequency 5)
▪ had financial support (fABD)
▪ research grant (fPhD)
▪ unemployment (checks) (fPhD, mPhD [not
having to work lessened stress]
▪ paid time off from work to dedicate long chunks
of time to write (fABD)
Social Networks/Web Sites (frequency 6)
▪ web site PhinisheD invaluable (fPhD)
▪ LinkedIn Group- PhD careers outside academia
(fABD)
▪ Monday Motivator emails (fABD)
▪ social networks online (Twitter, blogging, etc.)
(2 fPhD)
▪ Google scholar (mPhD)
Non-School Dissertation Writers/Peers
(frequency 8)
▪ networking with other doctoral students &
others who recently successfully defended
(fPhD)
▪ impromptu gatherings of other graduate
students (fPhD)
▪ writing dates w/colleagues also working on their
dissertation (fABD)
▪ other PhDs helped the most (fABD)
▪ friends doing PhD to talk to(fABD), a way to
vent/release the stresses of it all (fABD), friends
struggling commiserated about our troubles
(fABD, fPhD)
[Appendix F. Tables DI-1, DP-1 continued next page]
257
Appendix F (Table DI-1)
Open-Ended Responses Placed in Four Groups then Categorized by Topic (continued)
Table DI-1. Please list the things that have been most difficult in completing the PhD (Difficult
Institutional)
Difficult Institutional
Adviser/chair (frequency 35)
▪ feedback not timely (2 fABD, fPhD)
▪ ineffective (mABD)
▪ lack of feedback (fABD, mABD)
▪ no supervisor or professor to talk to (fPhD)
▪ no or lack of guidance (3 fABD, fPhD)
▪ mentorship non-existent (fABD)
▪ unsupportive (fABD, fPhD)
▪ non-responsive to email for help or responsive in
general (fABD)
▪ unfamiliar with qualitative research (fPhD)
▪ unfamiliar with topic (fPhD)
▪ unfamiliar with dissertation process (fPhD)
▪ neglectful (fABD)
▪ toxic (fABD)
▪ abusive (fABD)
▪ controlling (fABD)
▪ treated like I was a disturbance (fABD)
▪ caused burnout (fABD)
▪ struggled with (fPhD)
▪ petty politics (fPhD)
▪ demoralizing (fPhD)
▪ marginalized females (fABD)
▪ made staying in program a struggle (fABD)
▪ students under advisor withdrew (fABD)
▪ change/transfer of (fPhD)
▪ 4th chair assigned work on dissertation that was
unnecessary (mABD)
▪ had multiple chairs (2 mABD)
▪ not sure assigned adviser (mABD)
Processes, procedures (frequency 20)
▪ institutional priorities placed above students
(fPhD)
▪ response time institution/department gave to
advisers (fABD)
▪ response time institution/department gave to
committee (fABD, mPhD)
▪ two chair review required by institution /
department needed (fABD)
▪ no guidance [unspecified] (2 fABD)
▪ lack of guidance [not specified] (fABD)
▪ lack of guidance writing dissertation [not
specified] (fABD)
▪ poor departmental support (fABD)
▪ left students to find own way (mABD)
▪ school system & structure too lengthy to finish
in timely manner (fABD)
▪ professors left institution-loss of important
relationships (fABD)
▪ dismissed from school after dissertation research
and analysis done (mABD)
▪ loss or lack of cohort (2 mABD)
▪ loss or lack of student community (mABD)
▪ marginalized by school and/or department
(fABD)
▪ no seminars how to be doctoral student (fPhD)
▪ forms, paperwork to fill out (graduation) (fPhD)
[Appendix F. Table DI-1 Difficult Institutional continued next page]
258
Appendix F (Table DI-1 continued)
Open-Ended Responses Placed in Four Groups then Categorized by Topic (continued)
Table DI-1 (continued). Please list the things that have been most difficult in completing the PhD
(Difficult Institutional)
Difficult Institutional
Transition coursework to dissertation
(frequency 2)
▪ dealing with transition (mPhD)
▪ was not prepared for transition – disastrous
(mABD)
Unprepared: for dissertation research,
writing, progress (frequency 4)
▪ no writing preparation through coursework
(fABD)
▪ no research preparation through coursework
(fABD, fPhD)
▪ no dissertation study guide (fABD)
Dissertation Committee (frequency 4)
▪ lack of support (fABD)
▪ no guidance (fPhD)
▪ modified dissertation completion based on grant
fulfillment (fPhD)
▪ no structured support (in general) (mABD)
Student employment (frequency 4)
▪ uncertainty of funding diverts time to find
sources of money (fABD)
▪ difficult fieldwork (fPhD)
▪ high workload given by faculty/adviser (fABD,
fPhD)
[Appendix F. Table DP-1 continued next page]
259
Appendix F (continued)
Open-Ended Responses Placed in Four Groups then Categorized by Topic (continued)
Table DP-1. Please list the things that have been most difficult in completing the PhD. (Difficult
Personal)
Difficult Personal
Personal Skills (frequency 5)
▪ lack of confidence that original work is valid
and valuable (fABD)
▪ feeling that cannot contribute to the topic any
further (fABD)
▪ develop a study that would fit dissertation
completion schedule (mABD)
▪ very difficult to develop a writing habit (fPhD)
▪ reading and researching literature to write
chapter two (mPhD)
Writing/Research (frequency 4)
▪ long time spent on one topic (mPhD)
▪ compiling research data tedious and
discouraging (mPhD)
▪ analysis and statistics (fABD)
▪ getting participants (fPhD)
Time (frequency 7)
▪ work/life balance for career, family, school
(2 fABD, fPhD, mPhD)
▪ no time to self (fABD)
▪ other people’s work a deterrence (fABD)
▪ time spent working (for money needed) takes
away from time for dissertation (fABD)
Family (frequency 11)
▪ commitments, obligations, issues, children
(4 fABD, 2 fPhD)
▪ a sick mother (fABD)
▪ father passed away unexpectedly (fABD)
▪ spouse (2 fABD)
▪ ended long term relationship (traumatic) (fPhD)
Personal Internal (frequency 9)
▪ overwhelmed by amount of work (paralyzing)
causing despair that will not complete
dissertation (fPhD)
▪ writer’s block (fABD)
▪ lack of self-discipline and defined short-term
goals (fABD)
▪ high level uncertainty/stress personal life
(mABD)
▪ no self-care plan/consistent personal healthcare
(fABD)
▪ personal trauma and crises (fABD)
▪ dealing with (un)diagnosed depression (fABD)
▪ high stress can affect physical health (fABD)
▪ no one to talk to about topic to get positive or
negative feedback (fABD)
Isolated/Alone (frequency 3)
(fABD, mABD, fPhD)
Work/Employment (frequency 7)
▪ working full time (3 fABD, mABD)
▪ high level of uncertainty/stress at work (mABD)
▪ job demands: require travel, long hours (fPhD)
▪ changing jobs (mABD)
[Appendix F. Table DP-1. Difficult Personal continued next page]
260
Appendix F (Table DP-1 continued)
Open-Ended Responses Placed in Four Groups then Categorized by Topic (continued)
Table DP-1 (continued). Please list the things that have been most difficult in completing the
PhD. (Difficult Personal)
Difficult Personal
Money/Finances (frequency 4)
▪ limited funding (fABD)
▪ limited income/money (on unemployment)
(mPhD)
▪ debt (fABD)
▪ financially very tight while in school (fABD)
Outside assistance (frequency 1)
▪ not all dissertation coaches honest and can be
costly (fABD)
Environmental (frequency 3)
▪ negativity from fellow students that want this
topic (fABD)
▪ car accident, visa issues (fPhD)
▪ life interrupted by dissertation process (fABD)
Diversions (frequency 1)
▪ adopting a horse, medieval marshal arts (fABD)
[Appendix F. End of Tables HI-1, HP-1, DI-1, and DP-1]
261
Appendix G
Group Posts and Recruitment Texts
Examples of group posts or descriptions of group(s) stared by the researcher:
• this is a group for current ABD or doctoral candidates who are in the dissertation writing process or for
individuals who completed their dissertation from 2009 to current, or anyone that left doctoral studies
after reaching ABD/doctoral candidacy.
• I am an academic reference librarian that can help with references or in-text citations, or how to find
articles or books. I can answer questions in my group that others can read if they need help.
• this is a group for dissertation writers that want to ask questions or give answers to questions about
dissertation research or writing.
• when writing a dissertation questions might come up about the process, our progress, or how to
approach some of the tasks involved. Current “all but dissertation” (ABD) students or doctoral
candidates, and recent PhDs can network to discuss how they are managing or have managed issues
involved in writing a dissertation.
• this group is for current “all but dissertation” (ABD) students or doctoral candidates that want to share
their comments, concerns, and frustrations and we can network with each other or recent PhDs who can
offer their experience and comments.
• sharing our experiences can help others. Please feel free to join this group and share your experiences
about writing and researching for a dissertation.
• graduate students that are Doctoral candidates or all but dissertation ABD and are writing a dissertation.
Good Luck
• when writing a dissertation we may have questions about the process, our progress, and how to approach
some of the tasks involved. Feel free to post a question so someone in this group could offer help.
[Appendix G. Group Posts and Recruitment Texts continued on next page]
262
Appendix G (continued)
Group Posts and Recruitment Texts (Examples)
Recruitment text for LinkedIn, Facebook,
Tumblr, and Yahoo groups.
Recruitment text for Twitter, made in four
consecutive “Tweets” of 140 characters or
less.
You are invited to participate in this study if
you are currently writing a PhD dissertation,
recently completed a PhD (between 2009-
2013), or if you reached all but dissertation
(ABD) or doctoral candidate status but did not
finish your dissertation because you left
doctoral studies.
If you are interested in participating in this
research, please go to
www.qualtricsxxxxxxx.com.
USING TWO TWEETS BECAUSE WORD
COUNT LIMITED
My name is Gail Cugno and I invite you to
participate in a study on what enables or
inhibits dissertation completion. (First Tweet)
I am a doctoral student at Claremont Graduate
University & have prepared an online survey
that will take approximately 25 to 35 minutes.
(Second Tweet)
My name is Gail Cugno and I am doctoral
student in the School of Educational Studies at
Claremont Graduate University and I am
conducting a study on factors that enable or
inhibit dissertation completion.
The questionnaire is on an online survey site
and will take approximately 25 to 35 minutes
to complete.
If you are interested in participating in this
research, please go to
www.qualtricsxxxxxxx.com.
If you would like to participate on what
enables or inhibits dissertation completion go
to the online survey site
www.qualtricsxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.com.
Thank you (Third tweet)
Your privacy & the confidentiality of your
responses are protected. Your name will not be
on your survey or accessible to anyone.
[Appendix G. End of Group Posts and recruitment Texts]
263
Appendix H
Example of Search word/term checklist for SocNet sites and Types of doctorates
Search Term Checklist (Example of what was used when searching SocNets)
SocNet searched: ___________________________
Date Search Word/Term Yes No
PhD
Ph.D.
PsyD, Psy.D.
EdD, Ed.D.
JD, J.D.
ABD, A.B.D. (synonym)
All but Dissertation (synonym)
Dissertation
Doctorate
Doctoral (candidacy, candidate)
Dissatisfaction (doctoral, doctorate, PhD, ABD)
Dissertation (finished, unfinished, not finished, completion,
complete, completed, non-completion, not complete, incomplete)
Drop out, drop-out, dropout
Dropped out, dropped-out
Dropping out, dropping-out
Stop out, stop-out, stopout
Stopped out, stopped-out
Stopping out, stopping-out
[Appendix H. Continued on next page: Types of doctorates]
264
Appendix H (continued)
Example of Search word/term checklist for SocNet sites and Types of doctorates
Types of doctorates (Dr in this list stands for Doctor) PhD EdD
DLitt = Dr of Letters D.A. = Dr of Arts
STD = Dr of Sacred Theology D.Arts = Dr of Arts
Th.D. = Dr of Theology D.S.W. = Dr of Social Work
S.Sc.D. = Dr of Social Science D.B.H. = Dr of Behavioral Health
Sc.D. = Dr of Science Au.D. = Dr of Audiology
D.P.A. = Dr of Public Administration D.Min. = Dr of Ministry
D.P.H. = Dr of Public Health D.P.T. = Dr of Practical Theology
D.R.E. = Dr of Religious Education D.Th.P. = Dr of Practical Theology
D.S.W. = Dr of Social Welfare D.B.S = Dr of Biblical Studies
D.S.W. = Dr of Social Work DCompSci = Dr of Computer Science
D.Ed. = Dr of Education DSc.Comp = Dr of Computer Science
D.L.S. = Dr of Library Science D.C.S. = Dr of Computer Science
D.A. = Dr of Arts D.C.Sc. = Dr of Computer Science
D.A.S. = Dr of Applied Science D.Mus.A = Dr of Musical Arts
D.B.A. = Dr of Business Administration D.M.A. = Dr of Musical Arts
D.Env. = Dr of Environmental Science D.P.C. = Dr of Professional Counseling
D.Mgt = Dr of Management D.P.T. = Dr of Physical Therapy
D.B.A. = Dr of Business Administration PharmD = Dr of Pharmacy
D.H.A. = Dr of Health Administration D.P.A. = Dr of Public Administration
D.M. = Dr of Management
[Appendix H. End of Example of Search word/term checklist for SocNet sites and Types of
doctorates]
