Running head: COMMITTEE CHAIR REFLECTIONS 1

COACH the Journey: Committee Chair Reflections on Guiding Doctoral Students

Abstract

Since 1976, online college-level education has significantly broadened access to higher education. A natural extension of the online model has been to offer doctoral level graduate programs. However, coaching students to achieve success in the doctoral studies is considerably more challenging than guiding them through their formal structured course work. The purpose of this phenomenological research study was to explore the lived experiences of doctoral chairs with ten or more years of demonstrated success guiding students through successful dissertations. These chairs were queried in order to discover practices, guidelines, and tips for assisting doctoral students. Participants were solicited from a unique online professorial group on a public website who had at least ten-years of experience as online doctoral chairs. The researchers’ questions invited comments in two areas: 1) From their perspectives as experienced dissertation committee chairs what essential actions, activities, and services helped insure doctoral students were successful completing dissertations? 2) What were the lived experiences of online doctoral chairs contributing to successful approved student dissertations? The researchers purposively selected a nonprobabilistic, convenience sample consisting of 11 experienced doctoral committee chairs to capture and understand the lived experiences of successful dissertation chairs. Three nodal themes were identified describing how online chairs helped students successfully complete dissertations. These were (1) by demonstrating empathy and support, (2) by teaching students how to plan and meet goals, and (3) by providing regular consistent communications. Three additional nodal themes described issues students faced completing their studies. These were (1) frustration and confusion cause by lack of face-to-face communications and student candor, (2) competition for student attention and time from students’ work commitments, and (3) students’ poor time and project management compounded by weak prioritization skills. The researchers summarized their findings with the COACH model (Cheer, Organize, Act, Communicate, and Help) of effective action.

Keywords: committee chair, reflections, qualitative, coaching, dissertation students, successful dissertations, The Exchange

COMMITTEE CHAIR REFLECTIONS 2

Introduction

The number of PhDs awarded has grown significantly over the years, particularly since WWII. The growth continued until 2010 when the data showed a flattening trend for males and an increasing trend for females (Chiswick, Larsen, & Pieper, 2010). May 2014 data from the National Science Foundation showed a 1.7% drop in US students but a 4.3% increase in foreign students (Heuer, Einaudi, & Kang, (2014). This increase in international students has been even more significant in other countries like the UK where the majority of doctoral students now come from Asia and especially from China (Huang, 2007). Unfortunately, along with the higher numbers of students enrolling in doctoral programs the attrition rate has also climbed. Several studies (Bair & Haworth, 1999; Bowen & Rudenstein, 1992; Chiswick et al., 2010; Council of Graduate Schools, 2008; Dorn & Papalewis, 1997; Lovitts, 2001; Marcus, 1997) indicated approximately 50% of students who enter doctoral programs drop out before earning their degree or completing their social goals (Griffin & Muniz, 2011, Maton et al., 2010). One discouraging article from the Chronicle of Higher Education (1995) reported the drop out percentage may be even higher and provided an estimate of 85% when every doctoral level program is considered.

Why Completing a Dissertation is a Problem Students in graduate courses undertaking dissertation studies have to make some

significant changes in well-practiced behaviors. After 20+ years of practice inside structured courses, dissertation students have to shift to a self-directed strategy much different from what they were used to following. The most significant changes include the shift from small, easily completed assignments to a single major project and to writing a challenging paper with open-ended parameters (Miller, 2009). In contrast to class papers with short deadlines, the dissertation has no clearly defined deadline. Instead there are “program completion dates” that are one, two, or three years distant. Dissertation classes are individual directed studies so many students also feel alone and isolated without company of classmates they had in previous courses. Finally, many students find it worrisome to shift from working class to class and putting aside the knowledge from each course to being responsible as a subject matter expert in their field. No longer do they get a “fresh start” every few weeks or semester, but now they have only one shot at a project that can be 1 to 3 years long (Lundgren & Orsillo, 2012). The next challenge is also new, how to begin to make a mark in the academic world (Rudestam & Newton). Doctoral students need to identify an engaging, meaningful “dissertation quality” topic that “contributes to the field.”

Dissertations are also a different approach to learning that requires successful students to accept responsibility, plan, and set their own goals (Rudestam & Newton, 1992). Along the way, students need to be self-starting, self-regulating, and goal-oriented (Kram, 1985). This project management requirement is another new experience for most students and something for which few have had training. In the process of managing their research project, students have to learn how to do research well. This means students also have to learn to design, conduct, and analyze research. Students must be professional, effective communicators of research results and be able to defend their findings and assertions. Final student concerns include managing the financial demands carefully so as not to become too indebted and to attend to work and family issues. These demands are not new but weigh heavily on doctoral students.

COMMITTEE CHAIR REFLECTIONS 3

A good deal of research has explored the degree process. Ali and Kohunm (2007) summarized much of this by identifying the following aspects of the degree process found in the literature:

Student development (Gardner, 2009) Student characteristics and responsibilities (Kluever, 1995) Departmental factors (de Valero, 2001; Nerad & Miller, 1997) Psycho-Social variables (Kluever, Green, & Katz, 1997; Golde & Dore, 2001) Support centers (West, Gokalp, Pena, Fischer, & Gupton, 2011) Relationship between dissertation chair and student (Gardner, 2009; Kluever, Green, &

Katz,1997)Gardner (2009) hypothesized the last paradigm above as the most critical predictor for graduate school success. The student-chair relationship is most commonly referred to as mentorship.

Mentoring can add a DimensionClark, Harden, and Johnson (2000) conducted a large (N =5,787) national survey of

mentorship in clinical psychology doctoral programs. They included PhD and PsyD graduates and assessed the students’ experiences with mentorships. Seventy-one percent of graduates of PhD programs had been mentored but only 56% of those from PsyD programs. The mentoring differences reported between females (65%) and males (71%) were not significant. However, the vast majority of recent graduates reported the gender of their mentor was male (62% vs. 38%). Most students reported mentoring improved their comfort levels and the quality of their work.

Many Graduate Students are SuccessfulWell over a million students have graduated from online institutions (Sheppard, Nayyar,

& Summer, 2000; U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). This success has resulted in faculty creating models and strategies supporting and improving both performance (Booth, Colomb, & Williams, 2003; Buckley & Delicath, 2013; Cennamo, Nielsen, & Box, 1992; Cone & Foster, 2006; Davis, & Parker, 1979; Oldfield, 1988; Watts, 2007) and attitudes (Miller, 2009) of students. For this paper, the researchers interviewed a number experienced online doctoral faculty. The goal was to collect and describe some of the approaches experienced doctoral faculty have found most useful when working with their students.

Problem Statement

Less than 2% of all United States citizens have advanced degrees (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). Doctoral students face a wide variety of barriers but the problem is that, when the education is online, the distractions of jobs and busy lives create barriers for working on a dissertation so great many students give up and become what is known as “all but dissertation” (ABD) (Wellington et al., 2005). So many students complete their classes and comprehensives but fail to complete their dissertations that ABD has become a standard identifier used with names similar to degrees earned. Today, institutions looking for doctoral level applicants to teach classes often find the majority of their applicants for Ph.D. level jobs do not have the degree but list instead that they are ABDs (Perlman, Marxen, McFadden, & McCann (1996). Many faculty attempt to warn and counsel students about the risks and realities of being ABD (Sheppard, Nayyar, & Summer, 2000). Estimates of the percentages of doctoral students who either do not continue their studies or who do not graduate, range from 40 to 50 percent

COMMITTEE CHAIR REFLECTIONS 4

(Chiswick et al., 2010; Lovitts, 2001). This is much higher than the 10 to 20 percent attrition for undergraduates (Chiswick et al.).

There is evidence, however, committee chairs for some online doctoral students demonstrate successful approaches and graduate more students with accepted dissertations. The researchers’ experiences indicated this is difficult or impossible without a working model and process. The models the authors each personally use are slightly different. These differences and the difficulties the authors have seen in new, inexperienced doctoral chairs as they suffer through a period of trial and error developing and refining their approaches over multiple students over several years inspired our interest. Unfortunately, little empirical research exists about the activities and actions of competent, successful dissertation chairs.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this empirical, transcendental phenomenological research study (Colaizzi, 1978; Georgi, 1985; Moustakas, 1994; van Kaam, 1966) was to explore the lived experiences of established, successful online doctoral chairs derived from providing dissertation related guidance to students who were successful completing their doctorates. Participants were doctoral committee chairs who had succeeded graduating many online doctoral students. We queried participants in order to discover practices, guidelines, and tips used when assisting doctoral students completing dissertations and graduating. Solicitation of participants was from a unique online doctoral faculty group who participate in a public dissertation chair website and who had at least ten-years of experience as online doctoral chairs. Describing and communicating the successful practices of experienced dissertation mentors may help less experienced mentors provide the kind of support that ensures students are successful and by doing this reduces the number of ABDs. We were also motivated by how this research informed our own practices as doctoral committee chairs.

Research Question

Three primary research questions guided this research:

What were the essential actions, activities, and services experienced and highly successful doctoral chairs used to help insure doctoral students successfully completed their dissertations?

What were the challenges online doctoral chairs faced when providing guidance and support to their doctoral dissertation students?

What were lived experiences of online doctoral chairs who contributed to successful approved student dissertations?

In addition, to coordinate our joint efforts during the interview phase of the research, we developed an interview protocol of questions designed to elicit the direct personal experiences and perceptions of the participating experienced doctoral chairs.

Method

COMMITTEE CHAIR REFLECTIONS 5

The researchers used a transcendental phenomenological approach. Because the three researchers were all doctoral chairs, a fresh perspective on doctoral mentoring was supported by bracketing personal experiences. Volunteer participants were solicited from members of an online doctoral mentor discussion forum selecting a sufficient number of participants to insure rich descriptive data. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Textural transcripts including the experiences with descriptions of the situational conditions were typed and analyzed independently by the three researchers as the interviews were completed. The data coding process was managed using NVivo10 with common access. Data reduction and pattern identification was through systematic review and thematic coding. This approach followed the leads of researchers like Bruyn (1966), Glaser (2005), and Omery (1983). Analysis focused on the experiences but not the psychology behind the experiences. The objective was to capture and describe the essence of the doctoral chairs’ experiences.

The analysis followed a Glaserian (2005) grounded theory approach to explore the emergent relationships in the conceptual framework used and described by experienced doctoral committee chairs. Based on social constructionism and social process analysis (Charmaz, 2006) this approach was appropriate for understanding the communications and other social exchanges between dissertation chairs and their students that led to dissertation successes. This was also the most common strategy identified by Patton (2002). This strategy was consistent with Guest, Bunce, and Johnson (2006). Who, in their effort to develop a general yardstick for saturation, found in their analysis of 60 interviews where 36 code categories were applied frequently, 34 (94%) were identified in only 6 interviews and 35 (97%) were identified in 12 interviews. From this they concluded “[i]f the goal is to describe a shared perception, belief, or behavior among a relatively homogeneous group, then a sample of twelve will likely be sufficient, as it was in our study” (p. 76). In addition, the consensus theory of Romney, Batchelder, and Weller (1986) predicted experts tend to agree with each other and small samples can provide accurate, complete information within a defined context.

A semi-structured interview protocol provided the chairs with the opportunity to describe their processes expressing their thoughts, perceptions, and insights. The interviews provided rich descriptions of the relationships and exchanges between doctoral chairs and their students. The researchers also planned for flexibility so new questions were asked as new areas of interest emerged during the interviews (Marshall & Rossman, 2006; Morse & Richards, 2002). Documentation of these questions, when used, was recorded in the research journals.

The researchers independently wrote composite descriptions of the essential, invariate structure to capture the phenomenon based on the common experiences of the successful doctoral mentors (van Manen, 1990). Several different and distinct but related phenomena required iteration to consensus by the researchers. Direct quotes were used where appropriate and clear.

The structures developed were compared in separate analyses conducted the three researchers; then, contrasted our in order to elaborate and validate the results through investigator triangulation (Guion, Diehl, & McDonald, 2011). Validation occurred when the three analyses were sufficiently similar and led to a common description. Writing the final description of the skills and practices of successful dissertation chairs used the integrated commentary.

COMMITTEE CHAIR REFLECTIONS 6

AssumptionsThe researchers expected different chairs would have varying life experiences and would

have developed their strategies in different ways. It was assumed there would be an essential structure to the activities of chairs with solid records of success and the structure could be identified from analyses of participants’ verbal descriptions. In addition, chair descriptions of student difficulties enabled identification of chair approaches to problems.

Definitions of TermsEssential structure of dissertation chairing. The architecture created and described by

experienced dissertation chairs and used by them to guide students to successful completion of their dissertations.

Experienced dissertation chair. Participants were experienced doctoral committee chairs (with at least 10 years of experience, M=13.05 years) who had successfully graduated many online doctoral students (M=25 students). The participants were volunteers solicited from a unique group of online professors in a public website.

Data saturation. Glaser and Strauss (1967) defined data saturation as the point in data collection where “no additional data are being found whereby the (researcher) can develop properties of the category. . . . When one category is saturated, nothing remains but to go on to new groups for data on other categories, and attempt to saturate these categories also” (p. 65). Guest, Bunce, and Johnson (2006) found in an analysis of 60 interviews where 36 code categories were applied frequently, 34 (94%) were identified in only 6 interviews and 35 (97% were identified in 12 interviews. From this they concluded “[i]f the goal is to describe a shared perception, belief, or behavior among a relatively homogeneous group, then a sample of twelve will likely be sufficient, as it was in our study” (p. 76). For this study, the researchers used a constant comparison method during coding to evaluate development of categorical nodes. Data saturation occurred when all three researchers agreed the most recent three interviews had not added any additional categories.

SampleThe nonprobabilistic, convenience sample consisted of 15 purposively selected,

experienced doctoral committee chairs known to the researchers or who were participants in a doctoral chair Internet discussion group. The participants represented a variety of institutions and varying years of doctoral chair experience. Because of the homogeneity of the sample, the researchers estimated 10-15 chairs would provide an adequate sample but suspended interviewing at 11 when all three researchers agreed the collected data had surpassed data saturation.

Data CollectionThe researchers solicited participants by a posting to the Internet group and asked

members to volunteer for a study exploring the activities and processes of successful dissertation chairs in an online environment. The researchers obtained written consent agreements and instructed all participants their comments would be anonymous but some comments might be included verbatim in the final report.

The researchers gave all volunteer participants the following verbal instructions:

COMMITTEE CHAIR REFLECTIONS 7

From your perspective as an experienced dissertation committee chair, what are the essential (helpful, inquiring, supportive, challenging) actions and activities contributing to successful results with your students?

As an online doctoral chair, what experiences have contributed to successful approved student dissertations?

What are the frustrations and problems your students have experienced that have created issues with their dissertations and how did you help your students address those?

Verbatim transcripts were prepared and validated with the participants.

Data HandlingThe researchers read, sorted, and collated the responses to the main questions into two

groups, positive comments and problem–frustration comments. The strategy followed the method developed by Colaizzi (1978) for phenomenological analysis. For each group, descriptive statements and meanings were aggregated into thematic clusters representing all the clusters identified in the chairs’ descriptions.

AnalysesWord Count and Wordle.™ The first process was to complete a word count and

Wordle (Feinberg, 2013) map of the combined participant responses for each question handled separately. The Wordle™ maps graphically represented the frequency with which words appeared in the comments of the chairs by using larger fonts for greater frequencies. This process helped identify key words for beginning the qualitative coding.

Semantria analysis. The researchers initially analyzed all the comments in the two composited groups, one for positive comments and one for problem-frustrating comments, using the Semantria logarithmic sentiment analysis scale (Lexalytics, 2014). The researchers also evaluated sentiment polarity (negative, neutral, or positive) and strength (scale 0-10) using the Semantria logarithmic sentiment analysis scale (Lexalytics).

The Semantria sentiment analysis builds clusters of metadata from multiple documents. Clusters created using categories, entities, themes, and sentiment provided a bird’s eye view of the content. Sentiment analysis calculated the contextual polarity of the text. It confirmed if the textual content analyzed was positive, negative, or neutral. Individual sentiment scores were built from scores of individual words or phrases and summed up to the entire document. For example, if a chair made the comment “I love working with students, but hate the grading in dissertation classes.” The individual scores for “love working with students” would be positive; for “hate grading in dissertation classes” would be negative. However, the sentiment for the entire comment would be neutral because the positive score for the first statement cancelled the negative score of the second.

The confidence score was an indicator specifying whether the confidence queries matched for a given entity. Evidence scores ranged from 1 to 7 and provided an indication of the amount of content contributing to the sentiment score. Empirically, the sentiment score was considered valid if evidence score was equal to or greater than 4 (Enterprise NLP in the cloud, n.d.). The researchers only considered themes meeting or exceeding this criterion. Color was added to indicate if the sentiment was positive (green), neutral (black), or negative (red). This process displayed the patterns of association between the codes emerged for analysis and study.

COMMITTEE CHAIR REFLECTIONS 8

NVivo10. The NVivo10 program supported the qualitative data coding and analysis.

Results

How Online Chairs Successfully Chair Doctoral Students to Finished DissertationsPositive comments. Responses judged positive were analyzed using Semantria’s

logarithmic sentiment analysis scale and yielded positive sentiment (+0.225). Nine themes emerged which contributed equally to the sentiment. Six of these had positive sentiment (personal experience, nonprivate information, important components, dissertation development, student succeeding, and prior knowledge). Three of the themes displayed neutral sentiment (excellent problem statement, particular barrier, and student face-to-face).

Wordle™ map. Figure 1 displays the Wordle™ pictogram of the frequencies and sentiment of key words in the positive comments.

Figure 1. Wordle™ pictogram of frequency and sentiment of key words in positive comments of experienced doctoral dissertation chairs describing their lived experiences guiding students to successful dissertations.

Theme 1: Online Chairs Successfully Chair Doctoral Students to Finish Dissertations by Demonstrating Empathy and Support

One hundred percent of the online chair participants mentioned how critical it was to show the online doctorate student that their chair cared deeply about their experiences as a student and wanted the student to successfully graduate. For example,

C1 found that empathy and caring are the two most critical factors to help students succeed online. C1 and C 4 waited for the students if life happened such as illness or family emergencies. Actions that helped students overcome barriers mentioned above by the chair were many. C1 picked up the phone, emailed, used social media to contact the student, and emailed. Sometimes C1 met with the student face-to-face at her house or other locations to help them over their particular barrier.

C2 demonstrated empathy by - sharing personal experiences from “when I was a doctoral student, normalizing the process by sharing non-private information regarding other doctoral students (for example, many think the dissertation development will go

COMMITTEE CHAIR REFLECTIONS 9

faster than it actually does).” C3 agreed adding that the chair is the cheerleader for the online doctoral student.

Theme 2: Online Chairs Successfully Chair Doctoral Students to Finish Dissertations by Teaching Students how to Plan and Meet Goals

Every online chair mentioned some aspect of assisting students to plan and meet goals that had the underlying theme of the online chair taking the time to be knowledgeable about designs, the university policies on dissertations, the timeline of completion, and keeping up with dissertation related university policy changes. For example,

C5 uses the SMART goals strategy. She coaches students to define Specific, Measurable, Achievable, and Relevant – Time based goals. The final component in C5’s strategy is follow-up. She regularly calls students for a follow-up discussion at the end of each class or each major section of a class. She asks students to evaluate (0n a scale of 1-10) where they were at the beginning of the class and then how far they raised their performance by the end. She concludes follow-up session by asking the student what small step they could take to move up a bit more on the scale in the weeks to come. C8 agreed,; C8 Timelines, plans, calendars, basically staying organized and having key deliverables outlined and adhered to throughout the process.

C9 felt this theme was so important that C9 found it difficult to be a Chair until “I fully informed myself of the university’s policies as they related to my mentee’s program. I wanted to be sure that I had the correct answers when asked, “When do I do what?” and “what is IRB all about” and “why is everything taking so long.” One of the biggest challenges I faced was to keep my mentees motivated while they were in the “waiting periods” i.e. IRB approval and final dissertation approval. “Bottom line, in order for me to have been a successful Chair, I feel I had to be the ‘scout’ in the process and sharing the information as I felt they were ready to absorb. I felt it was important not to share too much information at one time and overwhelm my mentees to the point where they could possibly ‘freeze.’

Theme 3: Online Chairs Successfully Chair Doctoral Students to Finish Dissertations with Regular Consistent Communication of all Types

Every online chair mentioned some aspect of making efforts to be in regular communication with doctoral students. The range ran from weekly conference calls to every other day emails. Some chairs used Skype, some used texting or Facebook, but every chair reached out to their students on at least a weekly basis to check their status and offer resources or help overcome whatever barrier the student was facing. For example,

C10 stated, “I see one of my roles as a Chair as making sure my mentees maintain integrity and staying on track regardless or outside influencers.” Participant said, “I do this by maintaining regular contact and by sharing information related to their topic as I come across it and find it in my readings.”

C7 agreed, saying it is critical to “Contact, contact, contact.  Again, I make myself available to students, perhaps too available at times.  During courses, I require a Skype conversation during the first week and in the last week.  I find great value being able to

COMMITTEE CHAIR REFLECTIONS 10

have face-to-face time with students.  I can oftentimes gauge their emotional stability during a Skype conversation and be able to respond in a way that provides them with more confidence.  The doctoral dissertation is a daunting task.  My doctoral program was from the University of Grenoble, France.  Whether it is around the world, or in another state, online learning students may tend to feel isolated without that face-to-face contact.  I believe that I am very successful with students, and very patient with some, but always demanding the highest level of academic excellence.

What Online Doctoral Chairs See as Student Barriers to SuccessProblem comments. Following the same process as for positive responses, analysis of

comments judged to be frustrating or problems using the Semantria logarithmic sentiment analysis scale yielded an overall neutral sentiment (+0.064). Ten themes emerged, all with level seven evidence contributing to the sentiment. Nine of these had negative sentiment (edited work, extreme emergencies, online student, working students, university processes, aggressive writing, brief therapy, special focus, and completed training). One of the themes displayed positive sentiment (monthly progress report).

Wordle™ map. Figure 2 presents the Wordle™ pictogram of the frequencies and sentiment for key words in the problem and frustration comments.

Figure 2. Wordle™ pictogram of frequency and sentiment of key words in frustrating and negative comments of experienced doctoral dissertation chairs describing their lived experiences guiding students to successful dissertations.

Nodal Theme 1: Online Doctoral Chairs Face Extreme Student Frustration and ConfusionRepeatedly, the online doctoral chairs reported how difficult it was in an online

environment to help with normal student frustration and confusion. The inability to sit face-to-face with the student worsens the frustration because it is difficult to show the student what is needed to get past whatever process has them stuck or the life barrier that is occurring. Unless the student voices a concern or describes a life situation, the chair has a delayed knowledge of the cause of the frustration that can quickly build to where the student simply gives up, leaves the program, and becomes all but dissertation (ABD). For example,

C5 has developed a special appreciation for the challenges faced by online students. Most juggle multiple roles being working adults as well as parents and full time students. Working with such students C5 has found it helpful to connect them with supportive resources like how-to tutorials, workshops, other online courses, and sometimes with

COMMITTEE CHAIR REFLECTIONS 11

experienced students. She also likes to refer students to appropriate books but is often disappointed when it appears they do not use the information although they claim to have read the books. She has found students who may not be making progress often find it hard to admit this. While some may leave the program, many continue to pay tuition and take classes hoping that somehow progress will happen. Some change schools looking for a easier path to the degree they seek.

C6 agreed, adding that “I think that students are most frustrated with the amount of time that it takes to successfully complete the process. Review times can be incredibly long, and multiple rounds of feedback can be exhausting for the student. I try to set realistic expectations for the student. And, I encourage the student to submit edited work for review, so that the focus of the review is solely on content, and not on format, etc.”

Nodal Theme 2: Online Doctoral Chairs Face Barriers Related to Students’ Work Commitments

Online chairs reported that in many cases, students left the program and did not complete their dissertation because of work related commitments. Unlike traditional universities where the doctoral student might assist in one graduate class, but spends most of their time working on the dissertations; most of the online doctoral students do not have the luxury of not producing an income at the same time as completing their advanced degree. Students face daily decisions to make work the priority or the dissertation, and the dissertation often is the loser. For example,

C7 found that students have trouble with time management.  Many students have challenges balancing time management commitments.  C7 noted that perhaps it is because students do not or have not undertaken a long-term project such as a doctoral dissertation.  Some students capitalize on these initiatives, yet others who succumb to other life issues, the doctoral dissertation will always take a backseat.  These are the students who seem to struggle, as they do not understand the dedication and commitment that is required for a doctoral level learner. 

Nodal Theme 3: Online Doctoral Chairs Face Student’s Lack of Understanding about Dedication and Time Commitments Needed to Produce a Dissertation

Almost every chair mentioned that a huge barrier that has to be overcome is the student’s realization that the student underestimated the time and dedication needed to successfully graduate with a completed dissertation. For example,

C6 stated that” I think that students are most frustrated with the amount of time that it takes to successfully complete the process. Review times can be incredibly long, and multiple rounds of feedback can be exhausting for the student. I try to set realistic expectations for the student. And, I encourage the student to submit edited work for review, so that the focus of the review is solely on content, and not on format, etc.

Summary of Findings and Implications-

The COACH Model to Help Chairs Overcome Barriers and Help Students Produce Dissertations

COMMITTEE CHAIR REFLECTIONS 12

Themes found in this research study were organized into the COACH model to help new and experienced online chairs assist online doctoral students maneuvering though the dissertation process and writing successful dissertations. Using the processes captured by the COACH model could reduce the number of online doctoral students who drop out of their dissertation studies and settle for an ABD instead of their doctoral degree. The following are the keys to success identified in descriptions of experienced successful doctoral committee chairs summarized as the COACH model:

C – Cheer. Provide support by listening and offering resourceful response.

O – Organize. Teach the student how to organize the project, define milestones to accomplish, and plan time management to complete the dissertation journey.

A – Act. Be the student’s advocate, provide resources, help students maneuver through organizational processes and policies.

C – Communicate. Take the initiative to stay in touch often and use a variety of means to ensure the student understands the message.

H – Help. Support students past life barriers, work barriers, and time commitment hurdles.

COMMITTEE CHAIR REFLECTIONS 13

References

Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (2003). The craft of research (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bruyn, S. R. (1966). The human perspective in sociology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Buckley, R., & Delicath, T. (2013). Dissertation and research success: Hands-on coaching for doctoral success before, during, and after your dissertation. Bloomington, IN: Xlibras Corporation.

Cennamo, K. S., Nielsen, M. C., & Box, C. (1992). Survivors guide to graduate research. Tech Trends for Leaders in Education and Training, 37(1), 15-18.

Chiswick, B. R., Larsen, N., & Pieper, P. (2010, December). The production of PhDs in the United States and Canada. IZA Discussion paper no. 5367. Retrieved from http://ftp.iza.org/dp5367.pdf

Clark, R. A., Harden, S. L., & Johnson, W. B. (2000). Mentor relationships in clinical psychology doctoral training: Results of a national survey. Teaching of Psychology, 27(4), 262–268.

Colaizzi, P. F. (1978). Psychological research as the phenomenologist views it. In R. Vaile & M. King (Eds.), Existential phenomenological alternatives for psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Cone, J. D., & Foster, S. L. (2006). Dissertations and theses from start to finish: Psychology and related fields (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Davis, M. S., & Parker, C. A. (1979). Writing the doctoral dissertation: A systematic approach. Woodbury, NY: Barron’s Educational Series.

Feinberg, J. (2013). Wordle™. (Computer program). Retrieved from http:// http://www.Wordle.net/

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine Publishing Company.

Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough?: An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18, 59-82. doi:10.1177/1525822X05279903

Heuer, R., Einaudi, P., & Kang, K. H. (2014, May). Foreign graduate enrollment in science and engineering continues to rise while overall graduate enrollment remains flat. NSF 14-313. Human Resources Statistics Program, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, National Science Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf14313/

COMMITTEE CHAIR REFLECTIONS 14

Huang, R. (2007). A challenging but worthwhile learning experience! Asian international student perspectives of undertaking a dissertation in the UK. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism, 6(1), 29-38. doi:10.3794/johlste.61.13

Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.

Lexalytics (2014). Semantria, Text analytics and sentiment analysis for everyone. Amherst, MA: Author. Retrieved from https://semantria.com/support/technology

Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure from doctoral study. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Lundgren, J. D., & Orsillo, S. M. (2012). The science and practice of mentoring in psychology doctoral training. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly, 26(3), 196-209.

Miller, A. B. (2009). Finish your dissertation once and for all! How to overcome psychological barriers, get results, and move on with your life. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

NVivo (Version 10) [Computer software]. Doncaster, Victoria, Australia: QSR International.

Oldfield, K. (1988). How to deal with some of the practical problems associated with writing a dissertation. College Student Journal, 22(3), 270-276.

Omery, A. (1983). Phenomenology: A method for nursing research. Nursing Research, 31(3), 49-63.

Perlman, B., Marxen, J. C., McFadden, S., & McCann, L. (1996). Applicants for a faculty position do not emphasize teaching. Teaching of Psychology, 23(2), 103–104.

Richards, L. G. (2014). Handling qualitative data: A practical guide (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Rudestam, K. E., & Newton, R. R. (1992). Surviving your dissertation: A comprehensive guide to content and process. Newbury Park, NJ: Sage Publications.

Sheppard, J. P., Nayyar, P. R., & Summer, C. E. (2000). Managing your doctoral program: A practical orientation. Production and Operations Management, 9(4), 414-437.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). Educational attainment in the United States: 2013 – Detailed tables. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/2013/tables.html

Watts, M. M. (2007). College: We make the road by walking (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Wellington, J., Bathmaker, A.-M., Hunt, C., McCulloch, G., & Sikes, P. (2005). Succeeding with your doctorate. London, UK: Sage.

COMMITTEE CHAIR REFLECTIONS 15

Author Information

Kim (Blum) Lowrey,  14119 Austin McComb Road, Montgomery TX 77316 email:  Kim.Blum@Phoenix.edu

Adjunct Doctoral Faculty at the School of Advanced Studies, University of Phoenix teaching research online, mentoring online chairs, faculty, and students in research and researching for the past 15 years.  Dr. Lowery researches on a variety of subjects, publishing ethnographic life satisfaction studies, retaining online higher education students, diversity, gender differences, and adult bullying.  Recently published research explored the lived experiences of Baby Boomers who were bullied in the workforce.

Kelley A. Conrad: 402 Genesee St. #201, Delafield, WI 53018 email:Kelley.Conrad@Phoenix.edu

Doctoral Program Faculty for I-O Psychology, School of Advanced Studies, University of Phoenix, has been teaching online for the University of Phoenix for the past twelve years -- online and at doctoral residencies. Dr. Conrad is a licensed psychologist in Wisconsin, a former consultant who was in private practice as an I/O psychologist for 35 years. He is the author of two books, chapters in three books, and a number of articles and presentations at professional conferences. Current research includes evaluating quality in online doctoral classes, effective teaching, skilled online library use, and course effectiveness.

Susanne Beier: 729 Rear North Main Street, Forest City, PA 18421email: SBeier@email.phoenix.edu

President, Beier Consulting Services, Adjunct Doctoral Faculty at the School of Advanced Studies, University of Phoenix, coaches and provides instructional support to SAS doctoral students. She has taught doctoral students online and at doctoral residencies, facilitated doctoral writing workshops for the past 10 years. She has served as Dissertation Chair to 20+ mentees. Dr. Beier is a Licensed Professional Counselor (Pennsylvania & New Jersey) and a Clinical Member - Forensic Counseling (specialties in Forensic Assessment & Evaluation, Child Custody Evaluation and Youthful Offender Counseling, Civil) and Diplomat -Senior Disability Analyst.