Pursuit of the Ph.D.: Is it good for your health?
Paper presented at the 4th International Multidisciplinary Qualitative Health Research Conference Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, February 19-21, 1998.
© 1998
Bobbi A. Kerlin, Ph.D.Abstract
Recent estimates indicate that in both the U.S. and Canada:
- upwards of 50% of doctoral students withdraw from their programs prior to completion of degree requirements;
- the time required to complete the doctorate has increased, on average, by two years over the past three decades.
Data on women's progress suggest that despite recent increased rates of enrollment in doctoral programs, women are taking longer to complete their degrees and withdrawing from doctoral programs at higher rates than men.
To understand the factors that influence women's degree progress a year long study was conducted in which women were interviewed via the Internet about their doctoral experiences. Grounded theory provided the framework for data analysis.
Among the significant findings was the overall impact of the doctoral experience on the women's health. Physical and mental health, particularly stress, and diminished and/or dysfunctional communication patterns in their relationships were significant factors related to degree progress.
The paper examines the findings of this study in the context of the author's ongoing research on graduate student education. Also discussed are the strategies and implications of conducting online qualitative inquiry with particular attention to privacy and security issues, building rapport-building and trust, self-disclosure, participant control, and participants' degree progress.
Abstract Background Methodology of the Study Pursuit of the Ph.D.: Factors that Impact on Health Introduction Individualistic Nature of the Process Financial Resources Paradigm Conflicts Departmental Climate Women's Challenges Advisor/Advisee Relationships Transformation and Recapitulation of Critical Life Issues Discussion References
Background
This paper is the product of my ongoing research over the past four years on graduate education, specifically doctoral studies. It focuses primarily on my dissertation research (Kerlin, 1997) in which I examined women's understandings of their doctoral experiences and the critical challenges they encounter along these journeys. My research was a response to calls in the literature for qualitative inquiry into the nature of the doctoral experience as it is understood by students themselves. Two factors identified that underpinned the need for this kind of research have been the increased rates of attrition from doctoral programs estimated to range from 40% to 60%, and the trend in recent years toward increased time required to compete the doctorate. Among the significant findings in my dissertation research was the often negative health outcomes that arose during pursuit of the doctorate. Physical and mental health, particularly stress, and diminished and/or dysfunctional communication patterns in women's relationships, both in an out of academe, were significant factors related to degree progress. This is the focus of this paper: the unanticipated and often unintended health consequences of pursuing the Ph.D.My research interests in graduate education date back to 1994 when a colleague and I started an electronic discussion list devoted to graduate studies, AERA-GSL (American Educational Research Association - Graduate Studies List). GSL is an open forum for graduate students (including prospective and former students), faculty, administrators, and academic researchers interested in contemporary graduate educational issues. In August of that same year, as the result of needs expressed to us privately through GSL, we initiated a private discussion group for graduate students only. We established the list as 'private' and not self-subscribing because we wanted to provide a supportive and safe environment in which graduate students could discuss and reflect on their experiences among their peers. Among the benefits of such a list is that students are able to compare their experiences with those of their peers and thereby deepen their understanding of the process and their own circumstances from a multiplicity of perspectives. Since we began this private list we have seen 33 students complete their degrees, including 9 master's degrees and 24 doctorates. For many graduate student list members who have left their institutions while still ABD (all but dissertation), this list has provided the kind of support and encouragement needed to complete the degree. Ultimately, my interest in graduate student issues led me to conduct my dissertation research in this area. It should be noted that all of the quotations of student voices in this paper have emanated from my dissertation research or from interviews I've conducted with students or former students subsequent to the dissertation. None of the quotes herein have been extracted from the archives of either discussion list. However, were someone to examine these archives it would be quite apparent that the issues students raise on the lists corroborate the veracity of the claims made by women in my dissertation research.
Methodology of the Study About the Method
The purpose of my dissertation research was to examine the nature of women doctoral students' experiences, the meanings women attach to these experiences, and through this knowledge to develop a better understanding of the factors that contribute to the persistence of women who pursue the doctorate. For a year and a half I used narrative inquiry via electronic mail to conduct open-ended interviews and to dialogue individually with women who committed to long term participation in my project. I first discussed the nature of my study and processes for maintaining the confidentiality of their identities and their communications with me. I framed the following five questions to initiate and guide the narratives.
As each of the women's stories progressed I responded to their notes, asking questions to probe for additional information, either in the details of the events they described or in their reflections about their experiences, for the purpose of seeking further clarification of my understandings. These exchanges were an on-going process for 18 months. I made every effort not to 'talk' or 'write' over the women's voices; as much as possible I encouraged them to write about what was meaningful to them without introducing issues I thought might have been important; I used their own language in my responses rather than terminology of my own and tried to encourage deeper levels of reflection and analysis without limiting or restricting their focus. I anticipated that as the narratives progressed some women might wish to assume a more conversational mode of interaction and in balancing my role as listener and conversationalist, I made every effort to be guided by the women's individual preferences.
- I would like to know what motivated you to do a doctorateð... why you wanted to do the degree in the first place.
- I'd like to know a little about your background ... how you came to be oriented to your field of study.
- Regarding your expectations of the doctoral experience, if you think back to the days before you entered your doctoral program, can you describe what the degree represented to you then and what you thought the process would be like?
- Now that you have progressed to the point you are in your program, in what ways have your views about the degree and the degree process changed?
- Please describe, in as much detail as possible, the story of your doctoral experience, giving particular attention to the critical events and challenges you have faced and the way in which these events have influenced your academic, professional and personal development.
The Role of the Researcher
Since beginning my research in late 1994, I have become quite close friends with the women who participated in my study. There were many times during our exchanges when I felt as if I was the one living the experiences they described. I felt their words as if they were my own and I often lived their fears and anxieties as if they too were mine. On three different occasions during my research, I was honoured when some of the women travelled from different points in the U.S. to western Canada to stay with me giving each of us an opportunity to deepen our friendships. Below I discuss some of the literature that guided me in the early stages of framing my research as I struggled to address issues of objectivity and subjectivity in my relationships with the participants.
Multiple interviews characterize much feminist research perhaps because multiple interview research helps form the strong interviewer-interviewee bonds some people define as characteristic of feminist research (Reinharz, 1992, p. 36).In structured interviews, particularly survey interviews, the traditional role of the researcher as interviewer has been one of an interested, but affectively detached observer who plays "a neutral role ... on the one hand, casual and friendly but, on the other hand directive and impersonal" (Fontana and Frey, 1994, p. 364, 367). However, in recent years feminist researchers have questioned whether such objectivity is even possible. Feminists also have questioned the underlying assumptions, ethics and authenticity of an interview paradigm that reflects masculine traits like detachment to the exclusion of feminine traits such as sensitivity and emotionality (Fontana and Frey, 1994, p. 367; 370). LeCompte (1993) has suggested that "positivistic science imposes a false distance between researchers and the researched by mandating that the researcher maintain an artificially impersonal stance toward the people studied" and that this detached perspective results "in data that present a partial and therefore false, and an elitist and therefore biased, reality" (p. 11-12). LeCompte suggests that authenticity is achieved, not merely by attributing a sense of genuineness to the quality of the narrative, but that authenticity is reflected in the relationship that exists between the researcher and the researched. She argues further that authenticity cannot be achieved when those who are researched are placed in a position that is subordinate to that of the researcher.
The poststructural remedy to the positivistic canon of conventional science is to overturn old dichotomies between research/practice, author/text, subject/object, knower/known, method/procedure, and theory/practice (LeCompte, 1993, p 12).LeCompte presents a new paradigmatic role in which the researcher serves as the mediator between two silences, the silence within and the silence without. In the latter case, the silence without, the researcher's role can best be understood as mediating between those in power and those who are silenced and oppressed by that powerðÇ as LeCompte (p. 10) describes it, those who "have been deprived of voice without their consent." This has been the traditional perspective of critical and feminist researchers as mediators between the powerful and the powerless. It is the former case, mediating the silences within, which may be viewed as characteristic of a new research paradigm. These silences within occur at two levels as LeCompte describes them: among peers or research participants, and within themselves. From this perspective LeCompte views the researcher's role as that of a mediator who assists participants in giving voice to their own thoughts and understanding to the events and circumstances in the larger context of their own lives. She suggests that the power to name and describe this reality resides first and foremost with those who have been silenced and that this step is pre-requisite to the second phase which transcends awareness and empowers the oppressed to engage in activism: "someone in the equation, someone other than the researcher, has to want to change the situation, take action, and define the change as both possible and worthwhile" (p. 15).
I see this as my role as a researcher: to serve as a mediator in the 'outering' of these inner silences and to make visible these silences to those in positions of power who might otherwise not see or choose to know them.
Benefits and Limitations of the Method
The benefits to both researchers and study participants in using electronic mail to conduct research and, in particular, to construct personal narratives are mixed. Electronic mail facilitates communication between individuals who are separated in both time and place and thus allows me as a researcher to communicate with study participants who, otherwise, I would have been less likely to meet face-to-face. This distance between the researcher and the researched can affect participants differently. For some, control over their participation in the study is maximized by remaining at a distance from the researcher in the familiarity of their own milieu, by having complete control over what they choose to communicate and by having the opportunity to participate at their own convenience or even withdraw from the study at a time of their own choosing. In contrast, those who might prefer the intimacy of face-to-face contact with the researcher can find the absence of social cues in electronic communication to be unsettling and may be less inclined to participate in such a study. The use of electronic mail to conduct this kind of research creates a new kind of relationship between the researcher and the researched in which both become bound by the emotional intimacy that emerges from sharing very personal experiences while at the same time we remain relative strangers according to the traditional conventions of interpersonal relationships.The speed of electronic mail, though sometimes slowed by busy networks, typically facilitates exchanges that seem to be instantaneous. When two individuals communicate synchronously the interaction can resemble the conversational turn-taking of verbal exchanges. Asynchronous exchanges, on the other hand, provide individuals with the opportunity to reflect on their thoughts to a greater degree than they are able to in face-to-face communication.
This method of inquiry also has a particular advantage over telephone and face-to-face interview methods. As Jacks, Chubin, Porter and Connolly (1983) discovered when using telephone interviews, the initial responses given by interviewees were not necessarily the most significant from the respondents' perspectives. The extended duration of the current study and the repeated exchanges with the women over a one year period allowed time to earn the participants' trust and to probe for additional meanings as well as to obtain clarification of my own understandings.
A further advantage of electronic mail is the resulting transcript which provides an artifact of the conversation that remains in its original form and is accessible to both sender and receiver for continued reflection and elaboration (Kerlin and Smith, 1994). For researchers this transcript eliminates the time and cost of transcribing taped conversations. However, the transcript is limited to 128 text characters and reflects a narrow spectrum of communication. Absent are the normal cues associated with face-to-face communication including non-verbal gestures, pauses, hesitations and the tonal qualities of voice. Experienced users of electronic mail develop strategies to compensate for this reduced availability of social cues. Emoticons such as the horizontal smiley face, [ :-) ] and the wink [ðð;Ç) ] are often used to communicate mood or emotion. Some will interject bracketted expressions of intent to clarify meaning as in the following example:
I liked your comment about wanting to prove that you were "smart enough (or bull-headed enough)" to complete the degree!Sometimes the asterisk [ * ] or the underscore symbol [ _ ] is used to add emphasis to particular words or phrases:Needless to say, when you follow an act like that, as I did all through my school years, you are constantly compared (by teachers and parents) to your older (and, by inference, _smarter_) older brothers.
Grounded Theory Method
Consistent with the perspectives reflected in critical feminist theory, grounded theory requires an 'interpersonal interaction' on the part of the researcher with both the data and the participants in the study. The researcher must not only observe the participants but must observe self-behaviour and so make visible one's own preconceptions, values and beliefs (Hutchinson, 1988). In the context of grounded theory, this concept of juxtaposing one's own understandings is referred to as 'bracketing'.The most critical aspect of grounded theory which differentiates it from other qualitative research methods is its emphasis upon theory development (Strauss and Corbin, 1994). Theory is said to be grounded when it emerges from and generates explanations of relationships and events that reflect the life experiences of those individuals, groups and processes we are attempting to understand. Denzin (1978) describes four functions that all data serve in contributing to theory development: research data initiate new theory or reformulate, refocus and clarify existing theory. Grounded theory is considered to be particularly appropriate when little is known about a topic and there are few existing theories to explain a particular phenomenon (Hutchinson, 1988). Hutchinson also indicates that grounded theory is to be understood as a form of social criticism. This characteristic of grounded theory parallels important characteristics of a critical feminist perspective as discussed earlier and for this reason and those described above grounded theory was thought to provide the most appropriate method for data analysis in this study.
Grounded theory is qualitative in its philosophy of science, its data collection, its methods of analysis, and its final product offers a rich and complex explanatory schema of social phenomena .... [it] is a form of social criticism; it does make judgements about identified patterns of social interaction (Hutchinson, 1988, p. 126).The method of grounded theory involves specific procedures which, when applied appropriately and with vigilance will result in theory that is rigorous and well grounded in the data. Criteria for ensuring the quality of grounded theory will be discussed following a description of the procedures involved in developing grounded theory.
The first procedure, data recording, may be thought of as a pre-analytic step of the grounded theory method. The immediate recording of data is said to be essential to the successful generation of grounded theory (Hutchinson, 1988). According to this criterion, the methods for recording data in this study are particularly appropriate. Using written narrative in the form of electronic mail, the participants in this study actually recorded the data themselves. This leaves little room for error in the original data set.
Data coding represents the first phase of data analysis. Hutchinson (1988) describes three levels of coding in the grounded theory method. Glaser (1978, p. 57) describes a set of three questions that should guide the open coding (level one):
Open coding describes the action and behaviour of the participants.
- What is this [sic] data a study of?
- What category does this incident indicate?
- What is actually happening in the data? What is the basic social psychological problem(s) faced by the participants in the... scene?
The analyst compares incident to incident with the purpose of establishing the underlying uniformity and its varying conditions (Glaser, 1978, p. 49).Such a description of coding is applied readily to an 'observed' setting. In the case of written narrative where storytellers are describing their own experiences, this concept of coding must be also include expressed thoughts, beliefs, feelings and described events and relationships. Hutchinson suggests that open coding, the coding of each sentence and each incident, should be used to develop as many codes as possible to ensure full theoretical coverage and to prevent the researcher from imposing any preconceived impressions on the data. "These beginning codes, no matter how conceptually primitive, quickly start theoretical sampling and constant comparisons of incidents. How relevant these concepts are to the basic problem and basic social process becomes a question of further analysis" (Glaser, 1978, p. 45).
Data coding at levels two and three is intended to elevate the data to higher levels of abstraction (Hutchinson, 1988). Level two codes typically represent categories that describe the level one codes.
The analyst continues to code and ... compares the concept to more incidents (Glaser, 1978, p. 50).For example, in a message in this study one of the participants described herself as an overachiever. This occurrence of 'overachiever' was coded as level one. At a more abstract level, level two, this construct represents her academic self-concept. I then began searching the data for other occurrences and representations of academic self-concept. This particular construct developed in the following way.
Level 1: overachieverLevel three codes represent theoretical constructs derived from the data in combination with academic knowledge and knowledge acquired through praxis.
Level 2: academic self-concept
Level 3: identity (relationship with self)
... while the first and second type of comparisons [continue] throughout the study, the analyst also compares thirdly concept to concept with the purpose of establishing the best fit of many choice of concepts to a set of indicators, the conceptual levels between concepts that refer to the same set of indicators and the integration into hypotheses between the concepts, which becomes the theory (Glaser, 1978, p. 51).The constant comparative method is central to the data analysis in generating grounded theory. Using this method all the sample codes generated at each of the three levels are compared repeatedly within and between each other until the basic properties of a category or construct are defined. "Comparative analysis forces the researcher to 'tease out' the emerging category by searching for its structure, temporality, cause, context, dimensions, consequences and its relationship to other categories" (Hutchinson, 1988, p. 135). Additionally, it is appropriate and desirable to compare the data categories and constructs that emerge between various groups of participants in the study. In this way the process of constant comparison is intended to generate a theory rich in detail.
Theoretical sampling is the process of data collection for generating theory whereby the analyst jointly collects, codes, and analyzes ... data and decides what data to collect next and where to find them, in order to develop ... theory as it emerges. This process of data collection is controlled by the emerging theory, whether substantive or formal (Glaser, 1978, p. 36).Theoretical sampling begins during the data collection phase of the study and involves searching the transcripts for emerging categories that characterize the narrative and seem significant. As constructs are derived from the data repeated theoretical sampling can be used to increase the depth of focus and to ensure consistency; that is, to ensure that data are gathered in a systematic way for each category (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). "Theoretical sampling is ... used as a way of checking on the emerging conceptual framework rather than being used for the verification of preconceived hypotheses" (Glaser, 1978, p. 39). Saturation is achieved when all the data fit into the established categories and no new categories emerge from the data.
The essential relationship between data and theory is a conceptual code .... There are basically two types of codes to generate: substantive and theoretical. Substantive codes conceptualize the empirical substance of the area of research. Theoretical codes conceptualize how the substantive codes may relate to each other as hypotheses to be integrated into the theory (Glaser, 1978, p. 55).Theoretical sampling and constant comparison reflect cyclical processes which are fluid and flexible, but at the same time they ensure that the analysis is planned, rather than haphazard, and well grounded in the data. Through this process a core variable or basic social psychological process is identified which explains most of the variation in the data. "The core variable has three essential characteristics: it recurs frequently in the data; it links the data together; and it explains much of the variation in the data" (Sherman and Webb, 1988, p. 133). By relating this core variable to the various levels of codes already identified, the critical factors emerge and provide the basis for writing about the theory.
Ensuring Rigor and Empirical Grounding of the Study
Just as the grounded theory method of analysis is not applicable to experimental studies that seek to verify hypotheses, neither should the criteria for scientific rigor derived from positivistic origins be applied to the grounded theory method. Positivistic notions of validity, reliability and generalizability cannot be applied in the same way to qualitative research. Nonetheless, there must be some criteria by which the quality of grounded theory research can be evaluated. Sherman and Webb (1988) identify six such categories including the degree of fit, functionality, relevance, modifiability, density, and integration.The degree of fit is described as resulting in codes and categories that are derived from the data and not forced. This lends credibility to the study in that the appropriateness of the fit can be easily understood by others not directly involved in the study. "Since most of the categories of grounded theory are generated directly from the data, the criteria of fit is automatically met and does not constitute an unsatisfactory struggle of half fits" (Glaser, 1978, p. 5). Glaser (p.ð5) suggests that "it is important to constantly refit [categories] to the data as the research proceeds to be sure they do fit all the data they purport to indicate." Although Sherman and Webb do not use the term 'functionality' per se, this is their intended meaning for describing a theory that 'works.' As such, a functional theory explains variation in the data and the interrelationships among the constructs in a way that produces a predictive element to the theory. They further describe a quality theory as one that possesses relevance related to the identified core variable or basic social psychological process. Relevance evolves through the emergence of a core variable from the data in a way that is neither forced nor concocted and is a result of the researcher's theoretical sensitivity to the milieu. Relevance is verified through the immediate recognition by the participants in the study of the importance of the phenomenonðÇ a form of recognition that sometimes has been described as the "ahhh haaa" phenomenon. The fourth criterion of a well-grounded theory is its ability to reflect and accommodate the fluctuating nature of the phenomenon being examined. As such the theory must be flexible and modifiable. The fifth criterion is density. A theory is said to be dense when it "possesses a few key theoretical constructs and a substantial number of properties and categories" (Sherman and Webb, 1988, p. 138). The last criterion described is that of integration. A systematic relationship between the constructs and propositions is thought to ensure an appropriate fit into a tight theoretical framework (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).
Strauss and Corbin (1990, p. 254-256) also put forth a series of questions which they view as appropriate criteria for examining the empirical grounding of a study. These questions are as follows:
The criteria described by Glaser and Strauss (1968), Sherman and Webb (1988) and Strauss and Corbin (1990) provide a sufficiently broad perspective from which to evaluate the quality of a grounded theory. One additional criterion that lends credibility to the theory is a measure borrowed from other qualitative research genres, that of auditability. The provision of an audit trail provides evidence for the way in which processes are carried out and decisions are made, thus making the process both visible and verifiable to others who might wish to closely scrutinize the theory.
- Are concepts generated?
- Are the concepts systematically related?
- Are there many conceptual linkages and are the categories well developed? Do they have conceptual density?
- Is much variation built into the theory?
- Are the broader conditions that affect the phenomenon under study built into its explanation?
- Has process been taken into account? (explanations that describe change must be linked to the conditions that caused it)
- Do the theoretical findings seem significant and to what extent?
Pursuit of the Ph.D.: Factors that Impact on Health Introduction
Induction into the academic culture is intended to be transformational. It is a process of socialization in which many dimensions of the personal self become integrated with a newly emerging academic self. In essence, for many, the doctoral experience reflects a transformation of one's identity. For the past four years, through my research, online discussion lists, and through my conversations with graduate students, faculty and administrators, both men and women, I have learned a great deal about the kinds of experiences graduate students are having.What I have learned is that not all is well in many of the graduate programs in our nations' postsecondary institutions. In many instances students such as the two doctoral candidates quoted below are not having the kinds of experiences they'd hoped for. Like stories of the science fiction genre in which the normal rules that govern society and civilized discourse are altered, and on occasion suspended altogether, the endings to their stories are not always predictable, and memories of their doctoral experiences are not always coveted.
I really had no idea, though I suspected that it would be both hard and invigorating ... It represented being able to become a professor, and that meant a certain freedom of thought and flexibility of lifestyle that I desired. I would say I no longer think of the degree as a means to an end, as I don't expect it will get me a job. The degree itself means very little to me now, though I suppose it means most when I think of it as an official marker that I've finished my dissertation. It gives me a good reason to have a party. I know that probably sounds flip, but it's not meant to be.Beginning with the admission process students have described various unanticipated outcomes of their doctoral experiences, the ill-effects of which can persist long after the degree is conferred.
* * * I thought it was going to be difficult and challenging. I was afraid everyone would be smarter than me. I thought I would learn a tremendous amount. I thought it would be fun. I expected to really learn and grow. It has been difficult and challenging, not because everyone is smarter than me but because the faculty is insane. As for how my views have changed, I guess I'd have to say I've lost my innocence. I had originally thought the process was set up to help me learn as much as possible, but now I realize that the process is mostly political and has very little to do with helping students learn. I feel pretty disillusioned.
I only recently had my degree framed and put on my office wall (everyone in my consulting firm tends to display their college and/or law degrees, it seems to be part of our culture there) .... I rarely if ever use the "doctor," .... For a long time, I didn't really want to admit that I had the doctorate. I think that's sort of a denial thing; it cost me so much in terms of finances and the emotional toll that I sort of wanted to forget it once the defense was done. Ironic, isn't it? I worked for five years to get the degree, now I don't even tell people I have it.In my conversations with present and former graduate students one theme that recurs with disturbing regularity is the overall negative impact of the doctoral experience on their physical and mental health.
I think if I had to pick a word that sums up the doctoral experience, exhaustion would have to be it. I don't know how anyone with kids manages to complete the degree. If I'd had to go home to kids and deal with them and their needs every day, and THEN try to handle the workload, I would never had made it. I'm frankly a little surprised that I managed to keep a relationship going during most of that time period.In my research on women's doctoral experiences the women I interviewed described high levels of stress, long hours of overwork; exhaustion; isolation from their peers, friends and family; weight loss from stress and anxiety; weight gain from the sedentary life-style of academic research; nagging self-doubt about their ability to measure up; disturbed sleep patterns, including thoughts and dreams that they weren't good enough to finish; and they described episodes of depression that were serious enough for them to seek medical support through medication and/or counselling Ç all characteristics more closely resembling induction into a cult than a transformative induction into an academic culture that values learning and scholarship.
I have experienced numerous and constant headaches especially over the past year. I have been to see two experts but the medications they have provided don't seem to work. Mostly the doctors have associated my headaches with stress and eyestrain. The headaches are so severe that when I have one it's difficult to write my thesis. Before the headaches started I experienced episodes of depression. I think that was related to the fact that the end of the doctorate process seemed too far away. I'm not a quitter but I often thought of dropping out of the program which further contributed to my depression ... I think another reason I experienced the depression is because my family and friends don't understand or value what I do ... my brother jokes about it by saying, "Are you going to get a real job before I retire." Even some of my friends, who are professionals, don't seem to value what I do. They know I work at home so they drop-in on me constantly during the day or evening. One women who is a professional ... trivialized what I do by referring to my Ph.D. as work that is not time consuming. She stated, "Wouldn't it be nice to have so much time on your hands." I think it's difficult for people who have not done a Ph.D. to understand the process. And since there are so few people who are doing a Ph.D., the process can actually be a lonely one.And although women may be more inclined than men toward self-disclosure around health issues and the affective dimensions of the doctoral experience, it is quite clear from my research that these kinds of experiences are not limited only to women, as one male doctoral recipient describes below.
The most significant outcome of my doctoral education has been its impact on my health, my sense of self, and my well-being. In no other phase of my life did I experience in such rapid succession, periods of elation and exuberance punctuated with spells of utter, immobilizing despair. To this day, more than five years since graduation, I have not regained the self-confidence I felt when my doctoral research was first accepted for presentation at a national academic conference. Since then, I have experienced symptoms of clinical depression much of the time. I've become an expert on many of the medical and pharmacological "treatments" of my symptoms. Yet, the ultimate source of my depression remains a mystery. Is it "biochemical" as the medical doctors would have me believe? Is it "faulty thinking" as the psychologist would have me believe? Is it rooted in my childhood as the therapist would have me believe? In each case, the source, as well as the solution, is within me. I have tried all of the remedies: pills, reprogramming my thoughts, therapy, and making peace with my childhood. Yet, somehow, a deep, lingering doubt remains. I long to regain the feeling of self-confidence I used to know, yet it eludes me. Instead, I am dogged by a continual anxiety -- a fear that as soon as I open my mouth to express my own ideas, someone will come out of the woodwork to say, "Oh, he doesn't know what he's talking about." Will this feeling ever go away? Will I ever again know what it is to feel pleasure, passion, and joy?Individualistic Nature of the Process
Pursuit of the doctorate in most fields of study is a highly individualistic process. No two students' journeys are the same and nor should they be. Institutional and departmental program requirements and performance expectations vary widely and are subject to change. Graduate student handbooks can provide broad institutional guidelines about student responsibilities but they don't reflect the detailed information specific to students' departments and fields of study. Departmental guidelines can vary in complexity and specificity and may not reflect accurately the actual practices within the department.
There were no specific guidelines for how often committees should meet or what they should meet to do. There are rumors about that committees soon will be required to meet on several specific occasions for making specific decisions -- at least once I believe without the student present.Highly detailed guidelines may lead to rigid and inflexible practices that provide little room for considering individual student needs. These guidelines may better serve to protect faculty needs than those of students. In contrast, loosely structured guidelines, while providing more room for individual interpretation that may better serve the needs of students, can have the unintended effect of creating perceptions of unequal treatment or unfair application of the policies. A careful balance between these two extremes, shaped by open discussion that includes student input may serve departments well. The failure to inform, and preferably to seek and consider student input in departmental changes, can add significantly to the stress students experience in their programs, in ways that aren't always visible to faculty.
* * * Ostensibly, you should go into [the exams] with a proposal, although the "proposal" could be no more than a basic outline of what you think you will be doing for your dissertation. Then, once you're done with [the exams], you can start gathering data for your research. However, as probably happens everywhere, there are more exceptions to these guidelines than there are guidelines. I know of students who had basically completed their research before doing [the exams]. I know students who had no clue what their dissertation would be, but took [the exams] anyway. You get the idea.
... when I looked at the program there was a reading list of about 200 texts ... The reading list had been revised and 75% of the books on the list were new. I think it was in May or June, after I'd been accepted but before instruction began, that the NEW reading list was made public. I liked the list. But no mention was made of any other changes.Not only can the requirements and expectations that faculty have of students differ significantly, even within the same department and/or field, but often individual faculty employ different approaches and hold divergent expectations for students in the same department. Students become cognizant of these differing approaches when they begin comparing their own experiences with those of their peers. One student found that her advisor took a very different approach with her than he had with his other advisees: while other students were submitting periodic outlines of their intended research, she was expected to develop entire chapters. She recalled "bitching" at a colleague once, saying "Why is he making me do chapters when you get to turn in outlines?" This experience left the student feeling confused and uncertain about whether her own work was lacking in some way. This added significantly to the stress she experienced in her program. Had she a better understanding of the process and of her advisor's motivation for guiding her down a different path than her peers, that understanding may well have helped her to develop a more confident image of herself as an emerging scholar.
Changes, changes, changes and we were barely informed, let alone consulted. I felt like I had researched programs very carefully and I know that the catalog you enter under is typically binding. But the catalog put out by a university and a department's particular requirements are not the same thing. When our department guidelines finally appeared, a couple months into the term, the method of examination had totally changed. This had been casually alluded to in our professional seminar, but the faculty insisted that we not ask questions until the document was available to read and discuss. In retrospect, the new method makes a lot of sense and probably is one of the factors in my success, however, at the time I again felt the rug pulled out from under me. I'd made what I believed to be an informed decision based on materials the department had sent me only to find out that they had withheld information about ongoing changes.
Another factor that characterizes the individualistic nature of the doctoral experience is the social isolation from their peers and feelings of loneliness that students often describe as contributing in important ways to the stress they experience in their doctoral programs.
One of the most enduring memories of the final stages of the dissertation process is the sense of isolation and despair I experienced.
* * * Did you ever see Matt Groenig's _Big Book of Hell_? ... I remember distinctly one cartoon wherein someone is on the phone, from a party, calling someone else who is a grad student. The guy at the party says "hey, come on over. We're drinking beer, playing softball, having fun..." and the grad student says "Sounds great. I'll be there in five years." Which is about right. I've seen this now from both sides of the fence. When I was in school (i.e., actively taking classes) or writing, I know I was probably a lot less fun than I am now. There were many times when Ken would go to a party and I would either meet him there several hours later...or I wouldn't go at all because of studying.
Financial Resources
Issues related to financial support can significantly increase the stress doctoral students' experience, particularly in the post-candidacy phase of their programs when often they are forced to work full-time and finish writing the dissertation. Nerad and Miller (1996) found that inadequate financial resources play a significant role in student attrition from doctoral programs during this period.In earlier stages of their programs, teaching and research assistantships provide an important form of financial support, without which, many students would be unable to complete their degrees. Students who hold assistantships in their departments often feel more integrated in their programs than those who work outside the department and those who hold teaching assistantships benefit from the opportunities to gain teaching experience. However, two negative aspects of assistantships have emerged in my research. One factor is related to the non-academic tasks and inappropriate demands made by assistantship supervisors.
Being a research assistant for her offered little academic and intellectual growth--instead, it offered a lot of "scut" work. The faculty kept talking about working with faculty to get started on the almighty pubs and research that would promote your career after graduation and i tried that, but my faculty mentors had me doing things like xeroxing and running errands ... I did a lot of scut work in grad school that never amounted to a learning experience, but the profs sure benefited from it!A second factor was the experience of living in what one student described as the 'T.A. ghetto' in which the low pay that came with the assistantships locked students into a prolonged state of poverty. The low pay seemed to symbolize the general lack of support for and commitment to doctoral students in the program and left students feeling as if their efforts were unappreciated by faculty. Particularly among older or more established faculty, students have noted that there seemed to be little recognition or appreciation of the impact that changing economic conditions have had on graduate students' lives.
some of the professors suggested student loans as if we had never thought of it before. Most of my friends and I already have a significant amount of dept accrued from our undergraduate education and don't wish to add to our student loan balance when we have skills that our dept can use and needs to use.Financial status, as reflected by the qualitatively different awards Ç fellowships versus assistantships Ç was also a factor that affected relationships among doctoral students in the same department. Students who received fellowships without the obligatory work requirement were sometimes seen as privileged and this had the potential to create strained relations among the students. Students have noted repeatedly, the considerable stress that finances play in the doctoral experience. For doctoral students who are also the primary bread winners and caregivers in their families, the stress can be enormous. Even part-time employment during critical stages of students' research had the effect of slowing their progress. Balancing the demands of part-time employment with doctoral study was a significant drain on student's energy levels so that even when they did have unscheduled time to work on their research often they felt too exhausted and had to push themselves, frequently going without much needed sleep, to accomplish the goals they had set for themselves. This factor added significantly to the stress students experience in their programs.
Paradigm Conflicts
A significant challenge for many doctoral students is the ability to be fully conversant with the theoretical and methodological underpinnings of their own research. This understanding must be framed in the context of the paradigmatic and epistemological differences that exist among the faculty. What counts as knowledge and what constitutes acceptable academic discourse in one's department is framed by the orientation faculty have to particular ways of viewing and understanding the world as it is expressed through different genres of their research. The student who is also cognizant of the political implications of aligning oneself with a particular paradigm, or a particular genre of research within a given paradigm will better be able to make informed and strategic choices when it comes to selecting an advisor or members of the dissertation committee.
The quant people on my committee just couldn't understand what i was doing and, largely because of this, kept finding reasons to "question" what i was doing and its viability and credibility.Mutual respect and the ability to accommodate a range of paradigmatic approaches to the dissertation research were other factors that women in my research have described as culminating in working relationships that were professional, collegial and egalitarian.
* * * It was a rather strange/typical defense. My chair and the reader from my department were celebratory, though their questions were pointed and not easy, especially since most of them went beyond my dis. But I handled them well--according to those in attendance. However, one committee member...was incredibly passive/aggressive! Her body language was incredible and of course I was facing her. She was SO angry! In the midst of my defense the angry committee member attacked the chair of my department. The dept chair had said something that made reference to the angry one's comment. It wasn't insulting or anything, but she took offense and exploded. But it wasn't at me, so, I just watched. They all signed off as it was so all I have to do is get it turned in.
Departmental Climate The climate is one of the prime indicators of [an organization's] health .... If you visit a house you've never been in before, you're picking up ideas and feelings about what kind of people live there. This intangible feeling or tone is climate, which endures over time and influences the behavior of people. An organization's climate is defined by the perceptions of its members, no matter what the facts are .... In trying to build a particular climate, you must look at the total organization and see its personality . (Mulder and Heimer, 1996)
What you don't ask specifically, they won't tell you.
Trust, a collegial atmosphere and being taken seriously as emerging scholars are central indicators of a healthy departmental climate. The kind of climate the women described as enhancing their degree progress was one in which they had frequent opportunities to engage in stimulating conversation with faculty and colleagues who were able to challenge and extend their thinking without competing to 'one-up' the other or resorting to intimidating, adversarial tactics that put others on the defensive. The women sought genuine intellectual engagement of their ideas and they felt supported and encouraged when professors took the women's ideas seriously, were sufficiently confident about their own abilities and didn't feel threatened by the expression of students' ideas that differed from the mainstream. Rather than presenting knowledge as something that was subject to challenge these women described the desire for a process in which knowledge was explored and allowed to emerge through reflective conversation. More often than not, however, the women in this study were disappointed by the absence of this kind of "connected dialogue" between students and faculty in their programs.A supportive climate for students was one in which faculty were able to set aside individual differences and personal agendas and focus on the needs of the student without resorting to tactics of intimidation. The climate, whether it was adversarial and competitive or collegial and growth oriented was a central indicator of the overall well being of the department and may well be an important indicator of the quality of doctoral experience that future students could expect.
Nothing better characterizes department climate than the extent to which daily practices in the department support a positive and inspiring learning environment for its students. Something as simple as whether or not departments make available, information critical to student progress, is reflective of this notion; otherwise, students are left to learn about the doctoral process through trial and error. One student I interviewed described this notion as one of the hidden rules in her department: what you don't ask specifically, they won't tell you...
As an example of how the absence of critical information can add to the stress students experience, one student, described how during the data collection and analysis phase of her program, she found it necessary to restructure her dissertation committee when she unexpectedly discovered that one of her committee members had left the university and moved to another region of the country without telling her. Yet another student described anticipating feedback from her committee members before her preliminary oral exams when she learned that one of her committee members had been out of the country for two weeks and the other member hadn't even read her exam questions; she had no idea what to expect at her preliminary oral exam. These kinds of experiences are not isolated events.
If an advisor isn't forthright about when they have a sabbatical or how they are going to deal with it, students get blindsided. Schedules for grad students are often totally disrupted. Students should be told when they enter that they should ask about sabbaticals when forming committees, but most only discover this when a committee member or chair is on the way to the airport saying they'll be back in touch in X-number of months. It's ugly.Another Ph.D. recipient described her experience in her first master's program.
Language carries a lot of baggage and fear for me. So when I learned that I'd been inadequately informed, I felt mistreated and abused. My degree was within grasp. Writing a thesis didn't scare me, but I wouldn't finish because [I didn't know about this other option for the language requirement] and I felt that wasn't my fault. I felt if they'd told me, I could have done it.Because the nature of the doctoral journey is highly individualistic it is not always easy to identify precisely the kind of information that might be critical to an individual student's progress. What is clearly understood by students is that when department politics take priority over the mission, the learning climate for students is among the first things to suffer. Where the climate is conducive to student learning, faculty are more likely to engage in practices that regularly seek student input and feedback and promote open communication among students and faculty. Where there is a high level of student involvement and engagement, there will likely be fewer unwanted surprises for students.
Competitive Climate
In doctoral programs, students compete for admission to prestigious institutions, for grades, assistantships, awards, and faculty recommendations.
There was little money for graduate assistantships. Graduate students had to "fight" to get even a single class with a half-time teaching assistantship once a year.It is not unheard of in highly competitive fields of study for students "razor out assigned articles from the library journals in order to gain a competitive edge over other students" (Palmer, 1998). In both language and practice, the climate of the academy is grounded in an economic, intellectual, and social competitive ethic that is often more combative than collaborative.
* * * I had come from a pure science background and found myself continually plagued with a great sense of competition, self-imposed as well as outer influenced.
. . . defense . . . evidence . . . proof . . . This is the language of courts, judges and juries. What kind of assumptions about knowledge and the nature of knowing does this language convey?
Nothing we said was defensible, and if we couldn't immediately provide facts and figures, he sneered and suggested that we didn't know what we were talking about. Oddly enough, [a male colleague] started challenging us, too, although not in the nasty way that Dan did. But it was quite obvious that we were being attacked.Nothing is more symbolic of the competitive climate in academe than the final oral in which committee members 'grill' candidates while they 'defend' their research. Committee members often compete among themselves, as if knowledge were combat sport, to see who can deliver the knockout blow.Eventually, Kathy and I just gave up. It was no longer an exchange or a fun conversation; there was no dialogue. When Kathy and I got back to the room, we looked at each other and said "what the hell was that all about"? We also discussed it most of the next day. It seemed to us that what Dan and Ron had done was what other faculty members had done to panel members or discussants at the various sessions. Challenge, combat, attack, poke holes, etc. Except, once we reflected on this more, we realized that it was mostly the _male_ faculty who acted this way. Sessions attended primarily by women had more dialogue and interaction, less trying to prove what you know.
The final oral defense was more than a little undermining to my self-confidence. The professor that had served as my mentor and for whom I had worked for so many years really grilled me. It was more than a "normal" grilling. I couldn't even understand the questions she was asking .... the chair of my committee later told me that he, too, was unable to understand what she was asking, yet he offered no help or support during the grueling oral defense. It took me several weeks to regain myself after the defense.Tenure and promotion systems reinforce this competitive and hierarchical structure by reinforcing individual rather than collaborative accomplishments. Singular authorship, for example, is more highly valued for tenure and promotion than collaborative authorship.
* * * One thing I do remember Ben saying was that a lot of what would transpire in the room during the orals would have nothing to do with me. In effect, it would be the faculty members trying to impress one another--possibly at my expense. He warned me that there would probably be at least one or two times that a faculty member would ask me a question, not because he wanted me to answer, but because he wanted to ask it in front of the other faculty members. Ben said he would probably even do that himself. He made it sound like part of the orals was really some sort of theatre of the absurd. It was good advice, though, and I used it the next day.
To what extent does competition in the academy become framed as a gender issue in academe? Are women less comfortable with and/or accepting of competitive notions of learning in academe? Do women have a greater need than men for collegiality, connected dialogue, reflection, and discussion? Do women who pursue doctorates typically thrive less well than men in competitive environments? Are women who complete doctorates more likely to thrive in competitive environments than women who do not pursue doctoral study? Are women who pursue doctorates in the arts and humanities more or less likely to have disdain for the competitive aspects of doctoral study than women who pursue doctoral study in the hard sciences or traditional male fields of study?
While there is no question that some women do thrive in a competitive academic environment, to cast the competitive climate as strictly an issue of gender is to oversimplify the current disjuncture in the academy. It is tied to fundamental questions of epistemology, and who gets to define what knowledge and research methods are acceptable; and it is tied to questions about what counts as scholarship.
Endurance versus Rigor, Hazing versus Scholarship
Reflecting on their doctoral experiences students too frequently describe pushing the boundaries of physical and emotional exhaustion.
I literally remember having crying jags as a consequence of my schedule. I saw little of my husband as he took on night jobs and temporary jobs during odd hours. Weekends were packed from the moment I got up to the moment I finally went to bed.Repeatedly students recount experiences in which heavy academic workloads, in combination with other life responsibilities, have taken a personal toll on their physical and emotional health. Some students have observed a 'work until you drop' ethic underpinning the climate in their department.
* * * he pushed extremely hard. and i responded, putting in longer hours and beginning the journey toward complete physical and mental exhaustion. As i look at it now, by the time i finished and defended the dissertation i was closer to a complete breakdown than i have ever been in my life.
She saw the faculty as "particularly proud" that a 3-hour course in her department was at least as much work as a 4 or 5-hour course in any other department.The pursuit of excellence, whether in academe or in other life pursuits, does seem to demand a certain degree of self-sacrifice as a necessary part of the process. Olympic figure skaters, for example must carefully plan and pace a training program with the guidance of their coaches, to achieve a peak performance. However, the extent to which a 'survival of the fittest' (Kerlin, 1995a, 1995b) ethic might serve, in some programs, as a substitute for scholarship or academic rigor, needs to be examined closely. One student, in reflecting on her own doctoral experience, wrote:
* * * [the] informal requirements are a work ethic that says you are - must be overworked to consider yourself a true grad student or academician, that you must attend and present in conferences and being accepted is a big honor ... that you must sort of slave for certain people if you want them to be kind to you [e.g. advisor or people working with advisor] etc. i learned about these slowly and mostly thru my adviser and thru seeing other people do it. these are usually presented as opportunities and i agree with the concept in general but not with the specific ways of carrying these opportunities out.
Well, it's probably not "rigorous," but I've always described it to people as similar to giving birth, except that it lasts longer and the end product weighs less. Otherwise, I'm sure that there are many similarities (at least I assume, I haven't had kids).What is academic rigor? A new online Web dictionary, (Wordsmyth English Dictionary-Thesaurus: http://www.lightlink.com/bobp/wedt/) presented the following definitions:
I have spoken with some graduates who admit to taking pride in this 'survival of the fittest' notion. To them, this underlying ethic seems to give their degree added prestige. Perhaps this should not surprise us. Historically, doctoral attrition, reflected in the idea that 'only the best will survive' (Sternberg, 1981), has been understood to be a normal, and even desirable, part of a 'cooling out' process. Clark (1959, p. 547) described the "slow killing-off of the lingering hopes of the most stubborn latent terminal students" as a way to counterbalance broad and unrestrictive admission policies. It may be, however, that in they eyes of some doctoral students, the dictionary definition of rigor being interpreted more literally than we might wish to admit.
- strictness, severity, inflexibility, or harshness, as of manner, judgment, or law.
- severity or harshness of living conditions, climate, or other circumstances.
- a particular severe, harsh, or cruel act or circumstance.
- strict or scrupulous accuracy; precision; exactness.
- a condition of rigidity in muscle tissues, such that they cannot respond to stimuli.
Is it merely a form of hazing? (Everyone else with a Ph.D. did it this way, by god you will too!)One notion of academic rigor that I would contend should be reflected in our doctoral programs, is echoed in the comments made by Parker Palmer at a recent presentation.
Rigor in a classroom occurs when students are willing to raise their hands, to say they don't understand or to disagree with what the professor or another student said. Good teaching is neither teacher nor student-centered. It's subject centered. (Palmer, 1998)Politics and Hidden Agendas
Lipschutz (1993) has suggested that for too many students, humiliation characterizes students' encounters with faculty. Findings from my own research also support this notion (Kerlin [Smith], 1995). Despite the plethora of books on the market offering guidance to dissertating students around faculty-student relations, none of these provide students with insight into the politics Ç the personal, interpersonal, philosophical, and paradigmatic differences Ç they might encounter at some point in their programs.
Suppose you've worked with a colleague for a very long time, but you've come to a point in your collegial relationship where you see things very differently. But, your professional relationship doesn't allow you to "fight it out" with your colleague. What do you do? Suddenly, one day you realize that there is another mechanism at your disposal-- you have a master's student in common. So, you wage your battles using *her*. You have her running between the two of you, you have her dancing like a puppet on a string, but you get your point across to the colleague.Many students at this level of study expect to encounter nothing the highest degree of professionalism in their programs and when students become aware of the petty, capricious and egotistical practices that occur in the academy, as they do in every other walk of like, they often experience this insight as a loss of innocence. This loss of innocence can sometimes trigger feelings of ambivalence that sap emotional energy and undermine students' drive and goal directedness. Students may be more likely to internalize these experiences as personal issues and may be less likely or able to understand the systemic nature of a reward system that permits or tolerates such behaviours.
there is a lot of BS floating around in PHD programs related to elitism and prestige. that stinks.Students know only too well their academic futures can flourish or falter on a faculty recommendation and often they feel powerless to voice their concerns, let alone seek redress, when they encounter these kinds of practices.
* * * I used to be scared a little that I risked becoming like this if I stayed in academia. I don't believe that's true. I'm much too self-reflective. I'm much too concerned for others (even at my own expense sometimes). I believe too much in the role of education, the power of education to change lives.
* * * I felt like I would not make the decision to do this [pursue a doctorate] again. I was appalled at the egotism exhibited by certain professors, some of them who were on the committees of my female companions who were also taking the exams. One of my female friends was accused of not answering one of the questions on her exam and when she defended herself remarking that the question was clearly marked "#2" it was discovered that the professor was merely skim reading her exam and had accidentally flipped a few too many pages. He was ready to flunk her based on that, his own mistake. Instead of admitting his error he insisted still on interviewing her orally to make sure she knew what answers she had given. This was in addition, of course, to her official oral examination.
Unethical Practices: The Betrayal of Trust
Over the past four years I have encountered a handful of students, both men and women, whose doctoral experiences have been shaped in significant ways, by what they describe
