Pursuit of the Ph.D.: Is it good for your health?
© 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.
Table of Contents 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 IssuesDiscussion
References
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.
Background My research interests in graduate education date back to 1994 when Scott, now my husband, 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 as the unethical practices of advisors and/or other faculty members. In each instance these experiences have resulted in a long-standing negative impact on students' psychological well-being, their ability to complete the dissertation and their ability to establish a career in academe.
In some ways the people on the faculty were an essential part of the ugly picture I saw. I had much disdain for them because they were intimately involved in the nightmare of academia.Some students have experienced what they describe as the ultimate betrayal when faculty adopt students' work as their own.
Ultimately, how can the experience be more meaningful if the very individuals you thought you could trust unwittingly betray you?The effect of this kind of betrayal can be a complete shutting down, emotionally and intellectually, a 'killing of the spirit', as one student describes below.
I read in the university newsletter that my advisor and two other colleagues had presented a conference session using the theme I'd developed in my comps. I was sitting at my desk at work and remember trembling outright for here was the seminal idea of my work presented at a major national conference. Several times I gently urged my advisor for a copy of the paper. I discussed it with her saying I was very interested in what they had presented at the conference. No paper was ever forthcoming. She avoided the topic, never telling me anything until eventually I dropped it. I decided to go forth as usual trying to convince myself that she has more integrity than to use my ideas without giving me any credit. We worked together well on a couple of different projects over the next year.What avenues of resolution are available to students when they encounter ethical conflicts of this nature with members of their department or committee? Under what conditions might students feel able to voice concerns about these kinds of experiences without fear of retaliation or backlash?I happened to speak with another student a few weeks ago. She's a good friend of mine and I confided in her explaining the difficulty I was having with my motivation and the nagging question in the back of my mind about my advisor's use of my exam concepts. She looked at me and calmly described the course she was taking from my advisor and described the very theme that I'd developed in my exams and said that my advisor hadn't mentioned me at all. I flipped out and cried hysterically. I asked my friend for a copy of the syllabus if she got a chance but I didn't want to include her in this mess.
I received the copy of the syllabus recently. Time for me now has little meaning. The syllabus is actually a wonderful outline for my dissertation. My advisor has been counselling me from it this semester. I can tell. So I am tormented now because anything I do will look like, Oh, you were so and so's student. And how do I approach her on this one? My advisor is instructing more than a dozen graduate students this semester on my topic that I developed in my exams and she hasn't mentioned that at all. She has acquired it for herself and feels it is hers to develop at will. We have a major communication problem here but I don't feel I'm in a position of power to address the issue. My advisor can make life hell. So now I'm stuck with a rather peculiar and disheartening position. Do I continue on? Change my topic? Walk away? The student has taught the instructor. I just wish I understood what to do. What is she thinking? What is her impression? I cannot, or perhaps I do not want to believe that she would be so callous. I know how strongly she feels about anyone touching her research.
So as you can tell the issue of trust is shattered here and my heart is heavy when it comes to my study. The love of the idea, the self-confidence gained from my exams and the orals, that final feeling of 'You really did well' is now at the bottom of my feet. The idea is displayed as someone else's or so it appears. In many ways I am resolved to finish the project and continue to use it in my own teaching, but I feel quite strongly that the academy is no place for me with power structures embedded in those few 'scholars' who are blind, manipulative and cruel. What kind of heritage does this pass on?
I hope some day to talk with my advisor about this but for now I just try and go on. I have another draft just about ready for her. What I am fighting now is that empty feeling and the fear that the passion for my study is dead. Now, there is no sense of failure, not even the fear of failure. Only helplessness.
I think I have always been careful when it comes to my professors and realize that they can at any time take your work and use it, but I never anticipated it would happen. What my advisor did killed my spirit. Perhaps that is why I lack the motivation for the whole thing. Perhaps that is why I feel like walking away after it is all done and cutting ties. If I can just get it done. I feel my future within the discipline is over. I don't know that I want any part of academia. It has no tolerance for empathy and respect. It has no room for me.
Women's Challenges Self-Selection
In addition to the social and economic barriers that influence women's decisions to pursue higher education, there is also evidence to suggest that women have less confidence in their academic abilities and therefore may have reduced educational expectations of themselves in comparison to men (Hall and Sandler, 1982). Adler (1976) has suggested that a more stringent self-selective process may exist among women. She writes "women seem to share with men the belief that females are less competent and perhaps less able to undertake or succeed at professional work than are males" (p. 201). Adler further indicates that women frequently hold negative views of themselves as scholars, question their intellectual capabilities and perceive themselves as less capable than their male counterparts, and that therefore women are less likely to seek graduate education or aspire to an academic career path. Kaplan (1982) also found that a more intensive self-selection process may influence women's educational decisions and suggested this may explain, in part, the higher GPAs and academic scores often reported in the literature among women who choose to pursue higher degrees.
Gendered Socialization Process
There is much evidence to suggest that different socialization processes are at work for men and women with women being socialized more toward gender role behaviours than achievement and men being socialized more toward achievement than to gender-based roles. Often women feel the need to prove their intellectual capability, both to themselves and to others and the doctorate symbolizes that external validation of self-worth. This was the case for the student below who grew up as both the youngest and the only girl of three children.
[My brothers] got all the quantitative inclination in the family -- 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 .... So I guess that all also feeds into the degree thing. I had a lot to prove, although most people would never understand that.If the academy is to become more women-friendly, it is important to understand the extent to which differences in men's and women's socialization processes might influence students' academic self-concepts and their academic performances. A better understanding of these socialization processes is also necessary to guide the academy in reshaping the process for socializing emerging scholars Ç perhaps toward a more democratic and even a kinder process.
.... I felt I had a lot to prove in finishing the degree. I guess I've always felt that, not just about the degree but in general. Maybe because I'm the third of three children and so was always trying to keep up (or measure up) with my brothers. Maybe because I'm a woman. I remember once in 10th grade my geometry teacher told me, in front of the whole class, that I was so dumb I couldn't find my way out of a phone booth. And they wonder why women are math-phobic .... In fact, I think my gender has contributed more to that feeling of needing to prove myself than anything else. Always the subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) intimation that somehow I couldn't/wouldn't or shouldn't do something because I was a "girl." Like somehow the act of reading or breathing or running track or whatever would overtax my delicate constitution and leave me unfit for my "real" duties (making babies, etc.). I was actually told that once by my junior high principal. I'd really like to track all these folks down and show them my degree, but it's not worth the effort. Besides, in their own misguided and twisted way, they probably contributed to my perseverance. Maybe I wouldn't have stayed with the program if I hadn't felt I had so much to show to so many.
Competing Demands: Role/Identity Conflicts
Much of the stress and uncertainty women experience during the doctorate relates to the difficulties they experience in balancing multiple role responsibilities. Very often women grow up with family and societal expectations that place primary importance on their identities as women and mothers. Women's gender identity and the role expectations that accompany it, is well established long before they begin to think of themselves as academics. To be seen and accepted as serious scholars in the academic milieu, where motherhood often has a negative status, requires women to make an identity shift that includes a self-image as emerging scholars. Men have grown up being socialized with achievement expectations and thus don't experience this identity shift in the same way women do. For many women this shift in identity can give rise to internal conflict which is manifested in the strained and sometimes estranged relations women experience with their families. And it is often just as difficult for women's parents and partners to understand and reconcile the changes that accompany this identity shift as it is for women themselves. It is this reshaping of their identities in ways that devalue a fundamental aspect of who they are that contributes significantly to the ambivalence the women sometimes feel toward academe.
It's a Man's World: Becoming One of Them
Not only do women often feel fragmented in the academy with respect to gender and achievement identity issues but often women find there is little room in the academy for the affective dimensions of self. Emotions are seen by many in the academy as a weakness, as something unprofessional and students who disclose any emotional vulnerability with respect to their doctoral pursuits, can run the risk of being perceived by some as weak or not measuring up to the challenge.
I think that my relationship with my advisor is good but is not very personal. She is supportive professionally but I don't ever seek her support for other things. Expressing the need or desire to avoid certain topics of study for personal reasons would reveal to my advisor a dimension of my personality which I don't care to share with her. That, I believe would or could create an awkwardness. Not sharing with her that I associate sickness and especially sick mothers with a very personal experience was a way to avoid awkwardness and making my advisor feel that I am only suited to study certain topics. I don't want to limit myself professionally and I do have the feeling that showing such an emotional motivation for avoidance is the kind of thing that works against you. I don't know why we are socialized to work this way, but especially women have working against them the notion that they are too emotional and/ or moody to be entirely professional. Even though I was dealing with another woman, I was dealing with a woman who I know may see my emotions as a weakness.For many women this disconnection from the affective dimensions of self reflects the maleness of the academy, for often it is through relationship Ç through the affective domainðÇ that women feel most connected in their relationships with others.
[During our meeting] the phone rang, and it was the vet calling to tell him that he (the vet) had to put Ben's dog to sleep. Ben teared up, and got very emotional. Then he called his wife to tell her. He was extremely upset. And I suddenly realized, watching all this, that the way he presented himself to students was just a cover. That he was, underneath it all, a very sweet person who was probably very afraid of being hurt by others. By the time I left the meeting, I had decided to ask Ben to be my advisor. The rest, as they say, is history.For the women in my own research, the relationships they had with others had a significant impact on the levels of stress they experienced their doctoral studies.
Sexual Harassment
Sexual harassment continues unabated in graduate education and some research suggests that women doctoral students are more likely to experience harassment than master's level students (Morris, 1989). Hall and Sandler (1982) documented a range of attitudes and behaviours that create an unfriendly climate for women, undermine their confidence, sap their motivation, dampen their academic and career aspirations and, ultimately, impede their progress. Faculty attitudes were found to have a profound effect on women. Hall and Sandler found that men faculty tend to view women primarily as sexual beings and tend to affirm male students more often than female students and that this often has the effect of reinforcing negative stereotypes held by male students. The lack of encouragement from both male faculty and peers, the lack of collegial relationships with faculty members, and stereotyped views that hold women to be less competent than men academically, all contribute to the stress experienced by women (Berg and Ferber, 1983; Hite, 1985) and make it even more challenging for women to see themselves as emerging scholars. Hite (1985, p. 21) reported that "women in all fields of study at the doctoral level perceived less support from faculty than did their male peers" and concluded that women may interpret this lack of support as evidence that faculty perceive women as not having the ability or motivation to succeed academically and that these perceptions serve to discourage women unnecessarily. She further recommended that the "informal and formal policies of graduate schools and individual programs of study need to be reevaluated for signs of intentional and unintentional biases against female students" (p. 21).While most women are less likely to encounter blatant, 'in your face', sexual harassment on campuses today these circumstances do persist. One of the women in my research study, while finishing her dissertation, was contending with comments like:
wanta fuck?Eventually, she "mustered the courage" to seek her husband's advice.i'd like to make your body my business
i watched two dogs fucking last night and it reminded me of what it must be like when you have sex.
his first remark was that i should exercise extreme restraint in any decisions and actions as he did not want me perceived as the "troublemaker" here.Feeling unsupported and torn between silence and the potentially harmful consequences of lodging a complaint, she contemplated her next step.
funny, the men i have spoken to all say "go for it." the women are much more reticent and thoughtful before making a response and their comments usually reflect thought given to the "price" i may well pay if i do something.In the end, she did lodge a formal complaint and at every turn in the process she was reassured that it would be "confronted, dealt with and not tolerated" by the university. However, after the first formal meeting university officials informed her that it had been a "growth experience" for all involved and there would be no formal sanctions. She persisted with her complaint for over a year and when news of a pending settlement was rumored on campus, she went to her office and found the following message taped to her door.
She did eventually win a settlement in the tens of thousands of dollars but the emotional costs were high and the experience detracted significantly from her doctoral studies.earn 30 percent less
produce 20 percent more
put your father and your son out of a job
but don't expect history to remember you.chan
last of the great warlords
defender of the faith
and guardian of the doorway
Advisor/Advisee Relationships
In my research the core theme emerging from my data focused on the importance of women's relationships with others. Most of the stress these women experienced related not to the cognitive or task dimensions of their programs but to the diminished and/or dysfunctional communication patterns in relationships both in and out of academe. Of central influence in all the women's doctoral experiences were the relationships they had with their advisors. Not only was the advisor/advisee relationship the most influential relationship the women had in the department while pursuing the doctorate, but relational issues of trust, power, authority and control in these relationships were central factors that enhanced and/or diminished their progress in significant ways.
Our relationship was often one that can best be described as paternal--he tried to "parent" me. As my dissertation process moved along our relationship became characterized by distrust.Finding the "right" advisor can critical to degree completion. A good match between student and advisory styles with respect to the task and interpersonal dimensions of the advisor/advisee relationship may be even more important than a close match between an advisor's area of expertise and a student's research focus. Compatibility with respect to one's research paradigm or genre may also be more important in facilitating completion than closely matched interest in a particular subject.
Access to one's advisor and to appropriate feedback enhanced student progress. Among some women doctoral students there was a critical need for open communication with respect to both the task and relational dimensions of the advisor/advisee relationship. The willingness of advisors to engage these aspects of the relationship may be central to the success of some women doctoral students and may be characteristic of faculty who are perceived by women doctoral students as effective role models.
Among the more difficult aspects of advisor/advisee relationships for women to negotiate is that of role reversal Çðwhen the advisor seeks advice and encouragement from the advisee. This raises an interesting question as to whether men doctoral students also experience role reversals in their relationships with advisors.
I recall that, of an hour meeting, we often spent 45 minutes talking about him, and maybe 5-10 minutes talking about the dissertation. In a way, I think I was sort of flattered that Ben shared his thoughts with me. It kind of symbolized my move from student to colleague. At the same time, though, it was hard to focus on his angst when I was going through so much of my own. I had become almost a mother confessor to him, and yet there wasn't much reciprocity. At a time when I probably needed more encouragement and focus on my own fears as these related to the dissertation and the defense, I found myself instead having to be supportive to Ben.As the women in my study described the relationships they had with their advisors they described different ways in which advisors related to students and used their power either to serve their own agendas and/or to serve the needs of students. Six styles of advising emerged from their descriptions and are summarized below.
* * * i described how i was abused or i think it is abuse now. it was hard to realize [at the time] though ... she is very good at making things look like she does them for you. but it was messy big time ... it makes you feel like you ought ta' protect her and be patient with her etc.
The women were less likely to encounter roadblocks to completion when matched with faculty who used institutional power and authority to benefit students and the larger common good rather than their own personal agendas. Having an advisor who was female was no guarantee that women doctoral students would be less likely to experience inappropriate uses of power at the hands of the advisor. In this regard, the way advisors used their power and authority and managed conflict was more important than gender with respect to the quality of the advisor/advisee relationship. The degree of support and trust and/or vulnerability a student experiences within the advisor/advisee relationship may be an important factor that can enhance or diminish the quality of the doctoral experience and influence time to degree.The Uninvolved Advisor
Often too busy with own agendas to even notice the students unless they happen to share similar research interests; gives low priority to involvement with or supervision of students' work/progress; is often unavailable or too busy to meet with students; provides little guidance; students are left on their own to learn by trial and error.
The Laissez-faire/Hands Off Advisor
Provides little constructive feedback to students; quick to provide critical feedback; may have an open door policy for meeting with students but assumes the responsibility/initiative belongs entirely with the student; may be reluctant to engage in substantive dialogue with students about their work.
The Negotiator
Helps students to discover their own relationship to research; engages in mutual negotiation with students; balances guidance and direction with students' expressed needs; allows students to take the lead and is willing to provide guidance when needed; uses power and authority to benefit the students; gives constructive feedback.
The Proactive Advisor
Very similar to the negotiator but takes more of a leadership role; meets regularly with students to set/negotiate goals and timelines; expresses clear performance guidelines; gives constructive feedback; uses power and authority to benefit the students.
The Symbiotic Advisory Style
Often uses power and authority to benefit students but may be more authoritative and demanding than the proactive advisor; will also use power and authority to get something he/she needs from the student; may be moody and/or unpredictable; may be hostile and/or vindictive toward students.
The Autocratic Advisor
Consistently authoritative; often demanding; tends to use power and authority for personal benefit; may want to shape the student in his/her own image or use students to serve a personal agenda; student needs play a secondary role to advisor's needs or may not enter into the picture at all; the advisor assumes the role of a demanding parent who expects the advisee will fulfill the role of a compliant and unquestioning child.
Transformation and Recapitulation of Critical Life Issues
For some students, pursuit of the doctorate is more than simply a process of becoming socialized to academe and to a particular field of study. It can be a very personal experience in which a student's identity is significantly transformed. One recurring pattern I've observed among some doctoral students is the emergence and recapitulation of some long-standing unresolved life issue during some point in a student's program. These unresolved issues extend deep into one's inner core and can revolve around a fundamental identity issues, a poor academic self-concept, deep-seated feelings of worthlessness, a generalized lack of confidence, class, gender and cultural differences, or around unresolved issues in the parent-child relationship that are triggered through the advisor/advisee relationship.
... the dysfunction in my behavior is repeated in the sense that I work very hard for a committee who seem to care little about the energy I put in. My advisor has certainly been less than supportive at times and very supportive at others. This kind of behavior is similar to my father who will go out of his way to do one thing for me elaborately and then is completely absent both physically and emotionally the rest of the time. Also there is an analogy in that as much as I feel that my father has no concept of what I actually do and why, I also feel that my diss. advisor has no concept of where I come from and what odds I may struggle against to do the work I must do for her. Perhaps my desire for support from the academic environment too, comes from a feeling that I don't get support from my family. This perhaps crosses over into class issues. For the majority of my family (in fact everyone I can think of) higher education is not an endeavor they are acquainted with.Recapitulation of these critical life issues can revive the intense anxiety and emotions associated with the original experience which in turn may provoke a dysfunctional response to the situation that slows degree progress. Whatever the unresolved issue in a student's life the effect can be a period of overwhelming generalized anxiety and emotional paralysis Ç a fear of stopping Ç a fear of moving forward.
* * * I think this issue was particularly strong for me as I was trying to write the last (infamous) chapter. Having been told that I wasn't good enough to be in a relationship (not that those words were used, but that seemed to be the meta- message) with, something I had actually _done_ before, how on earth could I possibly be worthy of defending an original study before four people who were all published and experienced scholars? The crisis of confidence is something that is never mentioned with regard to this whole process, yet I see it quite often among my friends who are still embroiled in the writing of the dissertation. And I know I went through it-- often--myself .... basically it comes down to _knowing_ that you are capable versus _feeling and believing_ it. And that's the toughest part of all. I know it's the part I struggled with the most.
* * * I know that no one will ever criticize me as soundly as I criticize myself. I am always very aware of my own mistakes, quite apart from anything anyone else may notice. At first, when Ben would come down hard on my feeble attempts at proposals, I don't think he realized how devastating that was to me. For one thing, I had difficulty judging for myself what quality of work I was presenting (I had no basis for comparison). But then when he would land on me, I was doubly upset because (a) I felt like a moron and (b) I felt that it would take me forever to earn his respect. So each draft that was bad--or at least not up to either of our standards-- really represented a sort of defeat for me. One that I had to overcome.
... you're scared spitless at some point in the process. It's like you want to go back or quit or stop moving inexorably toward whatever it is that happens at the end, but you just can't.The path toward resolution of these critical life issues can be long and varied, first because it is not easily understood why there is a tendency for critical life issues surface again during the doctoral years and second, because students often feel isolated or personally inadequate and unable to discuss the issues with anyone. The transition to resolution, which can occur during the degree process or following degree completion, is sometimes characterized by a period of deep emotional depression. As students begin to approach resolution they are able to understand the recapitulation of these critical life issues as part of the transformational process of pursuing a doctorate.
I feel ready to tackle this today. It's all kind of a blur with different aspects of my life all mixing together in this web of insecurity bullshit.The women in my research pursued scholarly work as a path to personal growth and to broaden the intellectual worlds beyond those in which they had grown up. For some this path represented an escape from the poverty and dysfunction experienced in the childhood family. When they encountered a highly political environment in academe with its own issues relating to dysfunctional patterns of communication, support, and trust, the women experienced intense feelings of disillusionment about the doctoral process and toward academe in general. They felt robbed of a more positive transformational growth process they expected to encounter and their experiences left them with a good deal of ambivalence about academe and their futures as academics.In the aftermath of my comprehensive exams I felt very strongly that I wanted to be living anyone else's life but my own. I was seriously doubting my choice for a career in academia. I couldn't remember that the goal I had once set for myself to get a PhD ever entailed such an absolute emotional shut down as I felt had been required to prepare and take my exams. In addition to that, most of my life I had felt supported and positive about school and academic work which was a refreshing escape from a dysfunctional family environment. That was no longer true as I discovered the academic world to be rampantly dysfunctional.
When the exams were over I really didn't know what the hell I had done to myself. Emotions that I had put on hold concerning my mother's death and the break up of a rather serious relationship all came rushing in like a dam had broken and mixed with my confusion about the academic world. I really wanted to run away from school and everything and for someone else to give me all the answers as to what I should do with myself. I tried to escape taking responsibility for myself by getting involved in a really self-destructive relationship and blowing off academic work altogether. I said many times to myself and to others during this time that academia looked very ugly from the other side of the exams and that I hadn't planned for the kind of bullshit I had to deal with. I wanted very much, and verbalized this desire several times (usually in the disguise of a joke), for someone else to save me.
I took my exams in January and by summertime, may/june I was aware that I had an intense fear of taking responsibility for myself and my future. The job market looked like hell. I couldn't imagine having to start all over in a new place with new friends. My family unit seemed to be disintegrating. My father was more and more focused on his relationship with his new girlfriend and less emotionally available than ever. It was during this time that I came to the conclusion that freedom was an awesome responsibility. I wrote about and talked about it almost obsessively. I was, for the first time in my life (I felt), balking in the face of the freedom to chose my own path. I am convinced that this is related to being so disillusioned with the emotional violence I felt I had experienced in going through comps - an event (I perceived) entirely related to my own personal career choice.
I didn't know what to do with myself. By the end of the summer, july/august I was so depressed I couldn't get out of bed in the morning. I developed the habit of getting sick to my stomach before dealing with a stressful situation (usually related to my really bad relationship by this time). Then around the time that my relationship was coming to an end I was vomiting every morning when I got up. This went on for a couple of weeks. I could barely eat anything without feeling sick. And nobody, not even my closest friends knew that this was happening. I lost about 15 pounds and everyone (of course) complemented me on how great I looked. (now i look at pictures and i think i looked like a skeleton. my normal weight is about 125 which already is pretty thin on a 5'7" frame).
Well, around the time school started a friend of mine had decided to go to therapy because of a really self-destructive relationship he'd been in. In light of this, I was discussing doing therapy with my best friend and told her about how I had been throwing up all the time and I wondered if I had some kind of eating disorder. She got really upset and said that if I didn't call somebody she would. So I called because I realized (seeing it through her eyes) how actually horrifying what had been going on with me really was.
It was in fact that very fall when I began therapy that I got involved with your study. In my therapy sessions I had been dealing mostly with my relationships with my family and my lack of self confidence. When I began writing about my doctoral experiences for your study I was able to sort out these feelings too and figure out how they were related to everything else that had been going on in my life. I spent a long time composing the messages I sent to you. I would write things that I sometimes felt afraid to say or felt like were uniquely horrible. Then I felt so great when your responses would indicate that I was not alone in the world. It helped a lot, especially that I knew that everyone in the study came from different places and departments. That helped me get some objectivity and actually helped me to see my work (what I enjoy doing) as entirely separate from the system it occurs in. All in all this study has been a fabulous experience for me.
i feel as if the "me" was eroded rather than allowed to emerge in all it could have beenð.... Sadly, it is only now that i am regaining any trust in people and feeling a sense of accomplishment about the doctorate. not the process, but having survived and reached a point where i have earned the right to be called "doctor."This research raises many questions about the nature of the doctoral experience and the transformational process that prospective students might anticipate in their programs.
* * * I've had to struggle this last year with figuring our my own priorities, professional and personal. I have often felt like this profession I've chosen (even before it was an issue for me) won't permit a balance of the two, especially for where women are concerned. I have been prone to depression and very emotionally confused during the last stages of my writing. It seems difficult for me to get in touch with any feelings other than the strong desire to finish my diss. and get away from academia for a period of time. I will be graduating this May. I have set my defense up for April. But I am planning to stay where I live now to take some time to reflect on my personal goals. I seem to have lost sight of them in the midst of all this intense work. I no longer know what in my life is most important to me outside of finishing the dissertation. I feel that stepping away from all of this to look back at it from a different perspective will help me figure out where to go from here.
I want to get back in touch with the part of myself that used to feel empowered by the many possibilities that the world has to offer me. I want to be able to express my whole self again. I want to feel whole again. So for the next year I will be searching for these things.
- Do all Ph.D. students, both completers and non-completers, experience the degree process as transformational?
- To what extent are women satisfied with the overall quality of their doctoral experiences? Do men and women differ in any important ways in their satisfaction with the doctoral experience?
- To what extent does women's need and/or desire for creativity in the doctoral process conflict with perceived demands of the department to conform to traditional structures and processes for completing the doctorate?
- To what extent do women and men experience the doctoral process as one that is conforming rather than transformational?
- Do men and women experience transformation differently?
- Are students in the arts and humanities more likely than those in the hard sciences to experience transformation as a result of the doctoral experience?
- To what extent is the failure of the doctoral experience to live up to one's preconceptions and expectations related to slowed degree progress and even early withdrawal?
- To what extent does women's disenchantment with the politics of doctoral programs influence their satisfaction and what effect might this have on attrition rates?
- Under what conditions is transformation experienced as a crisis? To what extent is crisis and its resolution an inherent part of the doctoral process?
- Are some students such as those from working class backgrounds or first generation college students with inadequate prior socialization to graduate research culture more likely to interpret the significant cognitive shifts demanded by doctoral study (for example, shifting from a 'class-taking student' to a 'book-writing researcher') as crises?
- What enables students to move beyond transformational crises and to what extent do students remain stuck at the crisis stage?
- Are transformational crises more likely than other forms of crisis to lead to early withdrawal and if so, to what extent do unresolved crises have a long term negative influence on one's self-concept?
- Do class, age or gender factors influence the nature of the transformational process and if so, in what way and to what extent?
- To what extent are creativity and the voices of women doctoral students valued and nurtured in the academy of the 90s?
- How prevalent is the concern among women doctoral students that conforming to the demands of the academy requires women to relinquish their own voice?
- Who gets to define what knowledge and research methods are acceptable?
- Are women's voices being silenced because they don't conform with traditional patriarchal conceptions of knowledge and research methods?
- Are more prestigious programs and institutions more likely to value conformity over a process that is transformational?
- What are the characteristics of programs that value creativity and transformational experiences over conformity?
- How do women who have very positive doctoral experiences differ from those who have less positive experiences? What factors make a difference? Are these factors different for men and women?
Many of the pre-conceptions the women had about the doctorate changed dramatically as a result of their experiences. Often their experiences were less than they'd hoped forðÇ less stimulating intellectually, more fraught with the politics of interpersonal relationships, more isolating and more exhausting, and a strain on their emotional and physical health. Despite the unanticipated outcomes, most women I've talked with found that over the long term, the benefits associated with completing the doctorate outweighed the negatives.
Discussion
Much as I hated the fucking thing (and I understand that you have to have at least 10 years between graduation and the time you stop referring to it as a "damned dissertation")--by which I mean much of the doctoral process--I also wouldn't have _not_ done it for the world. I am who I am because (and perhaps also in spite) of it. It gave me new insights into the world and into myself. It introduced me to some fabulous people, many of whom I count among my best friends today. I guess, in time, I will forgive the Ph.D. program/process --and myself-- for everything that happened along the way. But it will take awhile.My research raises important questions about the unanticipated health outcomes for those who pursue the doctorate. How common is it for doctoral students to experience mental and/or physical health problems, particularly stress-related problems, either during or following completion of their degree? What proportion of doctoral students seek counselling or use medications to cope with stress related to their programs? The more students and graduates I speak with, the more it seems that depression and anxiety related stressors seem to play a significant role in the degree process. To what extent do men and women experience health related problems differently? Are women more likely to experience health problems or are they simply more willing than men to voice such issues? To what extent are class differences, advanced age and gender related to stress and health issues during doctoral study? What is the effect of burnout on doctoral attrition?
* * * Well, though almost everyone I know in a doctoral program does drink a lot of coffee, they are, of course, not all interesting or interested in and supportive of my individuality and politics. The coursework was certainly more time consuming than I could have imagined as an undergrad but it was stimulating in many new ways. I am still surprised at how politically disinterested many academics are. I do not now think that all academics are intellectuals. And I believe now that doctoral programs in the variety of who you find in them are much more like a slice of the real world than I first believed they would be. It's more about getting out and getting a job and postponing gratification than I originally thought. I am not as independent as I imagined in grad school, I am low paid labor for my dept. (though I get teaching experience-- I should be thankful) and I am submitted to political games I don't completely understand and I am subjected to valuing the faddish proliferation of scholarship for the sake of capital (i.e. getting a job, keeping the job etc.) I thought that getting a doctorate would be more about teaching and less about ego. I came to grad school to be a teacher. I was surprised to find so many people who loathe the idea of teaching and who only teach because feel they have to in order to study. I was surprised at some of the things I found to be different and pleasantly so sometimes. I'm happy to have grown intellectually in ways I could not foresee before coming. I have also been pleased with making mature friendships with people who are very different than myself. But I have been disappointed with the industrial nature of academia which graduate study is an introduction to.
There is an urgent need for more research on health outcomes associated with pursuit of the doctorate. Too often negative health outcomes are attributed to the limitations of individual students and rarely are systemic factors - such as the lack of accountability in a reward system that permits the unchecked use of power and authority - understood as contributing to these outcomes. We need to understand both the prevalence and the severity of the problem and the extent to which men and women might be affected differently. I invite scholars to begin a dialogue with those who will serve as the next generation of scholars, about the intended outcomes and unanticipated consequences of current educational practices for those in pursuit of the doctorate.
Adler, N. E. (1976). Women Students. In J. Katz and R. T. Hartnett (Eds.), Scholars in the Making: The Development of Graduate and Professional Students, p. 197-225. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company. References
Berg, H. and Ferber, M. (1983). Men and Women Graduate Students: Who Succeeds and Why? Journal of Higher Education, 54(6), 629-648.
Clark, B. R. (1959). The "Cooling-Out" Function in Higher Education. American Journal of Sociology, 65, 569-576.
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The Research Act. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Fontana, A. and Frey, J. H. (1994). Interviewing: The Art of Science. In Norman K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, p. 361-376, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967). Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Hall, R. M. and Sandler, B. R. (1982). The Classroom Climate: A Chilly One for Women? A Report from the Project on the Status and Education of Women of the Association of American Colleges, Washington, DC.
Hite, L. M. (1983). A Study of Doctoral Students Compared by Gender and Type of Field of Study on Factors of Role Congruence and Perceived Support from Peers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University.
Hutchinson, S. A. (1988). Education and Grounded Theory. In R. Sherman and R. B. Webb, (Eds.), Qualitative Research in Education: Focus and Methods. New York, NY: The Falmer Press.
Jacks, P., Chubin, D. E., Porter, A. L. and Connolly T. (1983). The ABCs of ABDs: A Study of Incomplete Doctorates. Improving College and University Teaching, 31(2), 74-81.
Kaplan, S. R. (1982). A Feminist Cinderella Tale: Women Over Thirty in Graduate and Professional School. Journal of National Association of Women Deans, Administrators and Counselors, 9-15.
Kerlin [Smith], B. A. (1995). Hidden Rules, Secret Agendas: Challenges Facing Contemporary Women Doctoral Students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, California, April 20, 1995.
Kerlin, B. A. (1997). Breaking the Silence: Toward a Theory of Women's Doctoral Persistence. Dissertation.
Kerlin, S. P. and Smith [Kerlin], B. A. (1994). Electrifying Stories: Virtual Research Communities in Graduate Education. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the Pacific Northwest Association for Institutional Research and Planning. Portland, Oregon, October 19-21, 1994.
Kerlin, S. P. (1995a). Pursuit of the Ph.D.: "Survival of the Fittest," or is it time for a new approach? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 3(16). http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v3n16.html
Kerlin, S. P. (1995b). Surviving the Doctoral Years: Critical Perspectives. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 3(17). http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v3n17.html
LeCompte, M. D. (1993). A Framework for Hearing Silence: What Does Telling Stories Mean When We Are Supposed to Be Doing Science? In D. McLaughlin and W. Tierney, (Eds.), Naming Silenced Lives: Personal Narratives and the Process of Educational Change, p. 9-27. New York, NY: Routledge.
Lipschutz, S. S. (1993). Enhancing Success in Doctoral Education: From Policy to Practice. In L. Baird, (Ed.), Increasing Graduate Student Retention and Degree Attainment. New Directions for Institutional Research, No. 80, Winter 1993, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Morris, R. E. (1989). Sexual Harassment Among Women Graduate Students: Measures and Predictors of the Chilly Climate. Master's Thesis, Department of Sociology, University of Western Ontario.
Mulder, A. and Heimer, K. (1996). An Oraganization's Mental Health Starts with its Leaders. Women in Higher Education, August, p. 17.
Nerad, M. and Miller, D. S. (1996). Increasing Student Retention in Graduate and Professional Programs. New Directions for Institutional Research, No. 92, Winter, 1996. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Palmer, P. (1998). A Hospitible Classroom Inspires. Vanguard, Portland State University, Feb. 6, p. 2.
Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist Methods in Social Research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Sherman, R. R. and Webb, R. B. (Eds.) (1988). Qualitative Research in Education: Focus and Methods. New York, NY: The Falmer Press.
Sternberg, D. (1981). How To Complete and Survive a Doctoral Dissertation. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded Theory Methodology: An Overview. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, p. 273-285, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.