University of Louisville ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository Faculty Scholarship 2018 The oD ctoral Quest: Managing Variables that Impact Degree Completion Glenn Gittings University of Louisville Mathew J. Bergman University of Louisville, [email protected] Kobena Osam University of Louisville Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.library.louisville.edu/faculty Part of the Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons, Educational Leadership Commons, and the Higher Education Commons Original Publication Information Gittings, Glenn, Mathew J. Bergman and Kobena Osam. "The octD oral Quest: Managing Variables That Impact Degree Completion." 2018 Journal of Higher Education Management 33(2): 28-37. http://shura.shu.ac.uk/23673/1/JHEM_2018_33-2.pdf#page=35 ThinkIR Citation Gittings, Glenn; Bergman, Mathew J.; and Osam, Kobena, "The octD oral Quest: Managing Variables that Impact Degree Completion" (2018). Faculty Scholarship. 395. https://ir.library.louisville.edu/faculty/395 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ThinkIR: The nivU ersity of Louisville's Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of ThinkIR: The nivU ersity of Louisville's Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Journal of Higher Education Management Volume 33, Number 2 (2018) PUBLISHED BY AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATORS 1 JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGEMENT Online: ISSN 2640-7515 │ Print: ISSN 1077-3398 Volume 33, Number 2 (2018) Opinions expressed in articles published in the Journal of Higher Education Management are those of the individual authors, and should not be taken as being representative of the opinions or positions of either the Journal or its sponsoring organization, AAUA—American Association of University Administrators. © Copyright 2018 by AAUA—American Association of University Administrators. Permission to reprint for academic/scholarly purposes is unrestricted provided this statement appears on all duplicated copies. All other rights reserved. INSTITUTIONAL SPONSOR FOR THIS ISSUE OF THE JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGEMENT Florida State University One of the nation's elite research universities, Florida State University preserves, expands, and disseminates knowledge in the sciences, technology, arts, humanities, and professions, while embracing a philosophy of learning strongly rooted in the traditions of the liberal arts and critical thinking. FSU's welcoming campus is located on the oldest continuous site of higher education in Florida, in a community that fosters free inquiry and embraces diversity, along with championship athletics, and a prime location in the heart of the state capital. Classified by the Carnegie Commission as “Doctoral Universities: Highest Research Activity,” Florida State offers over 300 degree programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels that prepare students to make an impact wherever they go. Cover Photo: Westcott Building at Florida State University; Constructed in 1910 as the Administration Building for the Florida State College of Women, and renamed in 1936 as the James D. Westcott Memorial Building in honor of the Florida jurist who bequeathed his entire estate to the Florida State College in 1887, the Westcott Building serves as the architectural centerpiece of the Florida State University campus and houses the university’s central administrative offices, including the Offices of the President and Provost. 2 Journal of Higher Education Management Volume 33, Number 2 (2018) EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Dan L. King, American Association of University Administrators SENIOR EDITORS Damon P. S. Andrew, Florida State University Rachael Murphey-Brown, Duke University ASSOCIATE EDITORS Raymond J. Bandlow, Gwynedd Mercy University Abour H. Cherif, American Association of University Administrators 3 The Doctoral Quest: Managing Variables that Impact Degree Completion Glenn Gittings Matt Bergman Kobena Osam University of Louisville Journal of Higher Education Management, 32(2), 28-37. © Copyright 2018 by AAUA—American Association of University Administrators. Permission to reprint for academic/scholarly purposes is unrestricted provided this statement appears on all duplicated copies. All other rights reserved. (Online ISSN 2640-7515; Print ISSN 1077-3398.) Within the last year, statistics suggest that there are more than 20 million students expected to enroll in college programs across the United States (NCES, 2017). Of this number, 3 million graduate students expected to enroll, with doctoral students making up one-fifth of this number. These numbers appear to be mind-boggling, however research suggests that an estimated 40%- 60% of doctoral students do not persist to graduate (Allum & Okahana, 2015; Ampaw & Jaeger, 2011; Blair & Haworth, 2005; Cochran, Campbell, Baker, & Leeds, 2014; Tinto, 1993). Moreover, statistics also show that the majority of students who drop out of doctoral programs do so during the dissertation stage (Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Jones, 2013). The inability to complete doctoral studies comes at a financial and emotional loss to the student, discourages faculty members, as well as tarnishes an institution’s reputation. Fully understanding the factors that affect doctoral student persistence may help academic institutions better improve the quality of program experience for doctoral students, boost the institutions’ credentials by an increase in future doctoral applicants, as well as encourage faculty members to devote vested interest in the training of future academicians. Tinto’s (1993) model of doctoral persistence provides a critical insight into the journey of a doctoral student, and thus this paper seeks to employ this model to review the key areas that impact doctoral students’ ability to complete their programs. Specifically, this paper will focus on socialization, entry orientation, institutional experiences and research experience, and will provide recommendations to universities and colleges to help improve the rate of persistence among doctoral students. As an important aside, students pursuing doctoral degrees in medicine, law, dentistry, and pharmacy were eliminated from consideration in this paper. These students do not have the same degree completion requirements as doctoral students including, but not limited to, the completion of the dissertation, which serves as the capstone of doctoral study in American graduate education. Research on doctoral attrition/persistence has highlighted many areas of concern into the causes of failure and solutions to success why doctoral students succeed and fail. Cusworth (2001) noted that the graduate experience is a great, unaddressed academic issue within higher education. Tinto’s (1975) model of undergraduate persistence provided a foundation/foundational framework for graduate student persistence. Tinto’s undergraduate model sought to explain that various characteristics influence undergraduate student persistence. These concepts included background characteristics, initial commitments to the goal of college graduation, social and academic integration of student within the college, and subsequent commitments to the goal of college graduation. Tinto offered the beginnings of a theory on doctoral student attrition in his 1993 influential book on undergraduate attrition. Tinto (1993) suggested that, “Graduate persistence is shaped by the personal and intellectual 28 interactions that occur within and between students and faculty and the various communities that make up the academic and social systems of the institution” (p. 231). Tinto explained doctoral persistence, stating: The process of doctoral persistence should be visualized as reflecting an interactive series of nested and intersecting communities not only within the university, but beyond it to the broader intellectual and social communities of students and faculty that define the norms of the field of study at a national level. The process of doctoral persistence seems to be marked by at least three distinct stages, namely that of transition and adjustment, that of attaining candidacy or what might be referred to as the development of competence, and that of completing the research project leading to the awarding of the doctoral degree. (pp. 234-235). Tinto (1993) further attempted to develop a longitudinal model of graduate persistence (See Figure 1), but quickly cautioned that the process of graduate persistence cannot be easily described by one simple model. Tinto postulated that factors of importance to attrition included: student attributes, socialization, entry goals and orientation, institutional and program experiences, academic and social integration into a program, and research experiences (Kluever, Green, & Katz, 1997). The model and theory of doctoral persistence posited by Tinto is in no way offered as a rigid formula that serves as the only method in which to study doctoral student attrition. Rather, it offers the opportunity to guide research with tools that help provide a frame of reference and allow for evaluation of the factors that impede the path to doctoral degree completion. This paper will focus on exploring five of the factors of attrition that Tinto put forth. Each of the proceeding sections contains studies of note exploring these factors. Student Attributes Attributes play an important role in whether or not a student completes their degree. By