USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Perceptions of senior faculty concerning doctoral student preparation for faculty roles

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Perceptions of senior faculty concerning doctoral student preparation for faculty roles
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Purcell, Jennifer M
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Graduate student socialization
Preparing future faculty
Doctoral education
Professoriate
Teaching
Research
Service
Dissertations, Academic -- Higher Education -- Doctoral -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
ABSTRACT: Calls for reform in doctoral education are not new. However, the past decade has experienced renewed interest and discussion in preparing the future professoriate. Whereas most studies of graduate student socialization and preparation for faculty roles have focused on doctoral students or new faculty, this study examined the perceptions of senior faculty members involved in doctoral education. All senior faculty (n=4970) in biological sciences, English, mathematics, and non-clinical psychology from a stratified sample of 69 research universities nationwide were invited to participate. More than 1150 faculty completed a web-based survey. Respondents rated the importance of 18 competencies (based on a framework by Austin and McDaniels) and 24 roles during 1) the first three years of faculty work and 2) doctoral education. Additionally, participants identified persons having primary responsibility for introducing doctoral students to each competency or role.^ Faculty respondents rated general competencies and research roles as more important than teaching and service roles for both new faculty and doctoral students. Whereas nearly all items were rated higher in importance for faculty than students, mean difference scores showed great variability. Results also varied by discipline. In general, most respondents viewed the doctoral student advisor or all faculty members in the academic unit as having primary responsibility for introducing specific roles and competencies to doctoral students; other common responses included the student and nobody. Results of the study have important implications for doctoral education at the national, institutional, and unit levels. First, consideration of disciplinary differences in priorities for doctoral training and new faculty development programs is vital. Additionally, multiple stakeholders can impact the preparation of future faculty.^ Training institutions, hiring institutions, and students can play a role in narrowing the gap between doctoral student preparation and the work required of new faculty. Suggestions for future research include expanding the sample to include a broader array of academic disciplines and incorporating qualitative methods to discern reasons for disparities in the importance assigned to specific competencies and roles. Research should also explore the perceptions of senior faculty concerning the worth and feasibility of recent recommendations aimed at better preparing future faculty.
Thesis:
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2007.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Jennifer M. Purcell.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 310 pages.
General Note:
Includes vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001943781
oclc - 231760297
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0002188
usfldc handle - e14.2188
System ID:
SFS0026506:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001943781
003 fts
005 20080626143507.0
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 080612s2007 flu sbm 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0002188
035
(OCoLC)231760297
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
LB2322 (ONLINE)
1 100
Purcell, Jennifer M.
0 245
Perceptions of senior faculty concerning doctoral student preparation for faculty roles
h [electronic resource] /
by Jennifer M. Purcell.
260
[Tampa, Fla] :
b University of South Florida,
2007.
3 520
ABSTRACT: Calls for reform in doctoral education are not new. However, the past decade has experienced renewed interest and discussion in preparing the future professoriate. Whereas most studies of graduate student socialization and preparation for faculty roles have focused on doctoral students or new faculty, this study examined the perceptions of senior faculty members involved in doctoral education. All senior faculty (n=4970) in biological sciences, English, mathematics, and non-clinical psychology from a stratified sample of 69 research universities nationwide were invited to participate. More than 1150 faculty completed a web-based survey. Respondents rated the importance of 18 competencies (based on a framework by Austin and McDaniels) and 24 roles during 1) the first three years of faculty work and 2) doctoral education. Additionally, participants identified persons having primary responsibility for introducing doctoral students to each competency or role.^ Faculty respondents rated general competencies and research roles as more important than teaching and service roles for both new faculty and doctoral students. Whereas nearly all items were rated higher in importance for faculty than students, mean difference scores showed great variability. Results also varied by discipline. In general, most respondents viewed the doctoral student advisor or all faculty members in the academic unit as having primary responsibility for introducing specific roles and competencies to doctoral students; other common responses included the student and nobody. Results of the study have important implications for doctoral education at the national, institutional, and unit levels. First, consideration of disciplinary differences in priorities for doctoral training and new faculty development programs is vital. Additionally, multiple stakeholders can impact the preparation of future faculty.^ Training institutions, hiring institutions, and students can play a role in narrowing the gap between doctoral student preparation and the work required of new faculty. Suggestions for future research include expanding the sample to include a broader array of academic disciplines and incorporating qualitative methods to discern reasons for disparities in the importance assigned to specific competencies and roles. Research should also explore the perceptions of senior faculty concerning the worth and feasibility of recent recommendations aimed at better preparing future faculty.
502
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2007.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic dissertation) in PDF format.
538
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 310 pages.
Includes vita.
590
Adviser: James A. Eison, Ph.D.
653
Graduate student socialization.
Preparing future faculty.
Doctoral education.
Professoriate.
Teaching.
Research.
Service.
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Higher Education
Doctoral.
949
FTS
SFERS
ETD
LB2322 (ONLINE)
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.2188



PAGE 1

Perceptions of Senior Faculty Concerning Doctoral Student Preparation for Faculty Roles by Jennifer M. Purcell A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Adult, Career, and Higher Education College of Education University of South Florida Major Professor: James A. Eison, Ph.D. Robert Dedrick, Ph.D. Michael Mills, Ph.D. W. Robert Sullins, Ed.D. William Young, Ed.D. Date of Approval: August 24, 2007 Keywords: Graduate student socialization, preparing future faculty, doctoral education, professoriate, teaching, research, service Copyright 2007, Jennifer M. Purcell

PAGE 2

Dedication To my dearest husband, Mike thank you for agreeing to leave our comfortable lifestyle for the world of the unknown, so I could pursue bigger and better things. To Ryan, my sweet six-year old who is not very fond of the word dissertation one day this will all make sense.

PAGE 3

Acknowledgements I, like every doctoral student, know that a dissertation cannot be completed without the guidance and support of a village of people; all of whom deserve my deepest gratitude. First, and foremost, thank you to my committee the five people who had to agree my work was worthy of a Ph.D. I must thank Michael Mills for sticking with me through the difficult task of selecting a topic, which appeared one year and three concept papers later, and Jim Eison for encouraging and supporting many academic experiences beyond the classroom. A “SUPER” big thank you goes to Bob Sullins, for not only serving as a committee member, but acting as a sounding board throughout my many years at USF and supporting my nomination for the Presidential Fellowship. I am also very appreciative for the feedback from Robert Dedrick and William Young. Several individuals played key roles in developing the survey: Susan Bell, Marcus McWaters, Kevin Thompson, Sara Deat s, Julie Baldwin, Robert McDermott, Jim Eison, and graduate students in Measurement II. I am extremely grateful to them and to Ann Austin and Melissa McDaniels for allowing me to use their framework in creating the survey. Finally, a special thanks to Stuart Silverman. Although he was not directly involved in this project, he has served as a guide and mentor since I entered USF as an undergraduate in 1990. I would be remiss if I did not mention the significant role he has played in my personal and professional development. Thank you to my village.

PAGE 4

i Table of Contents List of Tables................................................................................................................. ...iv List of Figures................................................................................................................ ..xii Abstract....................................................................................................................... ....xiii Chapter 1: Introduction......................................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem......................................................................................1 Purpose of Study.................................................................................................11 Research Questions............................................................................................12 Significance of the Study.....................................................................................13 Delimitations........................................................................................................14 Limitations...........................................................................................................14 Organization of Remaining Chapters..................................................................15 Chapter 2: Review of the Related Literature...................................................................17 Evolution of Faculty Roles in American Higher Education..................................18 Purpose of the Ph.D. and Recent Calls for a Revamping of Doctoral Education............................................................................................................23 Trends in Ph.D. Attainment and Career Selection by Discipline.........................28 Graduate Student Socialization Process and the Role of Mentoring...................31 Faculty Roles/Competencies and the Gap in Doctoral Student Preparation.......37 National, Institutional, and Other Initiatives to Address Issues Related to Preparing Doctoral Students for Faculty Roles...................................................47 Recommendations to Improve Graduate Education............................................50 Restatement of the Need for this Study...............................................................57 Chapter 3: Method..........................................................................................................60 Purpose of the Study...........................................................................................60 Research Questions............................................................................................60 Population...........................................................................................................61 Biglan’s Classification of Academic Disciplines...................................................62 Sampling Scheme...............................................................................................65 Research Design.................................................................................................68 Survey Development and Pilot Testing...............................................................68 Step 1: Identify the Primary Purpose.....................................................69 Step 2: Identify Behaviors that Represent the Construct......................69 Step 3: Prepare a Set of Test Specifications.........................................70 Step 4: Construct the Initial Item Pool...................................................70 Step 5: Review of Items........................................................................73

PAGE 5

ii Step 6: Hold Preliminary Item Tryouts...................................................73 Step 7: Field-test Items on a Representative Sample...........................74 Step 8: Determine Statistical Properties................................................78 Step 9: Conduct reliability and validity studies for the final form...........79 Step 10: Develop Guidelines for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation for the Primary Study..........................................80 Modifications to Final Scales Based on Factor Analyses of Primary Data..........81 Chapter 4: Results..........................................................................................................87 Purpose of the Study...........................................................................................87 Research Questions............................................................................................87 Review of Pilot Study Results.............................................................................88 Results of Primary Study.....................................................................................89 Research Question 1...............................................................................96 Research Question 2.............................................................................104 Research Question 3.............................................................................114 Research Question 4.............................................................................119 Research Question 5.............................................................................134 Chapter 5 : Discussion, Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations..................138 Summary of Purpose and Study Design...........................................................138 Discussion of Findings......................................................................................140 Research Question 1.............................................................................140 Research Question 2.............................................................................146 Research Question 3.............................................................................152 Research Question 4.............................................................................154 Research Question 5.............................................................................163 Comparing Results with a Qualitative Study of Doctoral Student Learning.......164 Conclusions.......................................................................................................167 Implications.......................................................................................................168 Disciplinary Differences.........................................................................169 Identifying Priorities...............................................................................169 Recognition in Promotion and Tenure...................................................170 Doctoral Student Services.....................................................................171 New Faculty Programs..........................................................................173 Doctoral Student Responsibilities..........................................................175 Final Thoughts...................................................................................................177 Limitations of the Survey and Study Design......................................................179 Recommendations for Further Research..........................................................180 References....................................................................................................................1 84 Appendices...................................................................................................................20 3 Appendix A : List of Institutions in Study Population and Sample...................204 Appendix B : Roles and Skills Identified Two or More Times in the Literature....................................................................................208 Appendix C : Faculty Competencies / Roles Not Included in the Survey........211 Appendix D : Survey Correspondence............................................................213

PAGE 6

iii Appendix E: Survey Instrument......................................................................218 Appendix F: Demographic Characteristics of Faculty in the Initial Contact List by Discipline...........................................................238 Appendix G: Descriptive Statistics and Item Ranking for Total Group...........239 Appendix H: Percentage of Responses for “Who is Responsible” – Total Group................................................................................249 Appendix I: Descriptive Statistics by Discipline.............................................251 Appendix J: Tables by Discipline...................................................................267 Appendix K: Pearson Correlation Coefficients for All Scales.........................290 Appendix L: ANOVA Tables...........................................................................294 Appendix M: Tables by Status as a Dissertation Advisor...............................302 About the Author.................................................................................................End Page

PAGE 7

iv List of Tables Table 1 Employment Plans of 2004 Graduates in Biology, English, Mathematics, and Psychology.................................................................30 Table 2 Biglan’s Model of Academic Disciplines..................................................64 Table 3 Total Number of Institutions and Original Random Selection within Carnegie Classifications..........................................................................65 Table 4 Final Sample Size and Proportion of Total Institutions within Carnegie Classifications..........................................................................67 Table 5 Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients of Competency, Teaching/Learning, Research, and Service Scales by Research Question in the Pilot Study.......................................................................................................79 Table 6 Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients of Modified Scale Options Based on Results of Principal Axis Factor Analysis with Promax Rotation........82 Table 7 Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients of Final Scales by Discipline...................86 Table 8 Number and Percentage of Institutions within each Carnegie Classification Represented in the Initial Contact List...............................90 Table 9 Reasons for Non-Response....................................................................91 Table 10 Initial Sample and Respondents by Discipline and Institution Type........................................................................................94 Table 11 Descriptive Statistics for Total Group by Scale – Importance to Faculty..............................................................................96

PAGE 8

v Table 12 Highest-rated Competencies ( M 3.0) for Total Group – Importance to Faculty............................................................................100 Table 13 Highest-rated Roles ( M 3.0) for Total Group – Importance to Faculty............................................................................100 Table 14 Lowest-rated Roles ( M < 2.0) for Total Group – Importance to Faculty............................................................................101 Table 15 Percentage of Responses to Each Competency for Total Group – Importance to Faculty............................................................................102 Table 16 Percentage of Responses to Each Role for Total Group – Importance to Faculty............................................................................103 Table 17 Descriptive Statistics for Total Group by Scale – Doctoral Student Preparation...............................................................................104 Table 18 Highest-rated Competencies ( M 3.0) for Total Group – Doctoral Student Preparation................................................................106 Table 19 Highest-rated Roles ( M 3.0) for Total Group – Doctoral Student Preparation...............................................................................107 Table 20 Lowest-rated Competencies ( M < 2.0) for Total Group – Doctoral Student Preparation................................................................107 Table 21 Lowest-rated Roles ( M < 2.0) for Total Group – Doctoral Student Preparation...............................................................................108 Table 22 Percentage of Responses to Each Competency for Total Group – Doctoral Student Preparation...................................109 Table 23 Percentage of Responses to Each Role for Total Group – Doctoral Student Preparation................................................................110

PAGE 9

vi Table 24 Descriptive Statistics for Mean Difference Scores between Importance to Faculty and Doctoral Student Preparation by Scale.................................................................................................111 Table 25 Largest and Smallest Mean Difference Scores between Importance to Faculty and Doctoral Student Preparation for Total Group by Item...............................................................................112 Table 26 Top Five Competencies and Roles Identified for Each Response Option by Total Group...........................................................................117 Table 27 Descriptive Statistics for the Four Scales by Total Group and Discipline – Importance to Faculty.........................................................122 Table 28 Descriptive Statistics for the Four Scales by Total Group and Discipline – Doctoral Student Preparation.............................................123 Table 29 Descriptive Statistics for the Four Scales by Total Group and Discipline – Mean Difference Scores.....................................................124 Table 30 Pearson Correlation Coefficients of All Scales for Total Group – Importance to Faculty............................................................................125 Table 31 Pearson Correlation Coefficients of All Scales for Total Group – Doctoral Student Preparation................................................................125 Table 32 Pearson Correlation Coefficients of All Scales for Total Group – Importance to Faculty Compared with Doctoral Student Preparation............................................................................................125 Table 33 Descriptive Statistics for All Scales by Status as a Dissertation Advisor...................................................................................................137 Table 34 Student Perceptions of Doctoral Preparation........................................160

PAGE 10

vii Table B-1 Teaching Roles / Skills..........................................................................208 Table B-2 Research Roles / Skills..........................................................................209 Table B-3 Service Roles / Skills.............................................................................210 Table G-1 Descriptive Statistics for all Items by Total Group – Importance to Faculty...............................................................................................239 Table G-2 All Items Rank Ordered by Discipline and Status as a Dissertation Advisor – Importance to Faculty............................................................241 Table G-3 Descriptive Statistics for all Items by Total Group – Doctoral Student Preparation................................................................243 Table G-4 All Items Rank Ordered by Discipline and Status as a Dissertation Advisor – Doctoral Student Preparation................................................245 Table G-5 Mean Difference Scores Between Importance to Faculty and Doctoral Student Preparation for Total Group by Item..........................247 Table I-1 Descriptive Statistics for Biological Sciences – Importance to Faculty...............................................................................................251 Table I-2 Descriptive Statistics for Biological Sciences – Doctoral Student Preparation...............................................................................253 Table I-3 Descriptive Statistics for English – Importance to Faculty.....................255 Table I-4 Descriptive Statistics for English – Doctoral Student Preparation.........257 Table I-5 Descriptive Statistics for Mathematics – Importance to Faculty............259 Table I-6 Descriptive Statistics for Mathematics – Doctoral Student Preparation............................................................................................261 Table I-7 Descriptive Statistics for Psychology – Importance to Faculty..............263

PAGE 11

viii Table I-8 Descriptive Statistics for Psychology – Doctoral Student Preparation............................................................................................265 Table J-1 Percentage of Responses to Each Item by Discipline – Importance to Faculty............................................................................267 Table J-2 Percentage of Responses to Each Item by Discipline – Doctoral Student Preparation................................................................269 Table J-3 Mean Difference Scores Between Importance to Faculty and Doctoral Student Preparation by Discipline...........................................271 Table J-4a Percentage of Responses to First Three Options by Discipline – Who is Responsible...............................................................................274 Table J-4b Percentage of Responses to Second Three Options by Discipline – Who is Responsible...............................................................................276 Table J-4c Percentage of Responses to Third Three Options by Discipline – Who is Responsible...............................................................................278 Table J-4d Percentage of Responses to Final Two Options by Discipline – Who is Responsible...............................................................................280 Table J-5 Percentage of Responses for Biological Sciences – Who is Responsible...............................................................................282 Table J-6 Percentage of Responses for English – Who is Responsible................284 Table J-7 Percentage of Responses for Mathematics – Who is Responsible.......286 Table J-8 Percentage of Responses for Psychology – Who is Responsible.........288 Table K-1 Pearson Correlation Coefficients of All Scales for Biological Sciences –Importance to Faculty...........................................................290

PAGE 12

ix Table K-2 Pearson Correlation Coefficients of All Scales for Biological Sciences –Doctoral Student Preparation...............................................290 Table K-3 Pearson Correlation Coefficients of All Scales for English – Importance to Faculty............................................................................291 Table K-4 Pearson Correlation Coefficients of All Scales for English – Doctoral Student Preparation................................................................291 Table K-5 Pearson Correlation Coefficients of All Scales for Mathematics – Importance to Faculty............................................................................291 Table K-6 Pearson Correlation Coefficients of All Scales for Mathematics – Doctoral Student Preparation................................................................292 Table K-7 Pearson Correlation Coefficients of All Scales for Psychology – Importance to Faculty............................................................................292 Table K-8 Pearson Correlation Coefficients of All Scales for Psychology – Doctoral Student Preparation................................................................292 Table K-9 Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between Ratings for Importance to Faculty and Doctoral Student Preparation by Discipline....................293 Table L-1 Results of ANOVA for Competency Scale by Discipline – Importance to Faculty............................................................................294 Table L-2 Scheffe Post-hoc Comparisons for Competency Scale by Discipline – Importance to Faculty.........................................................294 Table L-3 Results of ANOVA for Teaching / Learning Scale by Discipline – Importance to Faculty............................................................................295 Table L-4 Scheffe Post-hoc Comparisons for for Teaching / Learning Scale by Discipline – Importance to Faculty....................................................295

PAGE 13

x Table L-5 Results of ANOVA for Research Scale by Discipline – Importance to Faculty............................................................................296 Table L-6 Games-Howell Post-hoc Comparisons for Research Scale by Discipline – Importance to Faculty....................................................296 Table L-7 Results of ANOVA for Service Scale by Discipline – Importance to Faculty............................................................................297 Table L-8 Scheffe Post-hoc Comparisons for Service Scale by Discipline – Importance to Faculty............................................................................297 Table L-9 Results of ANOVA for Competency Scale by Discipline – Doctoral Student Preparation................................................................298 Table L-10 Scheffe Post-hoc Comparisons for Competency Scale by Discipline – Doctoral Student Preparation........................................298 Table L-11 Results of ANOVA for Teaching / Learning Scale by Discipline – Doctoral Student Preparation................................................................299 Table L-12 Scheffe Post-hoc Comparisons for Teaching / Learning Scale by Discipline – Doctoral Student Preparation........................................299 Table L-13 Results of ANOVA for Research Scale by Discipline – Doctoral Student Preparation...............................................................................300 Table L-14 Games-Howell Post-hoc Comparisons for Research Scale by Discipline – Doctoral Student Preparation.............................................300 Table L-15 Results of ANOVA for Service Scale by Discipline – Doctoral Student Preparation...............................................................................301 Table L-16 Scheffe Post-hoc Comparisons for Service Scale by Discipline – Doctoral Student Preparation................................................................301

PAGE 14

xi Table M-1 Results of ANOVA for All Scales by Status as a Dissertation Advisor...................................................................................................302 Table M-2 Percentage of Responses to Each Competency by Status as a Dissertation Advisor – Importance to Faculty........................................303 Table M-3 Percentage of Responses to Each Role by Status as a Dissertation Advisor – Importance to Faculty........................................304 Table M-4 Percentage of Responses to Each Competency by Status as a Dissertation Advisor – Doctoral Student Preparation............................305 Table M-5 Percentage of Responses to Each Role by Status as a Dissertation Advisor – Doctoral Student Preparation............................306 Table M-6a Percentage of Responses for First Six Options by Status as a Dissertation Advisor – Who is Responsible...........................................307 Table M-6b Percentage of Responses for Final Five Options by Status as a Dissertation Advisor – Who is Responsible...........................................309

PAGE 15

xii List of Figures Figure 1. Skills and Abilities for Faculty in the 21st Century...................................44 Figure 2. Knowledge and Skills in Areas of Faculty Work: Expanded Framework..............................................................................72 Figure 3. Mean Differences by Discipline Competency Scale............................120 Figure 4. Mean Differences by Discipline Teaching / Learning Scale................120 Figure 5. Mean Differences by Discipline Research Scale.................................121 Figure 6. Mean Differences by Discipline – Service Scale...................................121

PAGE 16

xiii Perceptions of Senior Faculty Concerning Doctoral Student Preparation for Faculty Roles Jennifer M. Purcell ABSTRACT Calls for reform in doctoral education are not new. However, the past decade has experienced renewed interest and discussion in preparing the future professoriate. Whereas most studies of graduate student socialization and preparation for faculty roles have focused on doctoral students or new faculty, this study examined the perceptions of senior faculty members involved in doctoral education. All senior faculty ( N = 4970) in biological sciences, English, mathematics, and non-clinical psychology from a stratified sample of 69 research universities nationwide were invited to participate. More than 1150 faculty completed a web-based survey. Respondents rated the importance of 18 competencies (based on a framework by Austin and McDaniels) and 24 roles during 1) the first three years of faculty work and 2) doctoral education. Additionally, partici pants identified persons having primary responsibility for introducing doctoral students to each competency or role. Faculty respondents rated general competencies and research roles as more important than teaching and service roles for both new faculty and doctoral students. Whereas nearly all items were rated higher in importance for faculty than students, mean difference scores showed great variability. Results also varied by discipline. In general, most respondents viewed the doctoral student advisor or all faculty members in the academic unit as having primary responsibility for introducing specific roles and

PAGE 17

xiv competencies to doctoral students; other common responses included the student and nobody. Results of the study have important implications for doctoral education at the national, institutional, and unit levels. First, consideration of disciplinary differences in priorities for doctoral training and new faculty development programs is vital. Additionally, multiple stakeholders can impact the preparation of future faculty. Training institutions, hiring institutions, and students can play a role in narrowing the gap between doctoral student preparation and the work required of new faculty. Suggestions for future research include expanding the sample to include a broader array of academic disciplines and incorporating qualitative methods to discern reasons for disparities in the importance assigned to specific competencies and roles. Research should also explore the perceptions of senior faculty concerning the worth and feasibility of recent recommendations aimed at better preparing future faculty.

PAGE 18

1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction Statement of the Problem The Ph.D. is the pinnacle of American higher education; its processes and structures have been envied and emulated throughout the world. Several times since its creation, however, critics have made calls to change the purpose and structure of the degree. The most recent calls for change invite national discussions among multiple stakeholders to develop strategic modifications in response to the needs of a rapidly changing 21st century American society (Nyquist, 2002; Stewart, 2005). Current trends in Ph.D. attainment and the corresponding career choices of graduates reflect a career path much different from a half-century ago. Graduates today are not only seeking employment outside of the academy (Austin, 2002a; Geiger, 1997; Hoffer, Welch, Williams, Hess, Webber, Lisek, et al., 2005), but among those who do stay, only 10% find jobs in research universities similar to those in which they were trained (Gaff & Lambert, 1996). These appointment s, however, vary from 5% to 20% depending on discipline (Golde & Dore, 2001; Lee, 2001). Nonetheless, a large majority of graduates who seek and accept academic positions in different segments of the higher education system often find themselves unprepared for the roles and expectations they face (Austin, 2002b; Meacham, 2002). The fact that only a fraction of Ph.D. graduates will work in the environment they know best points to the need for graduate faculty and administrators to reduce the perceived disparity between doctoral preparation and job expectations.

PAGE 19

2 At least two distinct approaches toward reform of the Ph.D. have emerged. The first staunchly supports the Ph.D. as a research degree and calls for institutions to limit their doctoral student enrollment, thereby bringing the supply of Ph.D. graduates back in line with demand (Hartle & Galloway, 1996). Others in this group recommended alternatives such as the Doctor of Arts degree which disappeared as quickly as it appeared for individuals interested primarily in the teaching profession (Boyer, 1990) or a Doctor of Science degree (Geiger, 1997) for those focusing on research. Still other scholars view doctoral education as being in a Malthusian crisis (Geiger, 1997) that will automatically readjust following principles of social Darwinism, with the new generation of faculty representing the survival of the fittest; although, this is a prospect that few individuals really want (Nyquist, Manning, Wulff, Austin, Sprague, Fraser, et al., 1999). Proponents of the alternative approach claim that higher education should adapt to the fluctuating needs of today’s society. Recent trends influencing doctoral education include global competition, an increasingly diverse population, the advancement of technology, national economic concerns, and the struggle to promote a vision of graduate education as a public good (Finkelstein, 2003; Levine, 2001; Stewart, 2005; Trower, Austin, & Sorcinelli, 2001). Supporters also note that changes in faculty roles and calls for reform are not new phenomena. In fact, according to Lovett (1993, p. 26), “the reinvention of faculty roles and responsibilities to meet society’s changing needs has been a constant theme in American higher education.” Supporters of reform purport that current changes in the marketplace will create inevitable shifts in American society and thus advocate for strategic and thoughtful change in doctoral study to meet demands of the new millennium. In other words, the 19th century model of doctoral education is “inadequate for the challenges confronting the professoriate of the 21st century” (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, & Weibl, 2000, p. 3).

PAGE 20

3 Career aspirations of doctoral graduates also vary, adding one more reason to explore changes in doctoral education. Even 30 years ago, faculty and graduate students were expressing interest in serving a variety of professional roles, with well over half interested more in teaching than in research (Bess, 1978). Recent studies show this trend has not changed significantly (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, & Weibl, 2000; Golde & Dore, 2004). With 57% of graduates entering career positions in the academy and another 35% of graduates accepting postdoctoral positions (Hoffer et al., 2005) as the next step in their academic career, many ne w Ph.D.s could find themselves ill-prepared for the breadth of roles they will face upon accepting their first academic appointment, which is often in an academic culture different from that in which they were trained (Austin, 2002b). Whereas there have been no suggestions to dilute the Ph.D. as a research degree, some stakeholders have called for reducing the time to degree completion (Geiger, 1997), which currently averages 10 years from admission to graduation across all disciplines (Hoffer et al., 2005). Other scholars, as far back as 30 years ago, have identified the need to banish the notion that research training is sufficient preparation for teaching (Slevin, 1992; Storr, 1973). Given that graduates pursuing positions within higher education are expected to “hit the ground running” with little formal training upon employment (Whitt, 1991), it stands to reason that research training is not sufficient to fulfill the multitude of roles that faculty must assume. These roles include multiple sub-roles, such as grant writer, advisor, fundraiser, strategic planner, thesis chair, or search committee member within the standard triad of research, teaching, and service. Additionally, participants in national discussions on doctoral education believe all graduates should possess general competencies, such as breadth of disciplinary knowledge, the ability to make intraand inter-disciplinary

PAGE 21

4 connections, and the skills to communicate and work in a global, collaborative environment (Nyquist, 2002). Austin and Mc Daniels (2006) presented a comprehensive list of skills and abilities for faculty in the 21st century. These included conceptual understandings, interpersonal skills, professi onal attitudes and habits, and knowledge and skills in the areas of faculty work – or faculty roles. Some groups place great emphasis on the need for reform. For example, the Association of American Colleges (AAC) explored collaborative partnerships among institutions to provide graduate training aimed at serving the missions of each partner. In its proposal for grant funding, the AAC wrote, “the intense focus on training graduate students to become specialized research scholars continues to crowd out any systematic effort to prepare them to become effective teachers or to assume many other tasks that attend a faculty appointment” (as cited in Slevin, 1992, p. 2). A reasonable question to ask is whose responsibility it is to provide doctoral students and recent Ph.D. graduates with the tools they will need to be successful in the wide range of academic positions they will pursue. Some authorities suggest that all stakeholders in doctoral education, including the doctoral-granting institutions, the hiring institutions, the disciplinary and professional associations, and the government should all play a role in addressing this query (Nyquist, 2002). A salient argument addressing the question of responsibility can be made by examining the eventual beneficiaries of doctoral training. First and foremost, the hiring institution receives an obvious benefit in gaining a new faculty member who can fulfill the teaching, research, and service missions of the institution. Individuals benefit from employment itself and the ability to advance their careers. Whereas preparing future faculty to work in environments other than their own may appear largely altruistic, research instit utions also benefit from preparing academics

PAGE 22

5 for multiple roles. Graduate students work in labs and add to the institution’s research productivity. Similarly, these institutions benefit by improving undergraduate education (Richin, 1991) through mentoring and training graduate students in teaching pedagogies. A third potential benefit, although still more speculative than factual, is increasing the completion rate of doctoral students (Boyle & Boice, 1998) above the 50% mark (Duderstadt, 2001; Lovitts & Nelson, 2001; Smallwood, 2004), a trend that has not only remained stable over the past decade (Denecke, 2005), but is what Rhodes terms “wasteful” (2001, p. 123). In the long term, providing students with a well-rounded socialization and preparation experience can increase an institution’s ability to place their graduates in high-status positions, inside or outside of academe. These placements can help an institution become more competitive when recruiting new cohorts of talented students. The implementation of programs such as Preparing Future Faculty (described below) has also been shown to enhance recruitment efforts (Ferron, Gaff, & Clayton-Pedersen, 2002; Gaff & Lambert, 1996). The final benefit of better preparing future faculty members is to higher education and society, in general. Graduates without an understanding of faculty roles, or the arsenal of skills needed to adapt successfully to such roles, may find themselves leaving for what they see as the greener pastures of business, industry, or government (Austin, 2002a; Nyquist, 2002). Employment in sector s outside of academe is important and doctoral students should be educated about these possibilities. However, higher education as a system would be remiss in not keeping its best and brightest in academe. In fact, Mitchell-Kernan (2005) paints a so mber picture, claiming that declining enrollment in graduate education and high attrition rates will have “grave consequences for the nation’s prosperity and for its social fabric” (p. 6).

PAGE 23

6 Since the early 1990s, national initiatives such as Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) and Re-envisioning the Ph.D were created to address the issues of doctoral student preparation in a changing higher education landscape. Each provided practical skills and information to aspiring academics. PFF was a national program of four related initiatives developed and implemented between 1993 and 2002. Its basic premise was to assist in the creation of a doctoral experience that permitted students to: (1) develop as a teacher through progressively independent and complex teaching opportunities, (2) grow and develop as a researcher through varied experiences and mentoring, and (3) become a scholar/citizen through opportunities to se rve the department and campus (Gaff, PruittLogan, & Weibl, 2000). Re-envisioning the Ph.D., funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts, was created to address the question, "How can we re-envision the Ph.D. to meet the needs of the society of the 21st Century?" Unlike PFF which created and assessed programs for doctoral students at specific institutions, Re-envisioning the Ph.D. engaged multiple stakeholders in national conversations about doctoral education to develop strategies to address the issues. Outcomes of the project also included best practices and resources for faculty and students (Nyquist & Woodford, 2000). Although the PFF program was originally conceived with little to no empirical evidence (Gaff, 2002a, 2002b), a greater number of empirical studies during the early 2000s began to focus on needs identified by graduate students. Wulff and Austin (2004) compiled the most comprehensive collection of articles related to research on doctoral education and national strategies of reform. Results of these studies form the basis for continued research and discussion about doctoral education.

PAGE 24

7 From another perspective, new faculty members at a variety of institutional types have identified several key pieces of inform ation they would liked to have learned while in their graduate programs. For example, despi te high levels of job satisfaction early in their career, new faculty identified time constraints, lack of collegial relationships, inadequate feedback, insufficient resources, balancing their work and non-work lives, and their own unrealistic expectations of productivi ty as distinct challenges of which they were unaware during graduate school (Sorcinelli, 1994). Through assessment of national initiatives, perceptions of new faculty, and research on graduate student socialization, scholars have identified theoretical and empirical bases for best practices in graduate education. Additionally, they have identified a list of skills or competencies that doctoral graduates should possess to transition more easily into faculty life. Many institutions have created programs to develop one or more of these skills. Resources for aspiring faculty, both in print and online, also have proliferated within the past ten years (University of Washington, 2006). Unfortunately, the impact of these initiatives has not been as far-reaching as was hoped. Because of funding limitations, only a fraction of doctoral-granting institutions were included in the PFF project and only some of the doctoral students at these institutions were able, or chose, to participate (Gaff & Lambert, 1996). According to the PFF website (n.d.a), less than one-fourth ( n = 64) of doctoral degree-granting institutions participated during the program’s 10-year cy cle. To compound the issue, participation rates in, or outcomes of, institutional programs have rarely, if ever, been published. Even though the national programs have produced encouraging results, it appears that only a small percentage of students were able to take advantage of the resources. This supposition may be attributed to four concerns: (1) programs such as these are often viewed as additional work, (2) the cost effectiveness of individual

PAGE 25

8 programs has not been calculated, (3) the current doctoral model may not be the appropriate place to provide such broad training, and perhaps most importantly, (4) faculty members may not be encouraging high rates of participation. National and institutional programs are prim arily external to the formal curriculum and often have been seen as added work for both faculty and students. To address this issue, some scholars have suggested incorporating these competencies directly into the graduate curriculum (Boyer, 1990). In fact, Rosensitto (1999) found that over 80% of fulland part-time faculty across all institutional types supported the proposal to include formal curricula on theory and methods of teaching within doctoral programs. Whereas Rosensitto (1999) recognized that differenc es did exist among disciplines, types of institutions, and several other factors, the overall rate of agreement was still impressive. However, with calls to decrease the credit hour requirements of degree programs and time to degree completion (Nyquist & Woodford, 2000), coupled with the fact that many graduates seek employment outside of the academy (Austin, 2002a; Geiger, 1997; Hoffer et al., 2004), adding curricular requirements seems to be an unrealistic option. Moreover, cost effectiveness of these programs has yet to be calculated. Until these studies are conducted, institutions may be reluctant to commit the necessary fiscal or human resources. One concern is the possible impact on the research enterprise, which has become a more dominate source of funding for public doctoral institutions as state funding decreases (Slaughter & Leslie, 1999). Similarly, current Ph.D. training, based on the German model with small classes and individual mentoring, is already a costly endeavor. It is still not clear that the current Ph.D. model is best suited for broad preparation (Rhodes, 2001). The final reason only a fraction of doctoral students are participating in broad preparation programs might result from the opinions and behaviors of faculty members.

PAGE 26

9 Faculty at research institutions fill many, if not all, of the roles identified by new faculty and have experienced the same challenges. Why then, are faculty members not exposing their doctoral students to these many aspects of faculty life? As Hartnett and Katz (1977) asked 30 years ago, has protective amnesia since erased these challenges from their memories? The opinions and behaviors of faculty members may be influenced by one or more of the three previous concerns, or by different reasons entirely. This issue is complex, but can be addressed by reviewing barriers to participation, taking strategic actions based on research, and engaging in national discussions to assess faculty awareness and support of the need to broaden doctoral preparation. Doctoral students are most connected to their faculty mentors, and strong mentoring relationships are critical to a graduate student’s socialization and success (Gardner, 2005; Heggins, 2001). Therefore, it stands to reason that mentors would be the most logical choice to fill the information gap between the professional preparation of doctoral students and the faculty roles students will be required to fulfill after graduation. This is not to say that faculty should be responsible for teaching their students the specifics of teaching, mentoring, governance, service and other roles. Rather, they could serve as guides, approaching the discussi on of faculty roles beyond research and pointing students to existing resources. As simple as it seems, this linkage will not be accomplished unless faculty members embrace it. As Slevin (1992) asserts, [we] “must imagine ways to involve graduate educators so that they are made to feel part of the solution, rather than part of the problem” (p. 23). If the programs currently in place, or newly developed initiatives, are to have a sustaining national impact, faculty across doctoral degree-granting institutions must support the effort. Although anecdotal, Lang’s (2006) recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education points to the inevitable challenges that proponents of graduate preparation

PAGE 27

10 programs will face. Lang (2006) claims that t here are many critics of education as a discipline, the very discipline which is contributing a significant literature base on the scholarship of teaching and learning, and states that some academics still believe “a deep knowledge of a real discipline, and a big brain, are the best qualifications for successful teaching” (n.p.). This type of faculty attitude, if it exists, could make buy-in a difficult prospect to achieve. Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, and Weibl (2000) summarize several ways to adapt the academy to the changing needs of society. These include broadening the definition of scholarship, changing the reward structure, engaging in post-tenure review, increasing faculty diversity, developing skills of t eaching assistants, emphasizing teaching and learning, and enhancing undergraduate education. They claim that providing comprehensive graduate training is in line with current thinking. Boyer (1990) made these same assertions ten years earlier. Changes are clearly occurring in society and the academy. However, significant and sustained change will only occur if those within the academy change with it. Organizational theory purports that members of any group will adapt to and accept changes more readily if they are involved in the decision-making process. This notion applies similarly to higher education (Kezar, 2001). The vast majority of research related to changes in doctoral education, especially preparing future faculty, appears to be the work of a small group of scholars who have focused on such issues as the development and outcomes of faculty preparation programs (Cody, & Hagerman, 1997; Ferron, Gaff, & Clayton-Pedersen, 2002), participants’ reactions to preparation programs (Bashara, 2002; NAGPS, 2001), and perceptions of junior faculty (Boice, 1991; DeNeef, 2002; Sorcinelli, 1988; Rice, Sorcinelli, & Austin, 2000). Although these findings are integral in developing the

PAGE 28

11 rationale for better preparing future faculty members for the various responsibilities of faculty life, no significant changes can occur until those mentoring doctoral students will engage in, or at least support, expanded opportunities for graduate student socialization and training. Despite the fact that this rationale was used by Gaff and colleagues when designing the PFF program (Ferron, Gaff, & Clayton-Pedersen, 2002), little research has been conducted to examine the perceptions of senior faculty concerning doctoral student preparation for multiple roles in academe. In sum, few empirical studies have assessed how faculty members at research institutions view the graduate socialization process; rather, most studies are from the vantage point of the students themselves. Discu ssions of faculty roles in books, articles, and conference presentations are primarily anecdotal. Even less empirical information is available on the extent to which senior faculty members embrace the need to better educate doctoral students about specific faculty roles and competencies or who is viewed as responsible for providing such education. Purpose of Study Creators of the Preparing Future Faculty program have noted that while the faculty members involved with the program have been extraordinarily supportive of the effort, only a small percentage of faculty members have participated (Ferron, Gaff, & Clayton-Petersen, 2002). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to describe how senior faculty members in a national sample of research universities perceive: 1) the importance of 42 specific roles and competencies early in a faculty career, and 2) the importance for doctoral students be introduced to these specific faculty roles and competencies during their graduate school experience. Faculty members were also asked whom they view as primarily respons ible for introducing specific competencies and roles to students during their doctoral programs.

PAGE 29

12 For purposes of this study, a senior faculty member had the rank of Associate or Full Professor. Faculty members were classified as dissertation advisors if they were serving as a dissertation advisor at the time of the study or if they chaired a successful dissertation within the past four years. Although this was a descriptive, exploratory study and no predictive hypotheses were being made, it was anticipated that responses would vary by academic discipline. This assertion was based on previous literature illuminating significant differences in several aspects of faculty life by discipline. Given differences in the goals of academic departments, preferences and time allocation for teaching, research, and service, and scholarly productivity based on discipline (Biglan, 1973b; Creswell & Roskens, 1981; Muffo & Langston, 1981; Singer, 1996; Smart & Elton, 1982), it would be inappropriate to generalize results to all faculty members across all disciplines. Therefore, only the faculty in the areas of biological sciences, English, mathematics and non-clinical psychology were included. These disciplines were selected for a variety reasons. Most importantly, the results of related studies using the same disciplines were considered when interpreting the results. Whereas differences were considered for members of four specific disciplines, the findings may rais e the consciousness of persons in other disciplines as well, possibly inspiring closer examination of Ph.D. training in other fields. Faculty who are or have recently chaired a doctoral dissertation and those who have not were also examined for differences. Research Questions 1. How do senior faculty members at research universities rate the importance of specific faculty roles and competencies during the first three years of faculty employment?

PAGE 30

13 2. To what extent do senior faculty members at research universities support the expectation that doctoral students learn about specific faculty roles and competencies during their doctoral program? 3. Whom do senior faculty members at re search universities view as primarily responsible for socializing doctoral students in preparation for specific faculty roles and competencies? 4. How do responses to the first three research questions vary by discipline? 5. How do responses to the first three research questions vary by faculty status as a dissertation advisor? Significance of the Study Nyquist (2002) stated, “the essence of doctoral education takes place between mentors and their students” (p.17) and that “many mainstream research faculty who mentor graduate students have yet to become engaged in these vital issues and continue to work from previous models” (p.19). These statements refer specifically to the need for faculty to become involved in the process of change; and for this reason, a large scale national study examining the perceptions of senior faculty at research universities can add to the current discussion about doctoral education. The significance of this research is two-fold. First, it describes the level of importance that senior faculty place on specific roles and competencies for new faculty. Second, it provides an empirical description of their perceptions related to graduate student socialization and preparation for the full range of roles new faculty are asked to assume. Few, if any, studies have considered the need to train doctoral students for the multitude of faculty roles from the perspective of the faculty most closely tied to doctoral education. The utility of the findings are enhanced by comparing responses in four disciplines and by status as a dissertation advisor.

PAGE 31

14 If senior faculty members are generally supportive of introducing students to the variety of faculty roles as part of graduate student socialization, the value and importance of informing faculty and student s about available programs and resources will be evident. Should these faculty members see little value in introducing specific roles and competencies during graduate training, advocates of change will have to consider alternative and probably more complex ways to encourage faculty and student participation in professional development activities outside of the formal curriculum. Delimitations This study included senior faculty members at a stratified sample of research universities nationwide. Although many Assistant Professors are engaged in graduate education, they were not included in this study. The study also focused on four disciplines: biology, English, mathematics, and non-clinical psychology. Reasons for selecting these specific disciplines are discussed in depth in Chapter 3. Finally, whereas the Ph.D. is not only the standard terminal degree in each of these disciplines, it has been the primary target for reform efforts. Therefore, faculty members were selected only if their program and institution offers a Ph.D., rather than other types of doctoral degrees. Limitations There are inherent limitations to any quantitative research that attempts to explore complex issues such as the multidimensional circumstances surrounding doctoral education. This was a cross-sectional study with data collected through a single inventory; therefore, instrumentation and measurement error are the largest threats to the validity of conclusions drawn from the study. Specifically, the sampling frame, low response rates, and ambiguities in interpreting survey items became areas of concern.

PAGE 32

15 The study design was originally created to minimize these limitations and increase measurement validity by utilizing st andard methods of survey construction (Crocker & Algina, 1986; Dillman, Tortora, & Bowker, 1999) and research-based techniques to enhance response rates and representativeness of the sample (Cook, Heath, & Thompson, 2000). Data were collected from faculty at a randomly-selected national sample of research universities using a stratified cluster sampling technique. Implications and recommendations based on the conclusions of this study are only generalizeable to faculty in the biological sciences, English, mathematics, and nonclinical psychology. Representativeness of the final sample was analyzed to ensure similarity to the initial pool of participants and responses of those who completed the survey were compared with those who did not complete the survey. Although it was not possible to compare respondents with non-respondents, the final sample had similar characteristics to the initial pool based on discipline, faculty rank, and institution type. This similarity permits some confidence when generalizing the results to the total group. Additional limitations are discussed in Chapter 5. Organization of Remaining Chapters This chapter included a general overview of the research problem and a statement of the study’s purpose. Five specific research questions were identified and followed by delimitations of the study, as well as an examination of the threats to internal and external validity. The following two chapters provide a more detailed look at why and how the study was conducted and the final two chapters present results and discuss findings, conclusions, and recommendations for future research. More specifically, Chapter 2 provides an in-depth literature review beginning with a brief summary of the evolution of faculty roles throughout the history of higher education. This section is followed by trends in Ph.D. attainment and career selection

PAGE 33

16 followed by a discussion of the purposes of doctoral study and the multiple calls for review and modification of the Ph.D. degree. The influence of the graduate student socialization process and the gaps between graduate training and faculty roles/competencies are identified. Several national initiatives have been designed over the past decade to address these issues; a short description of each is provided and is followed by an overview of the specific recommendations for graduate program reform. The chapter concludes with a synthesis of these recommendations. Chapter 3 provides a detailed description of the quantitative methods used in this study. Specific details about the population of interest, expected sample size, power analysis, sampling scheme, survey development, and data collection are addressed. Reliability and validity are emphasized during survey construction to ensure collection of data worthy of interpretation. Statistical and other data analysis procedures are specified in Chapter 4. A discussion of the non-responders and non-completers precedes the narrative results for each question. Tables are included within the text and in the appendixes as appropriate. The final chapter considers the results of each question in more detail and relates it to additional literature. Seven general conclusions are made as the basis for six specific implications for doctoral education. Limitations to the study are described and followed by a list of recommendations for future research.

PAGE 34

17 CHAPTER 2 Review of the Related Literature Higher education, in general, and the role of faculty, in particular, have experienced dramatic changes over time. These changes have influenced how doctoral education is perceived by students, employers, and society at large. However, relatively few changes have occurred within doctoral preparation programs that are responsive to this evolution. An understanding of the historical development of faculty roles and the fluctuations in job opportunities for doctoral program graduates provides a foundation upon which proponents of curricular change in doctoral education have built their arguments. Some scholars claim that current programs fail to provide students with the skills and competencies needed to be successful faculty members upon graduation (Adams, 2002; Gaff, 2002b; Meacham, 2002); and several initiatives have been developed to fill this gap (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan & Weibl, 2000; Nyquist & Woodford, 2000). Currently, these efforts are not reaching the majority of doctoral students (Ferron, Gaff & Clayton-Pedersen, 2002). This chapter highlights the changes in faculty roles that have occurred over the past two centuries and how those changes have reflected changes in the general landscape of higher education. The purposes of the doctoral degree and trends in postgraduate employment are explored prior to ex amining the calls for doctoral program revision. Topics of graduate student socialization and training (including the importance of mentoring), current faculty roles and competencies, and the gap between the two are reviewed. The national programs and resources that have been developed to meet the

PAGE 35

18 need of preparing future faculty are then described along with their overall impact. Finally, a list of recommendations for doctoral program reform is presented. Evolution of Faculty Roles in American Higher Education Changes in faculty roles have mirrored changes in higher education since the 1800s. These changes have been incremental, although Schuster and Finkelstein (2006) posit that the pace of change has accelerated rapidly since the commencement of the 21st century. In the early days of higher education, temporary faculty members, or tutors, were responsible for the academic, moral and spiritual development of one cohort of students, often following them through more than one year of study (Finkelstein, 1984). Their primary role was that of teacher and mentor, a role assumed as they prepared for careers in the ministry. It was not until the mid-18th century that institutions hired faculty on a more permanent basis (Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006). By the end of the 19th century, the primary faculty role was that of specialist, or expert, in a discipline. Community and organizational leaders began to call on faculty for their expertise to solve practical problems Hence, service to the community became an important role of faculty. During this time, professors were joining institutions with postgraduate preparation and faculty work became a career option, not just a secondary job. The role of expert gave rise to the emergence of new faculty ranks and the ability to move from one institution to another. Although today’s concepts of research and service were prevalent at a handful of institutions prior to 1850 (Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006), it was not until the creation of the land-grant colleges, as legislated by the Morrill Act of 1862, that faculty roles expanded to include teaching, serving as consultants, and building applied research programs (Geiger, 1999). Disciplinary associations and the first academic journals were also developed in the late 1800s. Metzger identified this

PAGE 36

19 period of time, which was directly influenced by the professionalization of academic disciplines, as the first significant shift in faculty roles (as cited in Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006). Finkelstein (1984) offers a comprehensive, historical review of faculty work through this period of time. The second historical shift in roles and responsibilities of faculty occurred with the expansion and diversification of higher education in the 20h century, which also signaled the birth of the American University (Geiger, 1999). Kerr (2001) coined the term multiversity to illustrate the expanding mission of higher education and the growing responsibilities of faculty employed at these new universities. The academic revolution, spanning the thirty years after World War II, saw the rise of the pubic research institution. Enrollments in college tripled with government support through the Servicemens Readjustment Act of 1944. Federal funding for science and technology also increased rapidly following the Sputnik crisis of 1957 (Geiger, 1999). Jencks and Reisman (1968) noted that during the early years of this revolution, the influence of ones academic discipline, through a process of graduate school socialization, had slowly been narrowing the definition and scope of faculty academic work. Research had been slowly encroaching on teaching as the primary faculty role at universities around the nation. As a result, the hierarchical nature of institutions became more distinct, with each type fulfilling a specific mission in the broadening landscape of higher education. For example, liberal arts colleges prov ided broad undergraduate education, land-grant institutions focused on specialized undergraduate programs and applied research, while the growing number of research universities focused on research and advanced graduate preparation. A fourth level developed with the proliferation of junior colleges in the 1920s. These institutions were responsible for preparing undergraduate students for

PAGE 37

20 transfer to four-year institutions and later to meet regional needs (Geiger, 1999). The diversity in missions found among institutions of the mid-20th century led to an inevitable diversification with greater emphasis placed on various faculty roles. Changes among faculty and faculty tasks mirror this growth and diversification. Although increased faculty diversity in terms of race and gender have been slow to materialize (Curtis, 2004), the primary transformation can be measured by the shift in the nature of faculty appointments (Baldwin & Chronister 2001; Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006). Little is known about the effects of hiring part-time and non-tenure faculty on student learning or other outcome measures (Trower, 2003). There does, however, appear to be a direct effect on faculty roles. Several authors identify an unbundling of roles, from the traditional triad of teaching, research and service (Austin, 2002b; Finkelstein, 2003; Levine, 2001). Fewer core faculty members are balancing all three roles and a growing cohort of nontraditional faculty are focusing almost solely on either teaching or research. Despite a narrowing of focus related to part-time and non-tenure earning faculty, Fairweather (1996) noted that new full-time, tenure track faculty must possess a wider array of talents than those who were hired only a few decades ago. The academic workplace is changing and several factors, such as student diversity, technology, changing societal expectations, expanding workloads, a new labor market, and the shift to a learner-centered environment, can potentially impact future faculty roles and the competencies needed to fulfill them (Austin, 2002a; Finkelstein, 2003; Levine, 2001). Coupled with demands for accountability and postmodern approaches to knowledge (Austin, 2002b), aspiring faculty can expect to fill multiple roles. Studies on faculty allocation of effort support the notion that faculty roles have changed little in the past two decades. Finkelstein (1984) described the American

PAGE 38

21 academic profession up until the mid-80s as a teaching profession rather than a scholarly profession across all institutional types, although the percentage of time teaching at research universities was less than at other types of institutions. By the early 1990s, time allocated to teaching declined, whereas time devoted to research increased across all institutional types (Finkelstein, Seal, & Schuster, 1998). The decline was sharper at research institutions, where teaching effort dropped from roughly 50% in the 1980s to just over 33% a decade later (Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006). Schuster and Finkelstein (2006) also noted a U-shape pattern in teaching effort with a decline in effort followed by an increase in effort over time. As a result, faculty members were increasing their overall work effort to more than 50 hours per week to meet both the research and teaching demands placed upon them. Expectations of faculty work are also connected to the changing roles of faculty at the turn of the 21st century. Expectations of younger faculty, however, appear inconsistent with the increased work demands being placed upon them. Trower (cited in Jaschik, 2006) studies the newest generation of academics, the Gen X Professors, and focuses her work on the disparities between the older and younger faculty members on issues such as balancing career and family and the tenure system. These new faculty members appear to value teaching, collaboration, and life balance more than their predecessors. Expectations of current doctoral students are reflective of these shifts (Austin, 2002a; 2002b); shifts that might be a result of changing faculty roles or might, alternatively, be contributing to the change. Finally, institutional structures and missions (Bess, 1976; Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, & Wiebl, 2000; Richlin, 1991) have a major impact on the perceived importance of faculty roles and provide the greatest challenges to addressing change. Gaff and Lambert (1996) highlighted the differing values and missions among institutional types. Promotion

PAGE 39

22 and tenure guidelines have been found to be extremely influential on how faculty members view the importance of specific roles as well (Tierney & Bensimon, 1996). This, in fact, is at the heart of the current debate regarding research and teaching. Interestingly, according to Boyer (1990), the faculty reward system narrowed at the very time the mission of American higher education was expanding, causing many of the nation’s colleges and universities to be caught in the crossfire of these competing goals. In summary, faculty roles have changed steadily over time. Faculty members at our nation’s oldest institutions were responsible for teaching and advising a homogeneous group of students to become moral citizens. As academic disciplines became more specialized, faculty became increasingly involved in applied research endeavors and service, in addition to teaching at the undergraduate level. Research institutions, with their emphases on research and graduate preparation, grew to meet additional societal demands. As enrollments burgeoned, students became more diverse, and as funding for research became plentiful, diversification among institutional missions became more apparent. Expectations of faculty changed as a result. Although the triad of teaching, research, and service was still expected in all institutions, the relative emphasis placed upon each role was largely influenced by institution type. Perhaps the most visible change in faculty roles occurred at the research university. The research process, in and of itself, requires faculty to take on new roles such as budget and personnel management. The growing emphasis on accountability requires faculty to spend a greater amount of time producing reports and overseeing the day-to-day operations of research projects. To free up greater time for research endeavors, faculty are often released from teaching, advising, or serving on committees. Campus reward systems often encourage the perceived disparity between the

PAGE 40

23 importance of teaching and research, while the proliferation of non-tenure and part-time, adjunct positions widen this gap. Faculty members responsible for doctoral training are the faculty employed at the doctoral degree-granting institutions and research universities the small proportion of institutions that have very different missions than other types of institutions. Not all doctoral graduates, though, will pursue careers at research universities, leading some scholars to question the purpose of the degree and suggest reform of doctoral training. Purpose of the Ph.D. and Recent Calls for a Revamping of Doctoral Education The first Ph.D. degree was awarded at Yale University in 1861, and the rise of the American university, with the opening of Johns Hopkins University in 1876, signified the successful integration of the German re search model into the American system (Kent, 1972). In the late 19th century, institutions embraced the idea of faculty serving as disciplinary scholars. Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, and Weibl (2000) stated that doctoral education was historically defined as the “study of a specialization within one of the academic disciplines” (p. 3). Small seminars, study of cutting-edge research, a qualifying examination, faculty mentorship, and original research were prerequisites for graduation. Recipients of the degree were primarily trained to be scholarly researchers. Less than half a century after the first Ph.D. was awarded, however, the structure and meaning of the degree was called into question. Sykes (1988) identified William James as one of the earliest critics of the degree, who in 1903 claimed that doctoral training does not guarantee successful teaching. In Storr’s (1973) account of the history and transformation of doctoral education in America, he emphasized critics’ claims as early as the 1920s that the Ph.D. had shifted from the ideals of scholarship to a certification of competency to perform services. Storr (1973) states:

PAGE 41

24 It has been asserted time and again that Ph.D. studies were instituted and have been pursued as training in research, that the impact of such training upon undergraduate instruction is intolerable, and that a new kind of doctorate for college professors must be devised…. A research degree may have one effect if research means highly compartmentalized factfinding as an end in itself and a very different effect if research stands for disciplined pursuit of new ideas (p. 82). The question becomes whether the Ph.D. is meant to prepare scholars solely for basic research in the sciences, as was origi nally conceived, or to produce original contributions in any field. Either way, Geiger (1997) sees the degree as offering too little training for its traditional role of preparing aspiring academics. The conflict between research and teaching has long existed and it was recognized that “Ph.D. programs were not designed to prepare the holders of the degree for the profession of teaching that so many of them enter” (Storr, 1973, p. 62). To address this issue in 1955, the Committee of Fifteen, sponsored by the Fund for the Advancement of Education, proposed that Ph.D. programs be designed to train the scholar-teacher and that the ultimate choice of career remained with the graduate (Storr, 1973). As such, calls to revamp doctoral education and reconsider the purpose of the Ph.D. are far from new. Concern about the quality of undergraduate education was reiterated again ten years later. In a lecture at the University of Michigan, Logan Wilson (1965) compared roles of faculty in 1965 with those twenty years before, noting lower teaching loads, larger classes, and a greater use of non-regular faculty. Although Wilson (1965) claimed the emphasis placed on research and publication was not the cause for neglect of undergraduate teaching, he made clear that greater strides in faculty preparation for the

PAGE 42

25 teaching role were sorely needed. With scholars having these same conversations decade after decade, it is not clear if any real progress has been made. But, if American graduate schools “are to meet their obligations to learning and society,” Kent (1972) asserted, they must change and “must reflect clearly and decisively the most dramatic changes in undergraduate curricula” (p. ix). History explains the societal impacts on higher education and how the academy has morphed to meet different needs. Graduate education is not exempt from this transformation, although it appears to be the slowest to change (Gardner, 1972). Richlin (1991) credited Berelson with administering the first major survey of graduate education in 1957. Results of the survey demonstrated that Ph.D. programs were not adequately preparing teachers. Additionally, change would be challenging because graduate schools would not diminish their emphasis on research in doctoral education and because institutions of all types want to hire faculty with the Ph.D. Richlin (1991) cited 13 studies conducted between 1961 and 1980, reporting the same criticisms and defenses all emphasizing the mismatch between Ph.D. training and learning to teach skillfully. This trend has continued. Within the past 15 years, several groups have sparked renewed interest in the reform of doctoral education, but this time the issue has been magnified by the media’s role in public perception. Much of the current interest in reforming doctoral preparation has been guided by a perceived need to improve undergraduate education (Association of American Universities, 1998; Kellogg Commission, 1997; Strum Kinney, 1988; Wingspread Group, 1993). Others (Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, 1995; Heathcott, 2005; Youn, 2005) assert that the current crisis plaguing the academic job market, specifically the lack of faculty jobs compared to the number of graduates, is the primary reason to restructure the

PAGE 43

26 degree. Scholarship Reconsidered (Boyer, 1990), however, might have the potential to make a significant impact on reform. In what appears to be nearly universally cited in literature on faculty work during the past 15 years, Boyer (1990) proposed a new paradigm of scholarly activity and cha llenged the academy to examine the changing priorities of the professoriate. In response to both the most recent calls for reform in graduate education as well as the notion that graduates often work in institutions with different missions than those in which they were trained, researchers began to delve into issues of perceived effectiveness of the doctoral degree. Ri chlin (1991), for example, surveyed administrators and department chairs at both doctoral-granting and non-doctoral granting institutions. The results showed drastic incongruence, with 80% of research institutions perceiving graduate preparation as effective, whereas just over one-fourth of liberal arts institutions rated it the same. Skills each group of institutions regarded as important for graduates were clearly consistent with the mission of the institution. On the heels of Boyer’s (1990) report, Slevin (1992) described a project sponsored by the Association of American Colleges to prepare graduate students as college teachers. Although the focus of the project did not include the full range of faculty roles to be addressed in this study, the provocative nature of Slevin’s introduction is worthy of mention. He states that focus on research during graduate training “does not merely neglect graduate students’ commitment to teaching… it actively discourages that commitment” (p. 2). Teaching, he writes, is often viewed as “a necessary evil” and that the values espoused by faculty mentors shape graduate students’ expectations. He continues with a description of how recent graduates, upon accepting a faculty appointment, find themselves unprepared to teac h, scrambling to create or prepare to

PAGE 44

27 teach courses, and assuming advising and committee responsibilities, all to the detriment of what they were trained to do – research. Even the United Kingdom is experiencing changes in doctoral education and employment. The What do PhDs do? report (Ball, Metcalfe, Pearce, & Shinton, 2004) and website http://www.grad.ac.uk/cms/ShowPage/Home_page/ Resources/What_Do_PhDs_Do_/p!eXeccLa were created to demonstrate the transferable nature of the Ph.D. and to help graduates identify the broad scope of careers available to them. It appears these issues are not unique to the American higher education system. It cannot be emphasized enough that recent calls for reform of doctoral preparation are not a new phenomenon. Nyquist and colleagues (1999) agree that the multiple calls for reform have had little to no effect, and write: The 30-plus reports and calls for reform not only echo the older reports but emphasize the exact same issues: time-to-degree, preparation for teaching, the need to foster an understanding of faculty roles and the academy, effective mentoring, overproduction, narrowness of – or disconnected – specialization, and economic issues (p. 26). As the conversation about doctoral education transitioned into the 21st century, there continued to be disagreement about issues such as the purpose of the Ph.D., enrollment size within programs, and the current graduate training model (Nyquist & Woodford, 2000). Any real change means rethinking both the structural organization and values of programs and institutions (Nyquist et al., 1999) and change begins with the members of the group seeking change. On the positive side, this time might conclude with different results, as multiple stakeholders are much more involved and informed (Nyquist, 2002)

PAGE 45

28 and the factors shaping higher education today are notably different from the forces of a half century ago (Levine, 2001; Stewart, 2005; Trower, Austin, & Sorcinelli, 2001). Trends in Ph.D. Attainment and Career Selection by Discipline Historically, doctoral recipients were trained and hired to conduct research and graduate training has, in essence, remained largely unchanged since its creation. Gardner (1972) claimed that “graduate education is frequently the farthest behind the main stream of our culture” (p. 39). Whereas the number of doctoral degrees awarded began to grow steadily, available faculty positions began to decrease. In 1970, there was an oversupply of doctoral graduates in more than 25 fields of study (Gardner, 1972). As a result, degree holders had to seek employment in sectors outside of higher education and, hence, filled roles inconsistent with their training. This trend continues today (Austin, 2002a; Geiger, 1997; Hartle & Galloway, 1996). While several predictions have been made about increasing the need for Ph.D.s due to faculty retirements during the early 2000s (Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Bowen & Schuster, 1986), such positions have yet to materialize (Shuster & Finkelstein, 2006). In fact, Geiger (1997) was initially critical of the claim, stating that these expectations would end in disappointment. Another reason for the oversupply of Ph.D.s is that the expansion of doctoral programs served purposes other than a demand for graduates (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, & Weibl 2000; Hartle & Galloway, 1996). Universities needed graduate students to support the research projects that sustained or increased their institution’s national prestige (Hartnett & Katz, 1977) or to teach the increasing number of undergraduates entering postsecondary education (Nyquist, & Woodford, 2000). In the same vein, many institutions began to replace full-time faculty with part-time adjuncts and graduate teaching assistants to reduce costs (Finkelstein, 2003).

PAGE 46

29 The Study of Earned Doctorates was first conducted in 1958 and has tracked the employment trends of doctoral graduates for over four decades. On average, there has been an increase in doctoral production at the rate of 3.5% each year. Two periods of rapid growth occurred between 1961 and 1971 and again between 1986 and 1998. Ninety-one percent of 42,155 doctoral degree recipients responded to the survey in 2004 (Hoffer et al., 2005). That year, 70% of all doctoral students had plans upon graduation. Of these, 65% accepted career employment positions, whereas 35% were taking post-doctoral positions. More than half (57%) of those moving into career positions accepted appointments in higher education, whereas 19% selected industry or self-employment, 8% chose government, and 17% decided to enter other non-academic positions upon graduation. Table 1 breaks down employment plans by the four disciplines included in this study. The table includes whether students had definite postgraduation plans; and for those with definite employment plans, it designates the type of employing agency and the primary task associated with the position. Finally, the table lists the change in doctorates earned within each of the four disciplines during the past decade. Rates have remained relatively stable across English, mathematics, and psychology, but increased significantly in biology. The rate of employment within higher education increased from 49% to 57% over the past five years. Despite this increase, there is still a significant number of graduates selecting employment options in areas outside of academe. More importantly, of those Ph.D.s obtaining employment in higher education, less than 20% work in research universities (Golde & Dore, 2004), requiring doctoral programs to prepare graduates for faculty work in a wide variety of institutional settings.

PAGE 47

30 Table 1 Employment Plans of 2004 Graduates in Biology, English, Mathematics, and Psychology Biology English Mathematics Psychologya Definite postdoctoral study 56.6 5.0 34.4 32.6 Definite employment plans 13.2 60.2 38.6 37.6 Seeking employment 26.6 30.8 24.0 26.0 Educational institutionb 50.0 95.0 76.0 56.0 Industry or business 25.0 3.0 19.0 18.0 Government 18.0 0.0 5.0 12.0 Non-profit 5.0 2.0 0.0 12.0 Primary – researchb 45.3 6.4 42.6 21.0 Primary teaching 30.3 82.0 50.3 24.4 Change in doctorates earned (1994-2004) 14.1 -2.3 -3.8 1.0 Note. Not all figures sum to 100% as some respondents were unsure of plans. aResults do not included clinical psychology. bCommitment and primary tasks are based only on those with definite employment after graduation. Adapted from the Survey of Earned Doctorates (Hoffer et al., 2005). A common assumption in graduate programs is that students should aspire to work in research institutions with the notion that graduates placed in prestigious universities will increase the prestige of the doctoral-granting institution. These sentiments, in addition to a lack of exposure to the literature on the scholarship of teaching, create a disparity between graduate training and expectations of employers (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, & Weibl, 2000). Interestingly, Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, and Weibl (2000) reported that only 21% of Preparing Future Faculty ( PFF ) participants aspired to work for a research institution. Using a larger, more heterogeneous group of students, Golde and Dore (2004) found similar results overall, although they varied greatly by discipline. Both

PAGE 48

31 sets of results are similar to those reported by Bess in 1978, where less than 40% of students were interested primarily in research. Given the interest that graduate students have in pursuing teaching and service activities, in addition to research, and the fact that graduates pursue academic careers outside of research institutions, graduate students would be best served by training them for their future positions. One of the primary methods to do so is through the process of socialization. Graduate Student Socialization Process and the Role of Mentoring Socialization is defined as the process in which an “individual acquires the knowledge and skills, the values and attitudes, and the habits and modes of thought of the society to which [s]he belongs” (Bragg, 1976, p.1). Weidman, Twale, and Stein (2001) expanded upon Bragg’s (1976) work, the faculty socialization research by Tierney and Rhoads (1994), and other adult socialization theorists to develop a conceptual framework with which to understand and, ultimately, impact graduate student socialization. Graduate student socialization is defined as a “nonlinear process during which identity and role commitment are developed through experiences with formal and informal aspects of university culture as well as personal and professional reference groups outside academe” (Weidman et al., 2001, p. 36). This definition demonstrates its complex, interactive, and developmental nature and demonstrates that multiple forces influence graduate student success. Austin (2002a) identified the graduate school experience as the “crucial point in time to determine whether or not students are exposed to the types of skills and expec tations likely to confront them on the job” (p. 96). Despite the importance of graduate student socialization as purported by Weidman et al. (2001), the research on graduate student socialization is limited, with only a few dozen peer-reviewed articles on the topic. The existing literature focuses on

PAGE 49

32 different aspects of the socialization process; nonetheless, the results have common themes. First, most studies are based on perceptions of the students or recent graduates new to faculty positions. Second, results point to the importance of individual, departmental, and relational factors in the socialization process. Third, and most notably, the relational factors (e.g., peer support, student/faculty relationships, and mentoring) are overwhelmingly cited as critical components in doctoral student success, regardless of discipline or other demographic variables. Individual factors affecting socializat ion include pre-established expectations (Golde, 1996), prior socialization experiences, personal beliefs and values (Daugherty, 1999), and racial or ethnic heritage (Ellis, 1997). Austin (2002a) identified additional individual factors including age, educational and employment background, family situation, locus of control, and self-efficacy. Golde (1996) and other authors (Anderson, 1996, 1998; Glasgow, 2004; Weidman, & Stein, 2003) identified cohort size, funding, structure, and timing of academic requirements as departmental factors that affected the degree to which students were socialized. For African Americans, in particular, cohort diversity was an important factor, tying back to the need for peer and faculty support (Glasgow, 2004). However, this support is often lacking for women and minorities (Sotello, Turner, & Thompson, 1993). Relational factors are described in the results of several studies highlighted here. Boyle (1996), for example, considered the first-year socialization experiences of graduate students in natural sciences, social sciences, and the humanities. She discovered that, across disciplines, students’ experiences appeared to be similar, with most students developing connections with at least one peer and one faculty member by the end of the first year. More informative, however, were the differences she discovered among departments. Using National Research Council ratings to rank departments, she

PAGE 50

33 found that the higher-ranking departments across disciplines, and the science-related disciplines as a whole, offered more opportunities for research, collaboration with faculty, social interactions, and professional development seminars to first-year students. An extension of her work identified collegiality, mentoring, and program structure as the primary influences of enculturation during the fi rst year of doctoral study (Boyle & Boice, 1998). Gardner (2005), on the other hand, studied the socialization experiences of doctoral students in different phases of their programs, finding significant differences among pre-enrollment, coursework, and dissertation stage groups. Results illustrated that support from faculty and peers were keys to successful socialization and persistence throughout the program. Heggins (2001) concluded that networking, mentoring, and research support were the most important strategies for fostering success of underrepresented groups in graduate school, although it stands to reason that all students could benefit from such support. These findings are consistent with Golde’s (1996) and others (Lovitts, 2001; Lovitts & Nelson, 2001) research on doctoral student attrition. Weidman and colleagues’ (2001) assertion that attrition is “arguably the inevitable outcome of unsuccessful socialization” (p. 35) sums up the importance of socialization in graduate training. For a clear and comprehensive synthesis of the theoretical perspectives and literature related to graduate student socialization, review the recent chapter by Austin and McDaniels (2006). Hirt and Muffo (1998) considered the relationship between graduate program climate and student success, extrapolating four broad factors from the literature: financial issues, personal concerns, curricular requirements, and relationships with faculty. The latter, they claimed, was by far the most influential factor on climate. Similarly, Weidman and Stein (2003) found that student scholarly encouragement,

PAGE 51

34 department collegiality, and student-faculty interactions were significant correlates with a supportive program climate. All of these studies confirm the notion that the facultystudent relationship is critical to student socialization and success. In fact, faculty members play a role in all four levels of so cialization: anticipatory, formal, informal, and personal (Weidman et al., 2001). Hager (2003) connected mentoring and socialization by identifying four themes to describe how the former impacts the latter. Exemplary mentors were found to educate their students about how to: (1) be an academic, (2) collaborate, (3) communicate with professional communities, and (4) become successful researchers. The mentoring relationship with faculty was identified as the most valuable part of the program by graduates of the PFF program (DeNeef, 2002) and appears to be just as critical in the socialization of new faculty (Cawyer, Simonds, & Davis, 2002). One of the common criticisms of graduate education, however, focuses on the mentor-protg relationship. In some cases, the relationship is contrary to the role mentoring is intended to play and, at the extreme, students are primarily considered inexpensive labor for teaching and research assistance. Although these cases in no way describe all student-faculty relationships it was important enough for the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) to set forth guidelines outlining graduate student rights (AAUP, 2001). The mentoring literature is far more extensive than that of graduate student socialization; but, much like the socialization literature, it focuses primarily on the perceptions of students. It is beyond the scope of this project to examine mentoring literature in depth; however, overarching conc epts and specific strategies are discussed as they relate to the findings and implications of this study.

PAGE 52

35 Socialization, as with other types of educational research, cannot be accurately described without considering disciplinary contexts. Disciplines maintain variations in processes and values that effect both faculty work and doctoral student preparation. Even so, similarities in socialization processes do still exist across disciplines. Austin (2002a) states that students are receiving mixed messages about the importance of specific roles and receiving little in the way of systematic professional development, feedback, or mentoring. There appear to be no empirical studies that identify barriers affecting faculty commitment to graduate student preparation beyond research training; and, although no direct connections have been made, the current higher education literature does offer four possible barriers to faculty investment. All but the first are interrelated and stem from more global changes in higher education. First, many faculty members see themselves first foremost as researchers, not teachers, mentors, or career specialists (DeNeef, 2002). They view their jobs primarily as training research scholars. Second, some faculty members consider a graduate student’s time invested in activities other than research as time that detracts from work on research projects, which are often under the time pressure of a grant deadline (Lee, 2001; Meacham, 2002). This increased pressure is related to the shift in funding mechanisms in higher education over the past several decades. Third, a significant decrease in state support, at least in public research institutions, has forced faculty to fund their own salaries through grants, resulting in even more time devoted to grant preparation and management and fewer hours dev oted to advising, mentoring, or teaching. Finally, the institutional reward systems in research institutions are often founded on the axiom of publish or perish and are tied directly to grant funding, research and writing. Little weight is given to the full range of faculty roles in the tenure and

PAGE 53

36 promotion process at research instituti ons (Boyer, 1990; Tierney & Bensimon, 1996) despite the desire of many faculty members to see teaching properly recognized in tenure and promotion (Finkelstein, Seal, & Schuster, 1998; Olsen & Sorcinelli, 1992). Weidman et al. (2001), Levine (2001), and Stewart (2005) have discussed the emerging patterns in higher education that are affecting institutional culture. Diversity is a central issue. First, there is little argument that higher education enrolls a more diverse population today than decades ago. Interestingly, the graduate socialization process of thirty years ago saw the homogeneity, rather than diversity, of students as an influence on successful socialization (Bragg, 1976). The influx of international students, professionalization of fields, ethics, and technology were also included with diversity in the list of emerging patterns. Austin and McDaniels (2006) described eight external forces creating changes in higher education including public skepticism, fiscal constraints, student diversity, the emphasis on learning outcomes, technology, an expanding base of knowledge, new educational providers, and the nature of academic appointments. These patterns and forces can influence graduate student socialization and serve as a basis for reform. Nearly 30 years ago, Bess (1978) was not convinced that socialization processes during graduate school made much of an impact on what students later preferred as faculty members. He claimed that students were already aware of the values and norms of the profession and that it was admissions pr actices that kept students with interests or characteristics different from the current faculty out of academe. The study suggested that students admitted to graduate school had role preferences much like younger faculty and not significantly different from older faculty. The results of the study (Bess, 1978) may elicit questions about the usefulness of the current research study, especially as it relates to integrating socialization and

PAGE 54

37 doctoral preparation. Three items, however, should be considered. First, Bess compares likes and dislikes of applicants and faculty, not what work faculty members are actually doing or deem important. Second, all responses by the applicants were higher, which means something during graduate school or the first few years of professional life occurred to alter their perceptions. Finally, both groups rated teaching and service roles above the midpoint (administrative tasks were lower), which were not far below their reported desire to conduct research. In his literature review, in fact, Bess (1978) reported the findings of two studies, clearly demonstrated that less than 40% of graduate students and faculty had a primary interest in research. These findings repeat themselves in more current literature (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, & Weibl, 2000; Golde & Dore, 2004). Faculty Roles/Competencies and the Gap in Doctoral Student Preparation Higher education faculty members, in general, are responsible for three primary roles that comprise the triad of teaching, research, and service. Doctoral education has always been applauded for its thorough training of graduate students to conduct sound, rigorous research and recently, teaching is an area in which great strides have been made. Due to the renewed focus on undergraduate education, many graduate students are now given the opportunity to enhance their t eaching skills, but service remains rarely understood by graduate students (Golde & Dore, 2004). On the surface, training for research and teaching, which represents two of the three primary faculty roles, seems acceptable. Unfortunately, the numerous sub-roles within research and teaching are not address ed equally. For example, research means more than developing hypotheses, creating appropriate research designs, collecting data, and interpreting results. Among other things, research entails interdisciplinary collaboration, grant writing, professional presentations, and publishing (Bess, 1976).

PAGE 55

38 Teaching encompasses both classroom pedagogy and curriculum design. The former is comprised of knowledge of learning styles, motivation, assessment, active learning strategies, test construction, and the integration of evolving curricular developments such as distance learning technologies. The latter includes not only individual course planning, but departmentor universitywide curriculum development, evaluation, and revision of curriculum. Interdisciplinary connections must be made throughout the curriculum and a broad foundation of content knowledge encompasses much more than the narrow focus of a graduate student’s research niche. Additional sub-roles have been identified by Chickering and Gamson (1987), who have been consistently cited in the literature about teaching and learning. They suggest that faculty interested in providing quality undergraduate education must: Encourage contact between students and faculty Develop reciprocity and cooperation among students Encourage active learning Give prompt feedback Emphasize time on task Communicate high expectations Respect diverse talents and ways of learning These are not innate abilities possessed by every doctoral graduate, rather faculty as teachers must learn and practice these skills to be most effective. Even the role of advising, although traditi onally seen as a component of teaching, can be segmented into subordinate roles. Advising at the undergraduate and graduate levels has obvious differences. A more subtle difference lies in the balance between academic advising about course scheduling and institutional policies with personal

PAGE 56

39 counseling related to career selection or other issues. Advising also incorporates overseeing thesis projects or independent studies. Service involves multiple levels within the department, college, institution, and community. Professional service is also pl ayed out within disciplinary organizations. Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, and Weibl (2000) include tasks such as setting shared goals, conducting strategic planning, making personnel decisions, raising funds, and conducting program reviews as components of faculty service. Rhodes (2001) acknowledged the roles expected of faculty at research institutions including investigator, scholar, entrepreneur, fundraiser, author, mentor to graduate students, teacher and adviser of undergraduate students, participant in department, college and university life, and public servant. Nonetheless, emphasis is typically placed on research, grant-seeking, and involvement with professional organizations, as they provide the greatest recognition for faculty. Teaching and mentoring are rarely rewarded, and citizenship is often overlooked in research universities (Rhodes, 2001). Hence, doctoral preparation tends to mirror, and support, what is rewarded. In a study of preferred faculty roles, Bess (1976) identified 320 discrete tasks which were reduced to 68 scales. These scales were then categorized in five general areas: graduate education, undergraduate education, research and professional activities, community service activities and administrative service activities. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP, 2006) developed a list of duties beyond the roles of teaching and research, which are widely recognized by the public. They list duties from advising to writing under the three general categories: studentcentered work, disciplinary – or professional – centered work, and community-centered work.

PAGE 57

40 Faculty roles are actually similar across institutional types. In nearly all cases, faculty members prepare and teach courses, pursue a research agenda, write, participate in faculty governance, provide service to the institution and community, and advise students. Where the primary differences can be seen among institutional types is in the relative focus and weight placed on each of these roles compared to others (Meacham, 2002). Faculty members are also responsible for roles that do not fall so neatly in the triad of teaching, research and service. For example, faculty members have control over departmental admissions standards, approval of courses for degree programs, and the granting of degrees; and from the faculty point of view, these tasks are often handled in a relatively routine manner (Kerr, 2001). Faculty members also have influence over appointments and issues of academic freedom, all of which Kerr (2001) says is vital to the “proper conduct of academic life” (p.17). Appreciation of faculty and student diversity, use of advancing technologies, and the use of appropriate methods to communicate with a variety of audiences overarch all three areas of faculty work. As suggested by Gaff and Lambert (1996), and more recently Adams (2002), hiring institutions match their specific values about scholarly and creative work, undergraduate teaching, diversity, and service with the skills of their applicants. These skills are critical to mastering the wide range of faculty roles. At the same time, research on graduate student socialization and the perceptions of new faculty demonstrate that doctoral programs are not fully developing these skills, or introducing, much less preparing, students for the multiple roles they will be expected to fill (Austin, 2002a; Meacham, 2002). Students feel unprepared to assume many faculty roles (Golde & Dore, 2001; Golde & Dore, 2004; Nyquist & Woodford, 2000). For example, according to Golde and

PAGE 58

41 Dore (2004), of those interested in pursuing faculty careers, students felt best prepared for research roles. Less than half, however, felt prepared to publish and less than onethird were comfortable collaborating in interdisciplinary research. Just over half of students were required to serve as a teaching assistant and only 36% to 58% of students felt prepared to teach discussions, lectures, or labs. About one-fourth said they could create an inclusive classroom, advise undergraduates, and teach graduate courses. Even fewer had the confidence to advise graduate students or incorporate technology into the classroom. Golde and Dore (2004) also considered service, finding that more than half of students in their study were interested in service activities, but preparation was nearly absent. These findings varied by discipline. The National Association of Graduate and Professional Students conducted a survey in 2001, which resulted in similar findings. Gaff (2002a; 2002b) provides a more detailed review of this research. Student perceptions of preparation appear to mirror perceptions of newly-hired faculty. Sorcinelli (1988) identified teaching as a source of stress for new faculty. Reasons for this stress were the extraordinary amount of time needed to prepare classes, teach, and evaluate students. Specific stressors included inadequate teaching preparation, the number of different courses to be planned and taught, large class sizes, poorly equipped classrooms, and under-prepared students. Similarly, Boice (1991) found that new faculty felt teaching was more demanding than they anticipated and that there was no support offered by the institutions to help. Similar issues were noted by Rice, Sorcinelli, and Austin (2000) and Trower (as cited in Gaff, 2002). Nyquist and colleagues (1999) expressed surprise in discovering how little graduate students knew about faculty life, which echoes what DeNeef (2002) calls the naivet of students about how institutions really work.

PAGE 59

42 Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, and Weibl (2000) highlighted four areas in which changing faculty roles have not been reflected in doctoral training programs. The first area considers the increased focus on student-centered learning, defined by Barr and Tagg (1995) as a paradigm shift more than a decade ago. The second concern is the need for faculty to perform in a collaborative environment in addition to doing independent work. The third disparity relates to campus and co mmunity service and the final issue, which might be the most difficult to address, is developing a respect for multiple activities comprising both teaching and service. Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, and Weibl (2000) claimed that doctoral students are discouraged to read the professional literature about teaching, learning, and curriculum development prim arily because their mentors are unfamiliar with the topics. Several scholars have identified what institutions are looking for in new faculty hires. Gaff and Lambert (1996) identified five values of hiring institutions: The ability to work within an expanded definition of scholarship The commitment to undergraduate teaching Multicultural and interdisciplinary values in an active learning classroom/curriculum An understanding and commitment to service roles (advise a student organization, committees, use expertise to solve community problems) The ability to advise masters students Nyquist (2002) identified several characteristics and core competencies of successful doctoral graduates (in a variety of careers). These included having: Disciplinary knowledge Commitment to an informed career choice Teaching competency

PAGE 60

43 Preparedness to be a leader, project manager, motivator and evaluator An understanding diversity An understanding the mentoring process The ability to connect work with other disciplines A global perspective An understanding of how to be a scholar-citizen The skills to communicate and work in teams Ethical standards In his work on the role of the department chair in junior faculty development, Wheeler (1992) synthesized the literature on new and junior faculty to identify critical skills. These included the ability to: Understand institutional roles and expectations Learn how the institution operates in getting things done Find resources Develop collegiality Improve skills and performance in professional roles Find a balance in work-life expectations In 2006, Austin and McDaniels reviewed the literature on doctoral preparation for faculty roles and developed a framework in which to understand the skills and abilities that 21st century faculty members should possess. The framework is comprised of four areas: conceptual understandings, interpersonal skills, professional attitudes and habits, and knowledge and skills in areas of faculty work. Figure 1 is a graphical representation of the framework.

PAGE 61

44 Figure 1. Skills and Abilities for Faculty in the 21st Century. From: Austin, A. E., & McDaniels, M. (2006), p. 418. Reprinted with permission. Knowledge and Skills in Areas of Faculty Work Understanding of Teaching and Learning Processes Understanding of Research Processes Understanding of Engagement and Service Appreciation of Institutional Citizenship Professional Attitudes and Habits Ethics and Integrity Motivation for Lifelong Learning Cultivating Professional Networks Nurturing Professional Passion While Maintaining BalanceinLife Interpersonal Skills Communication Skills Teamwork and Collaboration Skills Appreciation of Diversity Conceptual Understandings Appreciation of the Purposes / History of Higher Education Understanding Types of Higher Education Institutions and Missions Knowledge of the Discipline Understanding of One’s Professional Identity as Professor and Scholar

PAGE 62

45 Conceptual understandings can be described as the “big picture” in academe, including a working knowledge of the history of higher education, the range of institutional missions, and professional identity, in addition to an in depth knowledge of the discipline. Interpersonal skills such as oral and written communication skills, collaboration skills, and an appreciation for diversity translate into all aspects of faculty work. Faculty are teaching a more diverse student body, participating in collaborative research projects, and communicating findings to a wider range of stakeholders than ever before. Ethics and integrity are the foundation of scholarly work and with new knowledge being disseminated everyday through expanding technologies, it is vital that faculty members possess the desire to be lifelong learners. The ability to build and maintain professional networks remains critical to advancement in the discipline, however, faculty now show concern with the work/life balance. The final component of Austin and McDaniels’ (2006) framework deals with the specific areas of faculty work. It is the most comprehensive component emphasizing faculty roles, including an understanding of teaching and learning, research processes, engagement, service, and institutional citizenship. Only 6.4% of the 4387 institutions of higher education are classified as research universities (Carnegie Foundation, 2005). Although the majority of postsecondary institutions have different missions and cultures, which can have a significant impact on faculty work, Meacham (2002) claims that re search universities are looking for similar skills as those institutions with teaching-centered missions. That is, all institutions want new faculty to develop a high-quality research agenda, secure grant funding, fit within (but not overlap) current faculty research interests, have evidence of teaching

PAGE 63

46 excellence, be skilled in interpersonal communication, and understand diversity and ethics. Issues surrounding gender and racial disparities in graduate student and new faculty preparation also exist. Although women now outnumber men in graduate programs (NCES, 2006) and the number of doctorates earned by women continues to increase (Hoffer et al., 2005), these groups are not adequately represented at the higher levels of faculty ranks (Chait & Trower, 2004; Curtis, 2004). Institutions are creating more family-friendly work policies and options for faculty (Hollenshead, Sullivan, Smith, August, & Hamilton, 2005). However, academic culture continues to discourage faculty from using such policies for fear of negative career consequences (Ward & WolfWendell, 2005). New faculty of color report additional responsibilities being placed upon them, such as increased advising loads and committee work because of their diversity (Tierney & Bensimon, 1996). These issues are inherent, but not always transparent, in an institution’s culture and graduate students would benefit greatly from advanced preparation for these issues and challenges. On the surface, faculty work can be defined and teaching, research, and service; and many specific tasks fall within the three general categories. Given the length of time students typically spend in doctoral programs, it is surprising that their knowledge of faculty roles is so limited. A comparison of competencies expected by hiring institutions (Adams, 2002) and stakeholders in doctoral education (Nyquist, 2002) with student (Golde & Dore, 2004; Nyquist & Woodford, 2000) and new faculty (Boice, 1999; Wheeler, 1992) perceptions of preparation, demonstrates a clear gap in doctoral education. Austin, Sorcinelli, and McDaniels (2007) attribute this gap to three specific challenges in doctoral education: perceptions of doctoral students about academic life,

PAGE 64

47 few opportunities for guided reflection on the doctoral experience, and limited preparation for the multiple roles within academic work. National, Institutional, and Other Initiatives to Address Issues Related to Preparing Doctoral Students for Faculty Roles Several programs have been implemented within the past two decades to address the gap between doctoral student preparation and the responsibilities of new faculty. An early effort was a project by the Association of American Colleges, entitled the Preparing Graduate Students for the Professional Responsibilities of College Teachers Despite the name, the program objectives were to prepare graduate students for teaching roles and provide information about the multiple responsibilities graduates will assume as faculty (Slevin, 1992). The program included three pairs of institutions where graduate students in seven disciplines participated in seminars aimed at introducing the various roles and responsibilities of faculty, followed by an ex tended experience at a liberal arts campus. A secondary purpose of the program was to provide students with knowledge about the range of career options available to them upon graduation. One of the most encouraging aspects of the project was the role participating students took to shape the project. They were given the opportunity to voice opinions in what Slevin (1992) calls the “culture of silence” inherent in most graduate education about teaching and learning. The Preparing Future Faculty ( PFF ) program is probably the most recognized initiative in doctoral student development. The ten-year project, sponsored by the Association of American Colleges and Universities and the Council of Graduate Schools, was implemented in four phases. These phases were supported by different sources of grant support and served specific purposes. The goal of Phase I was to develop model programs, which were expanded and institutionalized during Phase II. The third phase

PAGE 65

48 focused on developing disciplinary-based programs in the sciences and mathematics, and Phase IV mirrored the previous phase in the fields of humanities and the social sciences (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, & Weibl, 2000). The primary concept driving the PFF programs was the development of clusters. Although the structures of each cluster were different, the common thread was collaboration with other institutions. These partnerships, which many times resulted in a significant mentoring relationship, benefited both the students and the faculty. Students were exposed to different institutional cultures, participated in departmental activities and received progressively more responsible teaching assignments. The faculty members at the partner institutions also benefited by gaining knowledge of current disciplinary research, reflecting on their roles as faculty, developing relationship with faculty at other institutions, discovering new methods to and a renewed enthusiasm for teaching (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, & Weibl, 2000). PFF emphasized the importance of providing professional development experiences for students in teaching, research, and service that were purposefully embedded within specific stages of the doctoral curriculum (Pruitt-Logan & Gaff, 2004). Re-envisioning the Ph.D., funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts, was created to address the question, "How can we re-envision the Ph.D. to meet the needs of the society of the 21st Century?" More specifically, the Project was funded to: Identify and produce examples of the scattered and diffuse attempts currently underway to redesign doctoral education Explore the connections among the efforts, the issues, and the many stakeholders involved

PAGE 66

49 Convene national leaders to develop a set of strategies and incentives and an overall concept or design for addressing the issues to effect change based on a new vision of the Ph.D. Continue to encourage and support national conversations and serve as a clearinghouse of innovative practices in doctoral education (Nyquist & Woodford, 2000) Although the program was discontinued in 2003, the University of Washington maintains a website with the program’s history, products, policy recommendations, links to promising practices, and a range of resources for doctoral students. Notable resources include strategies for obtaining the Ph.D., obtaining employment, and lists of attributes expected by employers. Three additional initiatives include The Responsive Ph.D., created by the Woodrow Wilson Foundation, The Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate, and the Ph.D. Completion Project supported by the Council of Graduate Schools and Pfizer. Detailed descriptions of the first two are included in Paths to the Professoriate (Wulff & Austin, 2004). Although the specific objectives of each program vary, their overarching goals are the same: to spark discussion and create models related to doctoral education, influence change, and respond to the needs of society. Institutions around the country have devel oped programs to meet all or some of the competencies not normally included in t he doctoral curriculum, and some programs are more comprehensive than others. The efforts range from offering a series of workshops to certificate programs and occur at both the institution and department levels (Preparing Future Faculty Program, n.d.b). A recent article on CNN.com (Associated Press, 2006) stated that some universities are taking their teaching missions more seriously for two reasons: to provide better instruction for undergraduates and to assist

PAGE 67

50 graduate students entering a changing job ma rket. Model campus-wide programs are available at Lawrence University, North Caro lina State University, and the University of Michigan to name a few. Other campus-wide and departmental programs, along with promising practices, are listed on the PFF (http://www.preparingfaculty.org/PFFWeb.Like.htm) and the Re-envisioning the Ph.D. (http://www.grad.washington.edu/envision/practices/) websites. Many of the institutional initiatives described above focus primarily on TA training. Although this is crucial in doctoral preparation, these programs address only one of a myriad of roles a new faculty member will fulfill. Costs of the programs and the proportion of students who benefit from initiatives like the Preparing Future Faculty program may have an impact on an institution’s willingness to extend financial and human resources to support efforts beyond teaching preparation, especially before seeing positive outcomes through empirical study. Assessments of PFF have shown positive reacti ons from students and alumni. PFF graduates reported positive experiences during their program, a perceived edge in negotiating the job market, and relatively seamless transitions into faculty life (DeNeef, 2002). Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, and Weibl (2000) found similar results in their surveys of PFF students and alumni. However, the conclusions to be drawn from these reports are limited because they do not compare perceptions of PFF participants with nonparticipants. Additionally, the participants, who are often self-selecting, only comprise a fraction of students and faculty at doctoral granting institutions (DeNeef, 2002; Ferron, Gaff, & Clayton-Pedersen, 2002). Recommendations to Improve Graduate Education Several scholars and organizations have developed long lists of recommendations to improve doctoral education. Some are based on empirical

PAGE 68

51 research, others on reviews of literature, and still others on informal conversations and anecdotal information. Listed in chronological order, these recommendations include, but are not limited to those identified below. In 1990, the AAU Association of Graduate Schools published recommendations for institutional changes to improve doctoral education (cited in Mitchell-Kernan, 2005). In it, AGS deans emphasized the need to: Provide students with strategic purposeful research and teaching opportunities Integrate information vital to success in emerging markets into coursework Develop professional responsibility and ethics through mentoring Evaluate student progress after setting and communicating clear expectations The Association of American Colleges (Slevin, 1992) recommended: Building coalitions for reform, focusing on collaboration among graduate schools, departments, students, professional associations, and funding agencies Graduate training that includes preparation for all faculty responsibilities Creating incentives for graduate education professionals to join the reform effort Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, and Weibl (2000), representing the Preparing Future Faculty program, recommended that: Students should advocate for faculty preparation programs Faculty should take leadership in preparing students for both academic and alternative careers

PAGE 69

52 Teaching assistant programs should add a broader preparation component or integrate their work in more comprehensive faculty preparation programs Departments should partner with the campus-wide Graduate School office to integrate preparation activities Postdoctoral programs should add teaching and service to their job responsibilities Institutions should require evidence of teaching and service accomplishments prior to making a job offer to an applicant Professional associations should assess doctoral graduate employment trends and recommend mechanisms to prepare students for varied employment Fellowship providers should require participation in a preparation program, not just timely graduation Boards and accrediting agencies should appraise current programs and support preparation programs Nyquist and Woodford (2000) found much disagreement among the representatives they surveyed from a r ange of higher education institutions, K-12 education, doctoral students, funding agencies and other stakeholders, about the purpose of the PhD, issues of enrollments, and the graduate training model. Yet, they did identify the following areas of agreement: Reducing time to degree Developing diversity among recipients Increasing exposure to technology Preparing for wider career options Understanding global economy

PAGE 70

53 Incorporating interdisciplinary work Weidman et al. (2001) made several recommendations to ensure successful graduate student socialization, which would ultimately lead to professional success, whether inside or outside of academe. These included: A modification of graduate programs to prepare students for all prospective roles as a student and professional An increase in the diversity of faculty Support for students financially, aca demically, socially, and emotionally Modification of current faculty and administrative roles More specifically, they suggested that faculty should: Use a student’s teaching assistantship as an opportunity for more developmental growth Emphasize collaboration in the academic community to decrease feelings of isolation Incorporate technology to enhance instructional delivery View the process of socialization as a seamless, continuous transition into a professional role Five recommendations grew directly from Austin’s (2002a) work. Students should be provided with: Structured occasions to observe and meet with peers Developmentally appropriate teaching opportunities Ongoing, guided reflection of progress during program Regular mentoring, advising and feedback Information about the complex array of faculty roles

PAGE 71

54 Adams (2002) presents a review of literature related to the preparation of graduate students seeking a faculty career. Her synthesis identifies five key areas that programs should emphasize. These include teaching, research, academic life, job search processes, and available options for academics. In the area of teaching, she suggested: Providing a variety of developmental teaching experiences Introducing new pedagogies Offering constructive feedback Providing time to discuss related issues with faculty and peers Related to research, the following items were discussed: Becoming familiar with research conditions at different types of institutions Learning to incorporate undergraduates into the research process Expanding research experience beyond one project Working with faculty from other institutions as resources Suggestions for academic life included: Learning about the differences in faculty work across institutional types Shadowing faculty at a partner institution Discussing issues of governance, service, departmental composition, etc. In the area of job search, Adams (2002) says that faculty members have the responsibility to: Review recent job trends in their fields Assist students with construction of appropriate cover letters Provide students with information about alternative career options and the current academic job market

PAGE 72

55 Based on a review of literature, Nyquist (2002) summed up the similarities across several reports, including: Matching aspirations of doctoral students Responding to changes in the academy and society Providing developmentally appropria te opportunities for professional preparation Increasing retention rates Educating more women and minorities Encouraging interdisciplinary collaboration Limiting time to degree Finally, the principal investigators of the Re-envisioning the Ph.D. (Nyquist & Wulff, 2003) found three major themes regarding doctoral education: graduate training does not reflect the needs of society; programs lack systemat ic, developmentally appropriate supervision of graduates; and graduate attrition rates are alarming. Their recommendations include: Providing explicit expectations for doctoral students Offering adequate mentoring Granting exposure to a wide variety of career options Preparing students to teach in a variety of settings utilizing varies techniques Recruiting women and students of color into graduate programs Producing scholar-citizens who are connected with society and the global economy Balancing disciplinary depth and interdisciplinary breadth Creating partnerships among stakeholders in higher education, including those entities that prepare, fund, and hire doctoral students, in addition to other

PAGE 73

56 influence sources such as professional associations, accrediting agencies and governing boards This is undoubtedly a lengthy list of reco mmendations. Many similarities emerged when comparing the statements, demonstrating that proponents for reform are suggesting a core set of changes. One limitation of these similarities, however, is the possibility that some recommendations have been overlooked. Eleven lists of recommendations from nine unique contributors between 1990 and 2003 were reviewed and the 64 statements listed above can be reduced into 16 discrete recommendations. Three were too broad to classify. For example, to provide “support for students financially, academic ally, socially, and emotionally” is an overarching goal rather than a tangible, measurable recommendation. “Providing developmentally appropriate opportunities fo r professional preparation” actually subsumes the three more distinct groups. One recommendation – “shadow faculty at a partner institution” actually described how to achieve another, whereas “increase retention rates” could be seen as a result of implementing such recommendations. Although most of the 16 recommendations clearly impact teaching, research, or service aspects of faculty life, others are more general and can potentially affect all three. The final type of recommendations deals more with changes to be made within doctoral education as a whole. “Creating partnerships among stakeholders in higher education” or “building coalitions of reform” would fit the final category. The 16 recommendations include: Provide students with developmentally appropriate research opportunities. Some methods might include multiple research projects, incorporating undergraduates, and understanding research conditions at all institutional types

PAGE 74

57 Provide students with strategic, purposeful teaching experiences. Some methods include introducing new pedagogies in a variety of settings Produce scholar-citizens who are connected with society and the global economy Develop professional responsibility and ethics Evaluate progress through clearly communicated expectations Include opportunities for preparation for all faculty responsibilities Prepare students for both academic and alternative careers Develop diversity among students and faculty Increase exposure to technology Provide structured occasions to meet with faculty and peers Offer timely, constructive feedback and guided reflection Balance disciplinary depth with interdisciplinary breadth Encourage collaboration Provide regular advising and mentoring Limit time to degree Build coalitions or partnerships for reform, including all stakeholders in higher education (e.g. students, faculty, graduate schools, professional association, funding agencies) Although these authors offer tangible suggestions and the changes are clearly needed, the costs of implementing these initiatives could be great in terms of financial resources and faculty time a resource that is already stretched to the limit. Restatement of the Need for this Study As is evident from this chapter, most of the research on graduate student socialization and the preparation for future academic roles is based on perceptions of

PAGE 75

58 students. A few studies consider the thoughts of new faculty to identify a gap between doctoral preparation and faculty role expectations by hiring institutions. The gap, as supported by research, is apparent and the need to make decisions regarding doctoral education reform is becoming more paramount. At least one project (Rosensitto,1999) examined the perceptions of current faculty related to doctoral preparation. In this case, the question was whether faculty in four disciplines believed that pedagogy should be incorporated into the formal doctoral curriculum. Rosensitto (1999) reported that over 80% of faculty perceived the need to incorporate formal training courses into the curriculum. The sample included fulland part-time faculty across all types of institutions, which may account for the high rate of agreement. Even so, the rate seems very high given recent calls to decrease credit hours and shorten time to degree. Nonetheless, faculty members appear supportive of preparing students for the role of teaching. The study, however, only considered the need for training graduate students for teaching roles and did not integrate any of the additional roles filled by faculty. National initiatives and current research are highlighting the need for a change in doctoral education. As Austin (2002a) states, “in the coming decade, various pressures on higher education institutions may encourage serious rethinking of faculty work and the related question of how to prepare new faculty members” (p. 116). This rethinking is far from new, with the same conversations occurring for half a century or more (Storr, 1973). However, the forces shaping higher education are much different today than even a decade ago (Levine, 2001; Trower, Austin, & Sorcinelli, 2001). In 2005, Council of Graduate Schools President, Debra Stewart, discussed the trends shaping graduate education of the 21st century. These include global competition for talent across all fields, limited partici pation of underrepresented groups, especially in

PAGE 76

59 engineering and sciences, and the challenge of convincing society to view graduate education as more than a private benefit, but a public good that affects the quality of life for all. Stewart (2005) stated that higher education institutions around the world are facing similar challenges. The most relevant trend to this study is what she calls the quiet revolution to move the topic of graduate education reform from talk to action, fueled by conversations with new faculty who would have liked better preparation for teaching, mentoring, interdisciplinary learning, career outcomes, and professional skills such as negotiation, communication, and ethics. It is time, now, to query those who are closest to the doctoral education process. The process of change can be moved forward by including all stakeholders in the process, starting with the faculty members who have the most influence over doctoral student preparation. The support of senior faculty is vital to preparing the future professoriate for the many roles to be fulfilled in 21st century higher education. The first step in this process, however, is to identify the level of importance senior faculty place on specific roles and competencies in both faculty work and doctoral education.

PAGE 77

60 CHAPTER 3 Method Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to describe how senior faculty members in a national sample of research universities perceive: 1) the importance of 42 specific roles and competencies early in a faculty member’s career, and 2) the importance for doctoral students to be introduced to these specific faculty roles and competencies during graduate school. Faculty members were also asked whom they view as primarily responsible for introducing specific competencies and roles to students during their doctoral programs. Research Questions 1. How do senior faculty members at research universities rate the importance of specific faculty roles and competencies during the first three years of faculty employment? 2. To what extent do senior faculty members at research universities support the expectation that doctoral students learn about specific faculty roles and competencies during their doctoral program? 3. Whom do senior faculty members at re search universities view as primarily responsible for socializing doctoral students in preparation for specific faculty roles and competencies? 4. How do responses to the first three research questions vary by discipline?

PAGE 78

61 5. How do responses to the first three research questions vary by faculty status as a dissertation advisor? Population The population of interest was senior faculty members in the departments of biology, English, mathematics, and psychology drawn from a stratified random sample of research universities nationwide. A senior faculty member was defined as holding the rank of Associate or Full Professor on a tenured line. Faculty members were also classified as dissertation advisors if they serv ed as a dissertation advisor at the time of the study or if they had chaired a successfully completed dissertation within the previous four years. The disciplines of biology, English, mathematics, and non-clinical psychology were selected for four reasons. First, although each of these disciplines offers a range of post-doctoral career opportunities for graduates within and outside of higher education, a large proportion of graduates remain in academe. The Survey of Earned Doctorates (Hoffer et al., 2005) reports employment plans for doctoral graduates each year. In 2004, more than 50% of graduates who had definite employment plans within these four disciplines had accepted a position in a higher education institution. Second, these disciplines have been considered in related research on doctoral student preparation. For example, the Survey on Doctoral Education and Career Preparation (Golde & Dore, 2001) and the Nati onal Doctoral Program Survey (NAGPS, 2001) solicited graduate student responses to and satisfaction with specific institutional educational practices. Results can be broken down by discipline and responses to issues of faculty advising have already been compared to one another for mathematics and psychology (NAGPS, 2001). Studies such as these were useful in interpreting the

PAGE 79

62 results of this study and allowed the researcher to make connections between student and faculty perceptions. Third, each of these disciplines has been represented in either Phase 3 (1998 2000) or Phase 4 (1999 – 2002) of the Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) program. Because multiple institutions applied for grant funding and results have been disseminated at professional meetings (Ferron, Gaff, & Clayton-Pedersen, 2002; Nyquist, 2002), the faculty within these disciplines might be similarly aware of the purpose, availability, and nature of such programs. Finally, each discipline represents one category of pure disciplines in Biglan’s Model (1973) of academic disciplines. Pure disciplines were selected because graduates in these disciplines are more apt to stay in academe (Hoffer et al., 2005). Applied fields such as education, business, and engineering often have fewer academic placements, thereby limiting the implications of this st udy for those groups. Because this study was aimed at better preparing future faculty, the disciplines were limited to those with a greater number of graduates accepting positions within higher education. For this reason, clinical faculty members were excluded from the psychology group. Biglan’s Classification of Academic Disciplines Biglan’s (1973) theoretical model of academic disciplines was developed as a result of his research to determine whether subject matter was related to organizational structure among disciplines. His framework places disciplines within eight categories based on three dimensions: hard-soft, life-nonlife, and pure-applied. The first dimension deals with the discipline’s paradigm. “Hard” di sciplines, for instance, have more clearly delineated paradigms with a set of accepted problems and methods for research than “soft” disciplines. The second differentiates t hose disciplines involved in the study of

PAGE 80

63 living organisms. The final dimension refers to a discipline’s application of subject matter in a practical sense. The validity of the Biglan classification was examined by Smart and Elton (1978, 1982) and Stoecker (1993). The former conclude d that the classification scheme could be used as a framework useful in guiding systematic research on college faculty. The latter, using variables related to faculty use of time, format of scholarly output, source of research funding, and faculty attitudes identified the same classification scheme with the addition of two disciplines. Creswell and Bean (1981) also claimed the model was valid for explaining differences in research output among disciplines after controlling for the effects of faculty socialization. They noted that results, when categorized by Biglan’s classification, became more disparate as socialization increased and suggested additional research on socialization as an explanation for disciplinary differences. Other studies have used the Biglan classification system to examine differences among academic disciplines on a variety of issues related to faculty attitudes (Smart & Elton,1975,1982), teaching goals (Johnson, 1997) and reward systems (Muffo & Langston, 1981; Smart & McLaughlin, 1978). The classification has also been used in more recent research of disciplinary differences in the prediction of faculty grading beliefs (Barnes, Bull, Campbell, & Perry, 2001), the implementation of distance education programs (Mlinek, 2002), the identification of appropriate teaching methods for writing within different disciplines (Sinclair & Muffo, 2002), and the development of employability skills (Kwok, 2004). From a review of the literature, the evidence suggests that differences exist among academic disciplines across a variety of factors and Biglan’s classification scheme provides valid results. Table 2 shows the disciplines within each of Biglan’s eight classification categories.

PAGE 81

64 Table 2 Biglan’s Model of Academic Disciplines Pure Hard Soft Life Biology Botany Entomology Microbiology Physiology Zoology Anthropology Political Science Psychology Sociology Non-Life Astronomy Chemistry Geology Mathematics Physics English History Philosophy Communications Applied Hard Soft Life Agronomy Dairy Science Horticulture Agriculture Economics Education Non-life Engineering Computer Science Accounting Economics Finance Note. Adapted from Biglan, A. (1973a). Relationship between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57 (3), 207.

PAGE 82

65 Sampling Scheme A stratified cluster sampling design was used to select institutions within four institutional types. The four disciplines of biology, English, mathematics, and psychology comprised the final clusters. To implement the sampling scheme, each university designated as a research university in the Carnegie Classification system (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2005) was separat ed into public and private categories (Appendix A). These categories include Research Universities – Very High Research Activity (RU-VH) and Research Universities – High Research Activity (RU-H). Doctoral Research Universities (DRU) were not included because most institutions in the DRU category offered a Ph.D. in only one of the four disciplines. Table 3 lists the number of institutions in each category and the number of institutions that were randomly selected from each to obtain a proportional sample. A sample of 80 institutions was selected using a randomized sequence for each list (generated at www.random.org). The original sample represented 40% of all institutions within the two Carnegie classifications. Table 3 Total Number of Institutions and Original Random Selection within Carnegie Classifications Carnegie Classification Public Institutions Private Institutions Total Sample Total Sample RU-VH 63 25 33 13 RU-H 76 31 27 11 Note. RU-VH = Research Universities Very High Research Activity, RU-H = Research Universities High Research Activity.

PAGE 83

66 The IRB Offices at each institution were contacted by email to ensure compliance with their policies. If an institution did not require documentation or accepted the home institution’s application and approval, they were retained ( n = 26 and n = 19, respectively). In an effort to maintain a proportional sample and still obtain the largest number of prospective participants, a second random selection was made based on the number of institutions that either required an additional process, did not respond, or were still “pending” two weeks after the initial request ( n = 42). Of the first 80 institutions contacted for participation, 69% ( n = 55) responded to the query. Twenty-six institutions agreed that no IRB approval was required because no faculty were “engaged” in the study, 19 institutions requested a copy of the home institution’s IRB protocol and approval for review, and 10 institutions required the investigator to additionally complete their own institution’s IRB forms and processes. Two institutions requesting USF IRB document s did not respond by the data collection date and, therefore, were not included in the final sample. Of the additional 42 institutions contacted for participation, 64% ( n = 27) responded to the query. Fourteen institutions agreed that no IRB approval was required, 11 institutions requested a copy of the home institution’s IRB protocol and approval for review, and 2 institutions required the investigator to complete their own institution’s IRB forms and processes. The final number of institutions was determined after the second round of IRB contacts. Table 4 shows the final number and proportion of institutions within each Carnegie Classification retained in the final sample ( n = 69), which represents 35% of the institutions.

PAGE 84

67 Table 4 Final Sample Size and Proportion of Total Institutions within Carnegie Classifications Carnegie Classification Public Institutions Private Institutions Sample Size Proportion Sample Size Proportion RU-VH 21 33.3 8 24.2 RU-H 30 39.5 10 37.0 Note. RU-VH = Research Universities Very High Research Activity, RU-H = Research Universities High Research Activity. Email addresses for all faculty members at the rank of Associate or Full Professor were obtained by searching the website of each academic department (biology, English, mathematics, psychology) that offered a Ph.D. within the 69 approved universities. If rank was not clearly identifiable on the website, all faculty members were included in the contact list to ensure the largest pool of prospective participants. Because several institutions do not have a single biology department, faculty from all non-medical biological sciences were included in the biology group. Similarly, because of the applied nature of clinical psychology, faculty members with emphasis in clinical studies were not included in the pool (included faculty represented areas such as, but not limited to, cognitive, experimental, and industrial/organizational psychology). Contact information, including institution, discipline, first name, last name, rank, and email address was input into a Microsoft Excel file. Four lists of faculty were created using discipline as the differentiating factor. One hundred faculty members from each list (of the 62 institutions who had granted approval within four weeks of the initial request) were randomly selected for participation in the pilot study. All remaining faculty members, plus those from institutions who granted IRB approval between the date of the pilot and the formal study, were included in the final sample.

PAGE 85

68 The use of web surveys typically result in response rates that average 35% (Cook, Heath, & Thompson, 2000; Fricker & Schonlau, 2002). The range of rates, however, is too large to have confidence in obtaining over a 30% response rate. Although efforts were made to increase the number of respondents (see the data collection section), only a 10% to 20% response rate was expected. Because differences were expected by discipline, the power of F-test was used to determine the minimum sample size needed to detect differences among the groups. The power of F-test table (Stevens, 1999, p. 386) suggests that 36 respondents would be needed in each discipline to have adequate statistical power given an alpha level of .05, an a priori power level of .70, and a medium effect size ( f = .25). Using more conservative values of .90 for power and .20 for effect size, a total of 90 respondents would be needed in each discipline. With an expected response rate of 10%, a request for participation must be sent to at least 3600 faculty members to obtain adequate statistical power for the conservative estimates. The final contact list was well above this minimum, including a total of 5008 faculty at 69 institutions. Research Design This exploratory study was designed to elicit descriptive data to answer the five research questions posed in Chapter 1 and restated at the beginning of Chapter 3. Data collection and analysis were quantitative in nature. Survey Development and Pilot Testing The purpose of the survey was to gather data specific to the research questions in this study. Crocker and Algina’s (1986) process of test construction and the principles for constructing web surveys by Dillman, Tortora, and Bowker (1999) were utilized to create a survey instrument that would yield the most valid and reliable scores possible. Crocker and Algina (1986) recommended a ten-step process for test construction, many

PAGE 86

69 of which are important in the development of attitudinal surveys. These steps include (Crocker & Algina, 1986, p. 66): 1. Identify the primary purpose 2. Identify behaviors that represent the construct 3. Prepare a set of test specifications 4. Construct the initial item pool 5. Review of items 6. Hold preliminary item tryouts 7. Field-test the items on a representative sample 8. Determine statistical properties 9. Conduct reliability and validity studies for the final form 10. Develop guidelines for administration, scoring and interpretation All ten steps were completed through this design, as summarized here. Step 1: Identify the Primary Purpose The primary purpose of the survey mirrors the purpose of the study, which was to describe how senior faculty members in a national sample of research universities perceive 1) the importance of specific roles and competencies early in a faculty member’s career and 2) the importance for doctoral students to be introduced to specific faculty roles and competencies during graduate school. The third goal of the study was to identify which person or entity senior faculty members believe should be primarily responsible for introducing these concepts to doctoral students. Step 2: Identify Behaviors that Represent the Construct The constructs of teaching/learning, research, service, and general competencies were defined by the framework presented in Austin and McDaniels’ (2006) work concerning faculty in the 21st century. As described in Chapter 2, the authors

PAGE 87

70 conducted an extensive review of the literature related to doctoral preparation for faculty roles. They developed a framework in which to understand the skills and abilities that 21st century faculty members should possess to be successful in today’s higher education environment. The framework is comprised of four areas: conceptual understandings, interpersonal skills, professi onal attitudes and habits, and knowledge and skills in areas of faculty work. Step 3: Prepare a Set of Test Specifications The number of items included in each categor y, which is equivalent to Crocker and Algina’s test specifications, was based on Austin and McDaniels’ (2006) framework. Four scales were constructed to represent the constructs of teaching/learning, research, service, and general competencies. The original intention was to include five to ten items within each scale, but the final determination was based on a review of relevant literature related to specific faculty roles, the comments of reviewers throughout the survey development process, and a factor analysis of the final data set. Step 4: Construct the Initial Item Pool The survey was created in three sections. Part I consisted of general competencies, which were defined as the knowledge, skills, and attitudes required to successfully fill all faculty roles. These included all items outlined by Austin and McDaniels (2006). See Figure 1 in Chapter 2 for a list of these items. All items in the Austin and McDaniels (2006) framework were grouped together in Part I of the survey, although the items were listed in random order. In Part II, the faculty work scale identified by Austin and McDaniels (2006) was expanded to include specific roles, skills, and tasks identified in the literature by two or more authors. Three new scales were created to represent the traditional triad of faculty work: teaching / learning, research, and service. The third scale represents the

PAGE 88

71 engagement, service, and institutional citiz enship components as defined by Austin and McDaniels (2006). Twenty-six roles / skills were identified (Appendix B), however three of these items duplicated items within other secti ons of the framework. For example, “understanding student diversity” was identified in three articles, however, “appreciation of diversity” listed within Interpersonal Skills addressed the same concept. Therefore, “understanding student diversity” was not included in the teaching scale. Figure 2 lists the 23 items included in the three new scales. Additional items were added to the survey following the panel review and are described in Step 5 below. Demographic items in Part III included discipline, institution type (public vs. private), gender, rank, and status as a dissertation advisor.

PAGE 89

72 Figure 2. Knowledge and Skills in Areas of Faculty Work: Expanded Framework Engagement, Service, & Institutional Citizenship Engaging in committee work Providing input on hiring decisions Fundraising Providing service to govt/business/community Engaging in faculty governance Engaging in institutional strategic planning Reviewing articles, books, & conference proposals Understanding of Research Processes Engaging in scholarly work in the discipline Writing grant and other proposals Overseeing grant management Writing articles for publication Conducting interdisciplinary research Reading and analyzing literature Making conference presentations Understanding of Teaching / Learning Processes Preparing New Courses Incorporating Technology into Teaching Acting as Mentor/Advisor to Undergrad Students Acting as Mentor/Advisor to Grad Students Developing/reviewing dept or univ curriculum Serving on Thesis or Dissertation Committees Assessing Student Learning Encouraging Active Learning Advising a student organization

PAGE 90

73 Step 5: Review of Items Once the initial item pool and survey layout were created, a panel comprised of senior faculty was asked to review and comment on the specific items. The panel was comprised of one senior faculty member from each of the four disciplines in addition to four other senior faculty members with interest in the topic. All panelists were employed at one research institution that was not included in the primary study. The panel was sent an overview of the study, a copy of the draft survey, and a list of roles / skills that were not included in the initial survey (Appendix C), but identified in the literature. This packet of materials was hand-delivered or sent by electronic mail or campus mail based on each reviewer’s preference. Based on their research and experience, the reviewers were asked to examine the survey items then suggest whether any omitted items should be included, any current items should be reworded or deleted, or any items should be reclassified. Items were added, deleted, or reclassified if at least two panel members concurred. This step was important to increase the content validity of the survey. The content review resulted in minor changes to wording, no deletions, and four additions. The additional items included developing collegiality, becoming active in professional or disciplinary associations participating in professional development opportunities, and providing online instruction. The first three items were added to the competency scale and the fourth item was included in the teaching / learning scale. Step 6: Hold Preliminary Item Tryouts Four faculty members from this panel, in addition to nine graduate students in a doctoral-level measurement course, were asked to assess the design and readability of the instructions and items. Two members of the panel took the survey online using a

PAGE 91

74 think-aloud procedure while the investigator recorded comments. Adjustments to the survey were made based on recommendati ons derived from these sessions. Substantial design changes included reformatting the final screen to ensure participants would click the correct button for submission and bolding specific phrases for emphasis. Two substantial content changes were made as a result of the think-aloud procedure with a member of the investigator’s dissertation committee. One change was related to the third research question about who is responsible for introducing doctoral students to specific roles and competencies. The original intent was to ask faculty whether they themselves were responsible or if some other person or entity was responsible for the task. The final survey no longer included reference to the faculty member’s individual role, rather it simply asked what individual or entity is considered primarily responsible. In a related change, additional options were added to the list, including the “Doctoral Student Advisor,” “All Faculty in the Department,” and “Nobody.” Although recommendations such as using radio buttons instead of drop down menus had been made by more than one panel member, limitations of the survey software impeded the investigator’s ability to make some changes to the online design. Step 7: Field-test Items on a Representative Sample Prior to describing the pilot study procedures and changes to the final survey based on pilot results, it is important to describe the format of the items and the reasons behind the selection of the format. Parts I and II utilized four response options for each item to measure faculty members’ perceptions of: (1) the importance of each role, knowledge, skill, or attitude during the first three years of a faculty member’s job, and (2) the importance of introducing doctoral students to each role, knowledge, skill, or attitude during graduate school. Participants were asked to rate items as “Not Important,” “Somewhat Important,”

PAGE 92

75 “Important,” or “Extremely Important.” According to Johnson and Christensen (2002), the recommended number of options for a scale should range from 4 to 11 points because scales with fewer than four options do not produce reliable scores compared to scales with four or more points. Additionally, research shows no significant difference in the pattern of results when a middle point is omitted (Johnson & Christensen, 2002). Items were categorized by teaching / learning, research, service, and competencies for data analysis, however, items in the first three scales (represented in Part II) were randomly distributed in the survey to reduce response set, defined as the tendency to respond to a series of items in a specific direction regardless of content (Johnson & Christensen, 2002). Typically, item stems are reversed to addr ess this issue. In this case, however, randomization can reduce the tendency to score all items in one category higher than others based on the category itself, rather than the individual item. To measure faculty members’ perceptions of who is primarily responsible for introducing doctoral students to each role, knowledge, skill, or attitude item, faculty were asked to select an option from a drop-down list including “Doctoral Student Advisor,” “All Faculty in the Department,” “Department Chair,” “Graduate School Staff,” “Campus Teaching Center,” “Graduate Program Director,” “Professional Associations,” “Student,” “Hiring Institution,” and “Nobody.” Part III included demographic items and asked participants to check the appropriate response. Web surveys have become widely utilized in recent years, but response rates are often poor. To increase response rates while decreasing sources of error, several principles for designing web questionnaires (Dillman, Tortora, & Bowker, 1999) were used. These included introducing the survey with a welcome screen, limiting the line length and creating questions that were fully visible on the screen, presenting items in a conventional format, providing specific inst ructions where necessary, allowing items to

PAGE 93

76 be skipped (also required by IRB), and conveying progress toward completion. These design features were built into the online version with room for some modification based on recommendations from the faculty reviewers and any issues that might have arisen during the pilot study. Additional techniques for increasing participation rates are described in the section concerning data collection. A pilot test of the survey instrument was conducted using a random sample of 400 faculty members from the 62 institutions which had granted approval by the date of the pilot. One hundred faculty members were randomly selected from each discipline. Participants were recruited using the same techniques planned for the primary data collection (see data collection techniques below). Faculty selected for participation in the pilot study were not included in the primary study sample, and data gathered during the pilot study were not added to the final data set because changes were made to the survey based on results of the pilot. The pilot study fulfilled four specific purposes. First, the pilot study was used to assess the return rate. As this was a web-based survey, response rates were expected to be lower than traditional mailed surveys. If the response rate was less than 10%, additional recruitment strategies would have been devised. Four hundred faculty members were included in the pilot study. After a precontact message, 18 emails were returned as undeliverable. These emails were checked for errors and resent within one day. Only five were undeliverable after the second attempt and were removed from the initial contact list. Of the 395 faculty solicited for participation, 11.4% ( n = 45) responded within the first five days. Six days later, the first reminder was sent by email. An additional 6.3% ( n = 26) responded. After the final reminder was sent, another 4.8% ( n = 21) completed the survey. The number of responses decreased rapidly following each request with only 1 or 2 additional

PAGE 94

77 responses completed in the days following the reminders. This trend is consistent with research on the topic (Cook, Heath, & Thompson, 2000). The pilot survey was available for a total of 16 days with a total response rate of 23.0%. A second purpose to conduct the pilot study was to discover any issues with survey content, design, or administration t hat had not been identified during the previous steps of the survey development process by reviewing the comments of participants. Seventeen faculty members offered responses to the question, “Have we missed any important roles? List them and other comments here,” which was located on the final screen of the survey. Several respondents suggested additional skills, competencies, or roles including writing, administrative duties, ethics, developing syllabi, advising students, training underrepresented groups, and how to develop a realistic view of what can be accomplished. Each of these items was reflected in one of the survey scales; therefore, no items were added. Other faculty recommended changes to the response options for Research Question 3. One response option, “Student’s Advisory Committee” was added to the list based on faculty comments. Not all faculty members have contact with doctoral students, especially when several programs exis t within large departments. At the same time, students do have contact with more than their major professor, therefore the original options related to faculty were limiting. Although several suggestions were made to allow respondents to make multiple choices, no changes were made based on the specific research questions and technological limitations. The third purpose of the pilot study was to test the coding scheme and data analysis procedures. Difficulties encountered in the coding or analysis processes were addressed prior to collecting the actual data. For example, although the response rate was initially 23.0%, usable data were available only from 83% of these respondents.

PAGE 95

78 Data were determined to be “usable” if at least half of the survey was completed. If less than this amount was complete, the entire data line for that respondent was removed from the analysis. All of these cases represented faculty who opted to exit the survey before completing it. After removing data lines from participants who identified their rank as “Assistant Professor” or “Other,” the overall response rate decreased to 19.2%. A discussion of possible reasons for non-completion or non-response for the primary study is presented in Chapter 4. Specific data management procedures such as the computation of new variables and the identification and/or imputation of missing data were created and tested during this phase of the project. The syntax for a variety of analyses, including tests for normality and equal variances, one-way ANOVAs, and general descriptive statistics for the items and scales was created and saved for use with the final data set. Step 8: Determine Statistical Properties The final purpose of the pilot study was to measure the internal consistency of the three scales in Part II (teaching / learning, research, and service) and the general competencies in Part I. Scales with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient at or above .70 were considered adequate for measuring the constructs. Items within any scales below the .70 level were considered for modification or removal after considering item-to-total correlations and the theoretical importance of the item. Table 5 lists the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for each scale by research question using data collected during the pilot study.

PAGE 96

79 Table 5 Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients of Competency, Teaching/Learning, Research, and Service Scales by Research Question in the Pilot Study (n = 76) Cronbach’s Alpha Importance to Faculty Doctoral Student Preparation Competencies .82 .82 Teaching / Learning .80 .80 Research .69 .76 Service .76 .72 All Roles .88 .89 Only the Research scale for the question related to “Importance to Faculty” fell below the .70 level with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .69. Because the internal consistency of this scale was acceptable for “Doctoral Student Preparation” and the removal of any single item did not improve the coefficient, no items were removed. Due to the small number of responses in the pilot study, a factor analysis was not conducted at this stage of the study. Step 9: Conduct reliability and validity studies for the final form Because the results of the pilot study resulted in the addition of only one nominal response option, testing of the final form was not necessary prior to the primary administration. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were again calculated as a measure of internal consistency for the final data set, as it measures the reliability of the scores and not the survey itself. In addition, a factor analysis was conducted to test the construct validity of each scale. Minor changes were made to the teaching / learning, research,

PAGE 97

80 and service scales prior to analyzing results for each research question. These changes are described in the last section of this chapter. Step 10: Develop Guidelines for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation for the Primary Study In a meta-analysis of response rates to web-based surveys, Cook, Heath, and Thompson (2000) found that three factors were most associated with higher response rates. These factors were pre-contacts, personalization, and the total number of contacts. Surveys with a pre-contact message sent a few days prior to the survey had a higher response than those without the pre-contact message. Similarly, surveys introduced with a personalized cover message received higher response rates than those without. Four total contacts elicited the greatest number of responses, but a fifth contact showed diminishing returns. To obtain the highest possible response rate, the data collection process included the contacts described above. A pre-contact message was emailed to all senior faculty members at the approved institutions three business days prior to the initial request for participation, when a cover letter explaining the study and a link to the online survey were emailed to the sample. The pre-contact message also enabled the investigator to correct errors in the data entry of contact information based on an “undeliverable” response. After corrections, 99% of emails were correct for both the pilot and primary phases of the study. A follow-up email was sent on two occasions, each six days from the previous contact. All email correspondence is locat ed in Appendix D. The online survey (Appendix E) was available a total of 14 days based on the very limited response after the second reminder during the pilot phase.

PAGE 98

81 Data were downloaded at the end of the data collection period. The primary data collection was completed in April 2007. Data were collected using SurveyMonkey online software and were downloaded into an Excel file then imported into SPSS (2006) version 15.0. The specific data analysis procedures for each research question are described with the presentation of results in Chapter 4. Modifications to final scales based on factor analyses of primary data A principal axis factor analysis with promax rotation was used to assess the construct validity of the scales used to m easure faculty roles. Two analyses were run and compared for both the responses to “Importance to Faculty” and “Doctoral Student Preparation” questions. The first consisted of an analysis of eigenvalues greater than one. This analysis resulted in five and four factors, respectively. Parallel factors could be described as teaching, research, service, and advising. The fifth factor in the “Importance to Faculty” group extracted two items from the research scale, which represented dissemination of research as opposed to the remaining more logistical items. To allow for more standard comparisons, the two items from the fifth factor were included in the research scale, resulting in four scales each. Several item to factor correlations are worthy of mention. In both cases, “Serve as a reviewer of articles, books, and conference proposals” clearly fell under the “research” factor instead of “service.” Similarly, “Advising a student organization” had a higher structure coefficient under the service factor than the teaching factor. “Develop / review departmental curriculum” fell evenly between the teaching and service scales, whereas “Participate in interdisciplinary research projects,” “Provide input on hiring decisions,” and “Oversee grant management” were difficult to place anywhere on the four factor model.

PAGE 99

82 Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were calculated to compare the internal consistency of the original three scales with the four new scales. An advising scale was added, which included the items “Mentor / advise undergraduate students,” “Mentor / advise graduate students,” and “Serve on thesis or dissertation committees.” The two items clearly loading on different factors as described above were included in the “better” scale and the three items that did not appear to load on any factor were removed. The item concerning curriculum remained in its original scale for this analysis. Table 6 Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients of Modified Scale Options Based on Results of Principal Axis Factor Analysis with Promax Rotation Original Four Scales Final Scales Faculty StudentsFaculty StudentsFaculty Students Teaching / Learning .78 .79 .61 .71 .74 .76 Research .70 .77 .66 .76 .74 .79 Service .75 .73 .80 .78 .81 .80 Advising .75 .74 Note. Faculty = Importance to Faculty, n = 979; Students = Doctor al Student Preparation, n = 969. The values in Table 6 demonstrate that adding or removing items from a scale can increase or decrease its internal consistency. In this case, although the alpha level for the service scale improved, the teaching and research scales decreased for both groups and fell below the acceptable alpha level of .70 for the question about “Importance to Faculty.” Therefore, it was determined that only three factors should be retained. A second factor analysis was run to extract three factors. Loadings of the items on these three factors were expected to assist the investigator in determining where the

PAGE 100

83 three borderline items should be placed as well as any other modifications. In this analysis, “Participate in interdisciplinary research projects” loaded on the service scale. The other two borderline items were still considered borderline and fell on at least two factors. There also was more disparity among the items in each factor when comparing the responses to the “Importance to Faculty” and “Doctoral Student Preparation” questions. Additionally, some items, such as “Provide online instruction” and “Integrate technology in teaching” moved from the teaching scale to the service scale. “Mentor / advise graduate students” had a higher structure coefficient with research and “Engage in department or institution committee work” fell under teaching in this second analysis, making the final scale construction more complex. Several iterations were made to the scales based on the factor analysis and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were calculated for each. The values increased or decreased slightly based on the changes to each scale. There was no significant improvement in all three scales after 12 iterations. In fact, it became obvious that some items could arguably be included in more than one scale. For example, “Develop / review departmental curriculum” could be viewed as a service to the department or as part of the teaching role of faculty, whereas “Mentor / advise graduate students” could be described as teaching or, if viewing the item in terms of doctoral education, a process tied closely to research. Because of the complexity of the constructs and the mixed statistical properties, the original literature and item wording had to be considered in constructing the final scales. This notion is exemplified by the “Integrate technology in teaching” and “Provide online instruction” items. Although they fell under the service scale based on the second factor analysis, the wording of the items them selves better lend them to inclusion within the teaching scale. Similarly, “Participate in interdisciplinary research projects” was

PAGE 101

84 retained in the research scale because of its wording. “Develop / review department curriculum” was moved to the service scale in response to its structure coefficients, but also for conceptual reasons. The departments studied could offer several programs within a department, consisting of separate faculty in each; therefore, the wording of the item could imply a service, whereas usi ng text such as developing or reviewing “program” curriculum might have loaded more favorably on the teaching scale. The final scales consisted of eight items each. The teaching scale was comprised of the following items. The item is preceded by its item number on the actual survey. 19 Prepare new courses 20 Encourage active learning in the classroom 25 Integrate technology in teaching 26 Serve on thesis or dissertation committees 30 Provide online instruction 32 Mentor / advise undergraduate students 33 Mentor / advise graduate students 36 Assess student learning The research scale consisted of these items: 21 Write articles for publication 22 Design and implement scholarly projects in the discipline 24 Participate in interdisciplinary research projects 27 Write grants or other proposals 28 Oversee grant management (e.g., budget and personnel) 37 Make conference presentations in the discipline 38 Serve as a reviewer of articles, books, and conference proposals

PAGE 102

85 40 Read and analyze literature The service scale included: 23 Engage in strategic planning at one or more institutional levels 29 Provide professional service to government, businesses, and community 31 Engage in department or institution committee work 34 Provide input on hiring decisions 35 Assist with fundraising activities for the program or institution 39 Participate in university governance 41 Develop / review departmental curriculum 42 Advise a student organization In general, only three changes were made to the original scales. Two items from the teaching scale, “Develop / review departmental curriculum” and “Advise a student organization” were moved to the service scale; and “Serve as a reviewer of articles, books, and conference proposals” was moved from the service to the research scale. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were calculated for the final scales by discipline for Research Questions 1 and 2. Table 7 shows that internal consistency varied by discipline for each scale. In general, the competency scale was the least variable with all alpha coefficients above .80. The internal consistency of the research scale decreased across all disciplines for Research Questi on 1, whereas the service scale increased across disciplines, with the exception of E nglish, when compared to the total group of respondents. The coefficient for English faculty on the teaching scale also dropped substantially. Values were greatest for mathematics faculty. Despite these variations compared to the total group, the values are similar enough to compare the results by discipline with confidence.

PAGE 103

86 Table 7 Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients of Final Scales by Discipline Discipline Research Question Competency Teaching / Learning Research Service All Faculty Faculty .83 .74 .74 .78 Students .85 .76 .79 .80 Biology Faculty .82 .72 .61 .82 Students .82 .79 .68 .79 English Faculty .82 .64 .63 .77 Students .86 .72 .68 .78 Mathematics Faculty .84 .77 .70 .84 Students .85 .75 .74 .88 Psychology Faculty .81 .70 .63 .84 Students .83 .77 .66 .77 Note. Faculty = Importance to Faculty, n = 979; Students = Doctor al Student Preparation, n = 969 Finally, ANOVA tests were run for the original and new scales to determine if the change in scale construction would elicit different results among the four disciplines. Although it is beyond the scope of this study to present specific differences here, it can be noted that ANOVA results were the same for the teaching and research scales; differences appeared only when comparing the original and new service scales. This finding demonstrates the importance of scale construction on the results of a research study, however, it also shows that when dea ling with complex constructs, changes in survey structure may not always alter the results.

PAGE 104

87 CHAPTER 4 Results Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to describe how senior faculty members in a national sample of research universities perceive: 1) the importance of 42 specific roles and competencies early in a faculty member’s career, and 2) the importance for doctoral students to be introduced to these specific faculty roles and competencies during graduate school. Faculty members were also asked whom they view as primarily responsible for introducing specific competencies and roles to students during their doctoral programs. Data were collected using a web-based survey instrument. Research Questions 1. How do senior faculty members at research universities rate the importance of specific faculty roles and competencies during the first three years of faculty employment? 2. To what extent do senior faculty members at research universities support the expectation that doctoral students learn about specific faculty roles and competencies during their doctoral program? 3. Whom do senior faculty members at re search universities view as primarily responsible for socializing doctoral students in preparation for specific faculty roles and competencies? 4. How do responses to the first three research questions vary by discipline?

PAGE 105

88 5. How do responses to the first three research questions vary by faculty status as a dissertation advisor? Review of Pilot Study Results A pilot test of the survey instrument was conducted using a random sample of 400 faculty members from the 62 institutions which had granted IRB approval by the date of the pilot. One hundred faculty members were randomly selected from each discipline. Faculty selected for participation in the pilot study were not included in the actual study sample, and data gathered during the pilot study were not added to the final data set for analysis because changes were made to the survey instrument based on results of the pilot. Ninety-one faculty members responded to the pilot, resulting in a response rate of 23.0%. After removing data lines for respondents who had completed less than half of the survey, in addition to data lines of those faculty members who did not identify themselves as senior faculty, the final data set included 76 faculty members, for a usable response rate of 19.2%. Because the internal consistency of each scale was acceptable following the pilot study (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranged from .69 to .89 with an average of .80), no items were removed from the survey. One response option, “Student’s Advisory Committee” was added to the list of options for Research Question 3 based on comments made by faculty during the pilot phase. Comments were received from 17 pilot participants and although only one change was made to the survey instrument, several of the comments are worthy of discussion and are addressed, along with comments from the final survey administration, in Chapter 5.

PAGE 106

89 Results of Primary Study Requests for participation in the study were sent by email to 5008 faculty at 69 research universities nationwide. After the initial request, emails that were returned as undeliverable were rechecked on university websites and updated if an error was made. The initial request was resent within one day and 38 emails bounced back a second time. These 38 email addresses were marked as undeliverable and removed from the initial contact list. Therefore, the initial group for data analysis purposes is based on the 4970 emails that were successfully delivered. This initial group included 2948 full professors, 1631 associate professors, and 391 tenured or tenure-track faculty whose rank could not be identified by a web search of their academic departments. Biology, English, mathematics, and psychology faculty represented 28.4%, 25.4%, 27.6%, and 18.6% of the initial group, respectively. Nearly 80% of faculty members were employed at public institutions. Table 8 shows the number and percentage of institutions within each Carnegie Classification represented in the contact list. Appendix F includes a comprehensive demographic analysis of the initial group of faculty included in the contact list. This information was necessary for comparing characteristics of respondents and nonrespondents after data collection.

PAGE 107

90 Table 8 Number and Percentage of Institutions within each Carnegie Classification Represented in the Initial Contact List Institutions RUH-PRRUH-PU RUVH-PR RUVH-PU Total Total in Carnegie Type 27 76 33 63 199 % of Carnegie Type 13.6% 38.2% 16.6% 31.7% 100% Total in Sample 10 30 8 21 69 % of Sample 14.5% 43.5% 11.6% 30.4% 100% % of Carnegie Type represented in sample 37.0% 39.5% 24.2% 33.3% Note. RUH-PR = Private Research University, High Research Activity; RUH-PU = Public Research University, High Research Activity; RUV H-PR = Private Research University, Very High Research Activity; RUVH-PU = Public Research University, Very High Research Activity Seventy percent of all institutions within the two Carnegie Classifications of interest were public institutions. The remaining 30% were private institutions. Public institutions comprised 74% of the initial contact list. Private institutions within the RUVH classification were marginally underrepresented in this sample by 5%. A total of 1158 faculty members responded to the survey for a response rate of 23.3%. Missing data were statistically imputed for “Importance to Faculty” and “Doctoral Student Preparation” questions based on mean values of other items in the same scale (teaching / learning, research, service, com petencies). Data were imputed if, and only if, respondents had answered five of the eight scale items. All responses were included in the descriptive analyses. Only cases without missing data in each scale could be used for the ANOVA procedure, however, resulting in a usable response rate ranging from 18.9% to 19.2%. A total of 779 faculty, comprising 15.7% of those contacted for participation, completed the survey with no missing responses.

PAGE 108

91 Prior to presenting the data for those who did respond, it was important to look at those faculty who either did not respond or did not complete the survey in its entirety. A total of 167 faculty members sent a direct response to the investigator by email. Based on these contacts, it was possible to identify several reasons for non-response. Table 9 lists the frequency of each reason offered. Table 9 Reasons for Non-Response Reason # of Faculty % of Reasons Does not work with doctoral students 40 24.0 Concerns about the survey 26 15.6 Too busy 22 13.2 On leave 20 12.0 Requested removal with no reason 16 9.6 Retired 15 9.0 Other (see narrative) 10 6.0 Technology issues or privacy concerns 9 5.4 No Ph.D. program in area 6 3.6 In “Junk” file 3 1.8 Total 167 100.0 Nearly one fourth of those offering reasons for non-response shared that they were not involved in doctoral education. This was a flaw in the process of obtaining the initial pool, as department websites rarely differentiate between undergraduate and graduate faculty; fewer sites designated faculty currently credentialed to serve as dissertation advisors. A large number of non-respondents probably fell into this category. Three additional reasons were related to the limitations of a website search in creating the initial contact pool. One was that no Ph.D. was offered in the specific area of the faculty member’s work. This was most prevalent in the departments of English

PAGE 109

92 where, for example, a creative writing program only offered an MFA, but Ph.D.s were available in literature and /or composition. Another was that a faculty member was on sabbatical or another form of leave, and a th ird reason was that they were recently retired and this information was not updated on the site. Of greater concern is the 15% of faculty who identified reasons for non-response that dealt with the construction of the survey. Several mentioned its length and the response format employing the use of drop down menus. Others were of the opinion that such a complex topic could not be accurately measured with the specific quantitative approach. Of those who had concerns about the survey, many offered suggestions and were willing to share their opinions in a more qualitative nature. Specific comments regarding the survey design and recommendatio ns for improvement are discussed in Chapter 5. Only three faculty members mentioned that the requests for participation went directly to their “junk” or “spam” folders. These faculty members did complete the survey, but the inability to bypass campus spam filter s is a real, and possibly substantial, reason for non-response. Over 13% claimed they were too busy, with 3% of those reporting that they had received too many requests to complete on line surveys. Given that the survey was administered during spring break and near the end of the semester, these reasons are logical and could account for a large number of non-responders. Another 10% asked to be removed, but gave no specific reason. Other reasons ranged from thinking it had been completed two months prior to expressions of a general disregard for the topic. The survey instrument contained 46 items, but required a total of 126 responses. The length of time to take the survey varied widely, with some faculty reporting a 10 to 15 minute range, whereas others stated it took more than half an hour. The varied length

PAGE 110

93 of time, the structure of the survey, and the level of thoughtfulness required by those who have not been exposed to this topic, may have contributed to the moderate rate of incompletion. Of those who began the survey, 83% completed the entire survey. Of those who did not complete the survey, several patterns of responses existed. The majority of non-completers, approximately 46%, exited the survey after completing the first screen. An additional 18% quit after completing two of the five screens. The remaining third of non-completers started and stopped in various places. Because the demographic questions were located on the final screen of the survey, there are no demographic data available to describe how non-completers differed from the completers. Responses of the non-completer groups, however, were not significantly different from responses of the completer group on the first and second screens. Therefore, non-completers were not removed from the dataset and all data obtained were included in the descriptive analyses. After considering issues of non-response and non-completion, a useable response rate ranged from 18.9% to 19.2%. This is somewhat lower than the 35% average response rate to web-based su rveys (Cook, Heath, & Thompson, 2000); however, it is within the range anticipated during the design phase of this study. Table 10 shows information about the initial contact list and the faculty who responded by discipline and institution type.

PAGE 111

94 Table 10 Initial Sample and Respondents by Discipline and Institution Type Biology English Mathematics Psychology Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private n Initial List 1148 263 972 287 1094 280 732 194 4970 % of List 23.1 5.3 19.6 5.8 22.0 5.6 14.7 3.9 # of Respondents 303 58 177 65 179 33 130 28 973 % of Respondents 31.0 6.0 18.2 6.7 18.4 3.4 13.4 2.9 % of Respondents in Initial List 26.4 22.1 18.2 22.6 16.3 11.8 17.8 14.4 By comparing the percentage of each discipline included in the initial contact list and the percentage of respondents, it appears that respondents in each discipline are relatively representative of the initial list. Faculty in biological sciences responded at a higher rate than mathematics and psychology faculty at both institution types. English faculty at private institutions responded at a higher rate than their colleagues at public institutions. Because type of institution is not being considered in the analyses (it was reviewed for representation only) and because at least one-fourth of the initial list was represented for each discipline (regardless of institution type), the investigator moved forward with the analyses. Sixteen respondents identified themselves as assistant professors. Because of this study’s focus on senior faculty, these 16 data lines were deleted prior to running any further analyses. The total number of full professors responding across all four disciplines was 56.2%, whereas the number of associate professors responding across all disciplines was 29.2%. One hundred sixty six respondents (14.5%) did not identify a

PAGE 112

95 discipline. This figure decreases substantially when removing data lines for respondents who exited the survey after completing only one or two screens. For reporting purposes, all respondents are included in the descriptive analyses, although only cases without missing data are included in the comparative analyses ( n = 938 to n = 953). Of those identifying their rank, 65.8% were full professors and 34.2% were associate professors, figures that are consistent with the percentages identified in the initial contact list. Of those respondents identifying institution type, 80.9% of faculty employed at public institutions and 19.1% of faculty at private institutions responded regardless of discipline. The faculty from private institutions represented 20.6% of the initial contact list. Therefore, although the proportion of institution types appears skewed, 19.1% is representative of the population selected for the study. Male and female respondents comprised 69.6% and 30.4% of respondents, respectively; 86.8% of respondents were dissertation advisors or had recently chaired a successfully completed dissertation.

PAGE 113

96 Research Question 1 How do senior faculty members at research universities rate the importance of specific faculty roles and competencies during the first three years of faculty employment? Table 11 lists descriptive univariate statistics for each scale considered in the study. These values represent responses by all faculty members, regardless of discipline. The research scale was followed by the competency, teaching / learning, and service scales in order of importance. The resulting distribution was approximately normal. Table 11 Descriptive Statistics for Total Group by Scale – Importance to Faculty Scale M SD Skewness Kurtosis n Competency 3.09 0.36 -0.25 -0.15 1000 Teaching / Learning 2.68 0.49 -0.32 -0.06 946 Research 3.22 0.45 -0.57 -0.06 958 Service 1.93 0.50 0.50 -0.09 947 Note. Importance was measured on the following scale: 1 = Not Important, 2 = Somewhat Important, 3 = Important, 4 = Extremely Important. Univariate statistics including the mean, standard deviation, range, skewness, and kurtosis values for each of the 42 role, knowledge, skill, and attitude items are included in Appendix G. Values calculated for total faculty are listed from most important to least important within each scale (competencies, teaching / learning, research, service) based on the mean scores. The ranking of each item by discipline and status as a dissertation advisor is also listed in Appendix G.

PAGE 114

97 Items were rated on a scale of 1 to 4. A value of 1 represents a response of “Not Important.” A value of 4 represents a response of “Extremely Important.” The relative importance of each scale and item are discussed using three categories: values between 1.0 and 1.9 represent a low level of importance, values between 2.0 and 2.9 represent the mid-range, and values above 3.0 are considered having a high level of importance. It must be noted that items falling at the margins (within 0.2 points of the prescribed cut-offs) must be interpreted with caution because results could have fluctuated with the addition or deletion of data points. This cautionary approach is intended to keep the categories, and the items within each category, from appearing arbitrary. Finally, items with mean values at or above 3.5 are considered very important, whereas items at and below 1.5 are deemed unimportant during the first three years of faculty employment. Mean values for the 42 competency and role items ranged from 1.33 (Provide online instruction) to 3.92 (Write articles for publication) for the total group. Standard deviations decreased, whereas skewness and kurtosis values increased for the highest and lowest rated items. These statistics suggest greater consistency of perceived importance for items at the extremes. Se venteen items were considered at least “Important” with mean scores above 3.0. Only six items were rated at or below “Somewhat Important.” The remaining 22 items fell between the two. Tables 12 and 13 list the highest-rated ( M 3.0) competencies and roles for the total group, respectively. The highest-rated items included ten competencies and five roles from the research scale. Only two of the seventeen “Important” items were from the teaching / learning scale. These were mentoring / advising graduate students and preparing new courses, although the latter item was on the margin of high and midrange level of importance with a mean value of 3.04. The top five competencies, from

PAGE 115

98 Austin and McDaniels’ (2006) framework included (a) understanding research processes, (b) possessing a critical knowledge of the discipline, (c) possessing strong communication skills, (d) modeling ethics and integrity, and (e) possessing a motivation for lifelong learning. The five roles considered by senior faculty to be most important during the first three years of faculty employment were (a) writing articles for publication, (b) reading and analyzing literature, (c) making conference presentations, (d) designing and implementing scholarly projects, and (e) writing grants or other proposals. None of the items rated as important was part of the service scale. In fact, five of the six items with means below 2.0 were service roles (Table 14). These included (a) participating in university governance; (b) engaging in strategic planning at one or more institutional levels; (c) providing professional services to government, businesses, and community groups; (d) assisting with fundraising activities for the program or institution; and (e) advising a student organization. The lowest rated item was “Provide online instruction” with a mean score of 1.33. The frequencies of responses clearly mirror the ranking by means with competency and research items having the highest percentages of “Extremely Important” responses. Only one item on the competency scale – “Understand community engagement and service” – had more than 15% of respondents rate it as “Not Important.” This finding is consistent with the low means on the service scale items. Frequency tables list the percentage of faculty selecting each response for each item. Percentages for the total group are listed in Tables 15 and 16. Considering the items that respondents describe as “Not Important” in faculty work may be as meaningful as looking solely at those rated “Extremely Important.” Items at the extremes show the most consistency among faculty and items viewed as unimportant may lead to implications for both faculty work and doctoral student

PAGE 116

99 preparation. Seven of the 18 competency items were rated as “Not Important” by less than 1% of respondents. These items included (a) understanding research processes, (b) developing collegiality, (c) understanding teaching and learning processes, (d) possessing strong communication skills, (e) m odeling ethics and integrity, (f) cultivating professional networks, and (g) possessing a critical knowledge of the discipline. In other words, over 99% of faculty believed these competencies had some level of importance in the first three years of faculty work. In contrast with the list of competencies, senior faculty considered many more roles “Not Important” during the first three years of faculty work. Compared with seven of the competency items, only three of the 24 teaching / learning, research, and service roles were rated as “Not Important” by less than one percent of respondents. These items included (a) reading and analyzing literature, (b) making conference presentations, and (c) writing articles for publication. Overall, the results demonstrate that the perceived importance of specific faculty roles and competencies during the first three years of faculty work vary widely. In general, competencies and research roles were rated high, whereas service roles were rated low. The ratings for teaching roles were the most variable. Disciplinary differences, which appear to be related to this variability, are presented in a forthcoming section.

PAGE 117

100 Table 12 Highest-rated (M 3.0) Competencies for Total Group – Importance to Faculty Scale Item M SD n C Understand research processes 3.88 0.34 1123 C Possess a critical knowled ge of the discipline 3.82 0.44 1004 C Possess strong communication skills 3.68 0.52 1113 C Model ethics and integrity 3.56 0.62 1012 C Possess a motivation for lifelong learning 3.44 0.73 1011 C Understand teaching and learning processes 3.43 0.64 1114 C Cultivate profession al networks 3.24 0.70 1009 C Develop collegiality 3.24 0.67 1121 C Nurture professional passion while maintaining balance in life 3.19 0.84 1000 C Understand one’s professional identity as professional and scholar 3.06 0.83 992 Note. C = competency, T = teaching / learning, R = research, S = service. Items are listed in order of importance. 1 = Not Important, 4 = Extremely Important. Table 13 Highest-rated (M 3.0) Roles for Total Group – Importance to Faculty Scale Item M SD n R Write articles for publication 3.92 0.30 961 R Read and analyze literature 3.75 0.52 946 R Make conference presentations in the discipline 3.68 0.56 949 R Design and implement scholarly projects in the discipline 3.44 0.84 953 R Write grants or other proposals 3.39 0.83 959 T Mentor / advise gradu ate students 3.26 0.82 949 T Prepare new courses 3.04 0.97 963 Note. C = competency, T = teaching / learning, R = research, S = service. Items are listed in order of importance. 1 = Not Important, 4 = Extremely Important.

PAGE 118

101 Table 14 Lowest-rated (M < 2.0) Roles for Total Group – Importance to Faculty Scale Item M SD n S Participate in university governance 1.72 0.77 947 S Engage in strategic planning at one or more institutional levels 1.69 0.76 948 S Provide professional services to government, businesses, and community groups 1.66 0.72 955 S Assist with fundraising activities for the program or institution 1.51 0.71 946 S Advise a student organization 1.40 0.60 944 T Provide online instruction 1.33 0.59 951 Note. C = competency, T = teaching / learning, R = research, S = service. Items are listed in order of importance. 1 = Not Important, 4 = Extremely Important.

PAGE 119

102 Table 15 Percentage of Responses to Each Competency for Total Group – Importance to Faculty Total Group Item # Item NI SI I EI 1 Appreciate the history and purposes of higher education 14.6 40.5 33.7 11.2 2 Understand research pr ocesses 0.0 0.4 11.3 88.2 3 Develop collegiality 0.7 11.1 51.4 36.8 4 Understand and appreciate institutional service and citizenship 3.8 34.4 49.0 12.7 5 Understand types of higher education institutions and missions 13.5 48.3 29.2 8.9 6 Understand teaching and learning processes 0.2 7.7 41.2 50.9 7 Understand community engagement and service 22.1 53.6 21.3 3.0 8 Become active in professional / disciplinary associations 7.0 26.6 41.4 25.0 9 Possess strong communicati on skills 0.0 2.6 26.6 70.8 10 Model ethics and integrity 0.6 5.3 31.1 62.9 11 Possess a motivation for lifel ong learning 2.1 8.1 33.3 56.5 12 Cultivate professional networks 0.3 14.4 46.0 39.3 13 Possess teamwork and collabo ration skills 2.0 24.4 47.8 25.8 14 Participate in professional development opportunities 6.2 34.0 43.8 16.0 15 Appreciate student, faculty and disciplinary diversity 6.7 28.9 43.1 21.3 16 Possess a critical knowledge of the discipline 0.0 2.2 13.5 84.3 17 Understand one's professional identity as professor and scholar 5.0 16.4 45.6 33.0 18 Nurture professional passion while maintaining balance in life 4.3 14.2 39.6 41.9 Note. NI = Not important, SI = Somewhat Import ant, I = Important, EI = Extremely Important

PAGE 120

103 Table 16 Percentage of Responses to Each Role for Total Group Importance to Faculty Total Group Item # Item NI SI I EI 19 Prepare new courses 9.2 17.7 33.4 39.7 20 Encourage active learning in the classroom 3.6 22.0 46.0 28.4 21 Write articles for publication 0.0 0.6 7.1 92.3 22 Design and implement scholarly projects in the discipline 4.4 10.1 22.9 62.6 23 Engage in strategic planning at one or more institutional levels 47.5 37.4 13.6 1.5 24 Participate in interdisciplinary research projects 15.6 47.0 31.0 6.5 25 Integrate technology in teaching 21.1 43.9 28.9 6.1 26 Serve on thesis or dissertation committees (if in a graduate institution) 8.0 26.5 44.4 21.1 27 Write grants or other proposals 2.6 14.9 23.1 59.3 28 Oversee grant management (e.g., budget, personnel) 26.3 26.7 27.0 20.1 29 Provide professional services to government, businesses, and community groups 47.2 40.8 10.6 1.4 30 Provide online instru ction 72.9 22.2 4.2 0.7 31 Engage in department or institution committee work 8.9 39.6 37.7 13.7 32 Mentor / advise undergraduat e students 4.7 24.4 47.6 23.3 33 Mentor / advise graduate students (if in a graduate institution) 3.2 14.5 35.1 47.2 34 Provide input on hiring decisions 8.7 29.0 42.4 20.0 35 Assist with fundraising activities for the program or institution 60.9 28.8 9.1 1.3 36 Assess student learning 5.9 20.6 44.7 28.8 37 Make conference presentations in the discipline 0.4 3.5 23.8 72.3 38 Serve as a reviewer of articles, books, and conference proposals 5.7 23.4 44.2 26.7 39 Participate in university governance 45.6 39.3 12.9 2.2 40 Read and analyze literature 0.5 2.4 18.2 78.9 41 Develop / review departmental curriculum 21.0 46.8 27.1 5.1 42 Advise a student organization 65.8 28.9 5.1 0.2 Note. NI = Not important, SI = Somewhat Import ant, I = Important, EI = Extremely Important

PAGE 121

104 Research Question 2 To what extent do senior faculty members at research universities support the expectation that doctoral students learn about specific faculty roles and competencies during their doctoral programs? Table 17 lists descriptive univariate statistics for each of the four scales. These values represent responses by all faculty members, regardless of discipline. The competency scale was rated most important for doctoral student preparation, although the mean values for all scales were lower than the perceived importance for new faculty (Research Question 1). Research, teaching / learning, and service scales had decreasing levels of perceived importance. With the exception of the service scale, responses appeared approximately normally distributed. Table 17 Descriptive Statistics for Total Group by Scale – Doctoral Student Preparation Scale M SD Skewness Kurtosis n Competency 2.88 0.41 -0.21 -0.07 992 Teaching / Learning 1.90 0.53 0.63 0.30 922 Research 2.75 0.54 -0.25 -0.47 949 Service 1.34 0.38 1.47 2.27 928 Note. Importance was measured on the following scale: 1 = Not Important, 2 = Somewhat Important, 3 = Important, 4 = Extremely Important. Univariate statistics including the mean, standard deviation, range, skewness, and kurtosis values for each of the 42 role, knowledge, skill, and attitude items are included in Appendix G. Values calculated for total faculty are listed from most important to least important within each scale (competencies, teaching / learning, research, service) based on the mean scores. The ranking of each item by discipline and status as a dissertation advisor is also listed in Appendix G.

PAGE 122

105 A value of 4 represents a response of “Extremely Important.” A value of 1 represents a response of “Not Important.” Again, the relative importance of each scale and item are discussed using three categories: values between 1.0 and 1.9 represent a low level of importance, values between 2.0 and 2.9 represent the mid-range, and values above 3.0 are considered having a high level of importance. Items with mean values at or above 3.5 are considered very important, whereas items at and below 1.5 are deemed unimportant during doctoral student preparation. Additionally, items falling at the margins (within 0.2 points of the prescribed cut-offs) must be interpreted with caution. Mean values for the 42 competency and role items ranged from 1.15 (Advise a student organization) to 3.88 (Understand research processes) for the total group. Similar to the “Importance to Faculty” responses, standard deviations decreased, whereas skewness and kurtosis values increa sed for the highest and lowest rated items, again demonstrating greater agreement among faculty for these items. Only 10 items were considered “Important” for doctoral students with mean scores above 3.0, compared to 17 items considered “Important” for new faculty. These included (a) understanding research processes, (b) analyzing literature, (c) possessing a critical knowledge of the discipline, (d) modeling ethics and integrity, (e) writing articles for publication, (f) making conference presentations, (g) possessing a motivation for lifelong learning, (h) understanding teaching and learning processes, (i) possessing motivation for lifelong learning, and (j) designing and implementing scholarly projects. Competency and research items were represented equally among the top 10. The highest-rated competencies are roles are listed in Tables 18 and 19, respectively. Fifteen items were rated at or below a mean value of 2.0 for doctoral students, compared to only six items receiving the same designation for new faculty. This finding

PAGE 123

106 supports the assumption that senior faculty do not perceive the need to introduce doctoral students to all faculty roles, even if they are relatively important in early faculty work. Tables 20 and 21 list the lowest-rated competencies and roles. Again mirroring the results of “Importance to Faculty,” fewer faculty members rated competency items as “Not Important” than the specific role items. In this case, however, only three competencies were c onsidered “Not Important” by less than one percent of respondents. These included (a) understanding research processes, (b) possessing strong communication skills, and (c ) possessing a critical knowledge of the discipline. Tables 22 and 23 include the percentage of responses for each competency and role, respectively. At least 25% of respondents rated 17 roles as “Not Important” during doctoral education. Only three roles (matching the th ree items identified as “Not Important” by less than 1% of senior faculty) were rated “Not Important” by less than 10% of respondents. Seven roles were viewed as “Not Important” by more than 75% of the respondents and, with the exception of “Provide online instruction,” all of these items were from the service scale. In general, there was much less variability in ratings regarding “Doctoral Student Preparation” than “Importance to Faculty.” Table 18 Highest-rated (M 3.0) Competencies for Total Group – Doctoral Student Preparation Scale Item M SD n C Understand research processes 3.88 0.34 1115 C Possess strong communication skills 3.60 0.59 1107 C Model ethics and integrity 3.52 0.69 1004 C Possess a motivation for lifelong learning 3.39 0.77 1003 C Understand teaching and learning processes 3.15 0.76 1108 Note. C = competency, T = teaching / learning, R = resear ch, S = service. Items are listed in order of importance. 1 = Not Important, 4 = Extremely Important.

PAGE 124

107 Table 19 Highest-rated (M 3.0) Roles for Total Group – Doctoral Student Preparation Scale Item M SD n R Read and analyze literature 3.77 0.53 933 R Possess a critical knowled ge of the discipline 3.74 0.52 997 R Write articles for publication 3.52 0.73 954 R Make conference presentations in the discipline 3.43 0.74 933 R Design and implement scholarly projects in the discipline 3.04 1.06 947 Note. C = competency, T = teaching / learning, R = resear ch, S = service. Items are listed in order of importance. 1 = Not Important, 4 = Extremely Important. Table 20 Lowest-rated (M < 2.0) Competencies for Total Group – Doctoral Student Preparation Scale Item M SD n C Understand community engagement and service 1.79 0.73 1106 Note. C = competency, T = teaching / learning, R = resear ch, S = service. Items are listed in order of importance. 1 = Not Important, 4 = Extremely Important.

PAGE 125

108 Table 21 Lowest-rated (M < 2.0) Roles for Total Group – Doctoral Student Preparation Scale Item M SD n T Integrate technology in teaching 1.97 0.85 952 T Prepare new courses 1.92 0.96 957 T Mentor / advise gradu ate students 1.75 0.95 923 S Provide input on hiring decisions 1.69 0.80 926 S Engage in department or institution committee work 1.55 0.69 940 R Oversee grant management (e.g. budget, personnel) 1.52 0.77 944 S Develop / review department curriculum 1.39 0.61 928 T Serve on thesis or dissertation committees 1.37 0.74 926 S Provide professional services to government, business, and community groups 1.29 0.55 943 S Participate in university governance 1.27 0.52 929 T Provide online instruction 1.23 0.52 937 S Engage in strategic planning at one or more institutional levels 1.22 0.51 942 S Assist with fundraising activities for the program 1.18 0.45 928 S Advise a student organization 1.15 0.41 922 Note. C = competency, T = teaching / learning, R = resear ch, S = service. Items are listed in order of importance. 1 = Not Important, 4 = Extremely Important.

PAGE 126

109 Table 22 Percentage of Responses to Each Competency for Total Group – Doctoral Student Preparation Total Group Item # Item NI SI I EI 1 Appreciate the history and purposes of higher education 20.0 42.9 28.3 8.9 2 Understand research pr ocesses 0.0 0.6 10.5 88.9 3 Develop collegiality 2.9 24.0 50.3 22.8 4 Understand and appreciate institutional service and citizenship 18.8 50.9 26.2 4.1 5 Understand types of higher education institutions and missions 16.5 44.5 28.8 10.3 6 Understand teaching and learning processes 1.6 17.6 44.6 36.2 7 Understand community engagement and service 37.6 47.4 13.2 1.8 8 Become active in professional / disciplinary associations 13.4 35.3 35.4 15.9 9 Possess strong communicati on skills 0.3 4.3 30.3 65.1 10 Model ethics and integrity 1.5 6.5 30.3 61.8 11 Possess a motivation for lifel ong learning 3.0 8.6 34.9 53.5 12 Cultivate professional networks 3.9 29.6 47.1 19.4 13 Possess teamwork and collabo ration skills 5.6 29.8 43.8 20.7 14 Participate in professional development opportunities 11.4 39.7 34.2 14.7 15 Appreciate student, faculty and disciplinary diversity 10.1 32.5 40.5 16.9 16 Possess a critical knowledge of the discipline 0.1 3.5 18.8 77.6 17 Understand one's professional identity as professor and scholar 8.5 29.2 43.7 18.6 18 Nurture professional passion while maintaining balance in life 7.2 24.8 38.6 29.5 Note. NI = Not important, SI = Somewhat Import ant, I = Important, EI = Extremely Important

PAGE 127

110 Table 23 Percentage of Responses to Each Role for Total Group – Doctoral Student Preparation Total Group Item # Item NI SI I EI 19 Prepare new courses 43.2 29.7 19.5 7.6 20 Encourage active learning in the classroom 14.7 33.7 35.9 15.7 21 Write articles for publication 1.7 8.9 24.9 64.5 22 Design and implement scholarly projects in the discipline 12.2 17.3 24.5 45.9 23 Engage in strategic planning at one or more institutional levels 81.8 15.0 2.7 0.5 24 Participate in interdisciplinary research projects 27.3 46.4 22.2 4.1 25 Integrate technology in teaching 33.1 40.7 22.2 4.1 26 Serve on thesis or dissertation committees (if in a graduate institution) 76.8 12.1 8.9 2.3 27 Write grants or other proposals 17.2 26.7 31.9 24.2 28 Oversee grant management (e.g., budget, personnel) 61.9 26.5 9.1 2.5 29 Provide professional services to government, businesses, and community groups 75.3 20.6 3.7 0.4 30 Provide online instruction 81.1 15.0 3.4 0.4 31 Engage in department or institution committee work 55.3 35.6 7.9 1.2 32 Mentor / advise undergraduate students 32.4 38.0 23.3 6.3 33 Mentor / advise graduate students (if in a graduate institution) 53.5 24.3 15.6 6.6 34 Provide input on hiring decisions 48.5 37.0 11.0 3.5 35 Assist with fundraising activities for the program or institution 84.8 13.4 1.3 0.5 36 Assess student learning 19.6 32.9 33.4 14.0 37 Make conference presentations in the discipline 1.2 11.6 30.3 56.9 38 Serve as a reviewer of articles, books, and conference proposals 30.9 38.3 21.9 8.9 39 Participate in university governance 76.0 21.0 2.7 0.3 40 Read and analyze literature 1.1 2.0 15.8 81.1 41 Develop / review departmental curriculum 67.0 26.8 5.8 0.3 42 Advise a student organization 87.3 10.8 1.7 0.1 Note. NI = Not important, SI = Somewhat Import ant, I = Important, EI = Extremely Important

PAGE 128

111 The mean difference scores between “Importance to Faculty” and “Doctoral Student Preparation” also provide useful information. Table 24 shows the mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis values for the mean difference scores by scale. Table 24 Descriptive Statistics for Mean Difference Scores Between Importance to Faculty and Doctoral Student Preparation by Scale Scale M SD Skewness Kurtosis n Competency 0.21 0.23 0.55 0.41 995 Teaching / Learning 0.78 0.48 0.04 -0.18 922 Research 0.47 0.37 0.38 0.51 949 Service 0.59 0.44 0.41 0.72 928 Note. Importance was measured on the following scale: 1 = Not Important, 2 = Somewhat Important, 3 = Important, 4 = Extremely Important. Univariate statistics for the differenc e scores by item are included in Appendix G for the total group. Items with the most meaningful difference scores (greater than 1.0 and less than 0.1) are presented in Table 25. The former group represents roles that are deemed important in the first three years of faculty work, but are not as important during doctoral student preparation. The latter group in composed of items (primarily competencies) that are considered equally important for both faculty work and doctoral student preparation. Only one item – “Read and analyze literature” was rated more important for doctoral students during their graduate programs than for faculty during the first three years of employment, but the difference was negligible at 0.01 points. A more important

PAGE 129

112 consideration is the list of items with the greatest difference in means. Five roles were rated more than one point higher for “Importance to Faculty” than “Doctoral Student Preparation.” These included (a) mentoring/advising graduate students, (b) serving on thesis and dissertation committees, (c) preparing new courses, (d) providing input on hiring decisions, and (e) engaging in department or institution committee work. Seven items had mean difference scores between one-half and one point, whereas the remaining 29 items ranged from 0.00 to 0.47. Table 25 Largest and Smallest Mean Difference Scores Between Importance to Faculty and Doctoral Student Preparation for Total Group by Item Scale Item Rank Mean Diff n T Mentor / advise graduate students 1 1.51 923 T Serve on thesis or dissertation committees 2 1.42 926 T Prepare new courses 3 1.12 957 S Provide input on hiring decisions 4 1.05 926 Greatest Mean Differences S Engage in department or institution committee work 5 1.02 940 C Possess a critical knowledge of the discipline 36 0.08 997 C Possess strong communication skills 37 0.08 1105 C Possess a motivation for lifelong learning 38 0.06 1003 C Model ethics and integrity 39 0.04 1004 C Understand types of institutions and missions 40 0.00 1109 C Understand research processes 41 0.00 1115 Smallest Mean Differences R Read and analyze literature 42 -0.01 932

PAGE 130

113 Overall, senior faculty perceived the introduction of competencies as more important than the introduction of specific roles in doctoral student preparation. When considering specific roles, the research roles were rated higher than teaching roles, which were rated higher than service roles. Ratings for “Doctoral Student Preparation” were lower than “Importance to Faculty” across the board, yet mean difference scores ranged from no difference to more than 1.5 points. These differences can have meaningful implications for practice. How the mean difference scores, and other responses, vary by discipline is discussed later in this chapter.

PAGE 131

114 Research Question 3 Whom do senior faculty members view as primarily responsible for socializing doctoral students in preparation for specific faculty roles and competencies during graduate school? The responsibility of introducing doctoral students to specific competencies and roles rests primarily in the hands of faculty, whether by the dissertation advisor, the student’s advisory committee, or all facult y members in the department. Only eight items did not have at least one of these three options selected by 20% of the respondents. These items were primarily service roles, but also included “Serving on thesis / dissertation committees” and “Providing online instruction.” With the exception of “Understand research processes,” there was marked variability across responses. In most cases, “Student” or “Nobody” received the greatest number of responses next to the first three faculty groups. However, a few items were more variable. For example, the percentage of responses to “Prepare new courses” ranged from 0.2% to 22.6% with three options being listed as primarily responsible by more than 10% of respondents. “Engaging in department or institution committee work” resulted in similar variability with responses ranging from 0.1% to 24.6% and five options listed as primarily responsible by more than 10% of respondents. “Participate in professional development opportunities” ranged from 1.9% to 21.5% with four options selected by more than 10% of faculty participants. Other items with more variable responses include integrating technology in teaching, grant management, and assessing student learning. Percentages of responses to all items are listed in Appendix H. The top five competencies and/or roles for which an option was identified as primarily responsible are located in Table 26. Some items in the top five of one option,

PAGE 132

115 however, might have higher percentages in another option; for instance, the top ranked item for “Graduate School Staff” was “Understanding types of institutions and missions” (9.0%). Four other options had higher percentages (doctoral student advisor, all faculty, student, and nobody). Nevertheless, knowing what competencies and roles each person or entity is perceived to be most responsible for adds additional clues to understanding the complex topic of doctoral student preparation. The results for four specific options are described below. The doctoral student advisor was viewed as primarily responsible for introducing their students to 14 of the competencies and roles considered in the study. The top five items consisted of research roles, ranging from 65.6% of respondents selecting “Doctoral Student Advisor” for “Writing for publication” to just over half (51.1%) selecting the advisor for “Write grants and other proposals.” In fact, the doctoral student advisor was the top choice for all eight items in the research scale. Additionally, the advisor was recognized as primarily responsible for introducing four competencies, including (a) understanding research processes, (b) becoming active in associations, (c) cultivating professional networks, and (d) participating in professional development opportunities. The two advising / mentoring items, from t he teaching scale, rounded out the items for which the doctoral student advisor was per ceived as having primary responsibility. “All Faculty in the Department” was selected as the primary entity responsible for 17 items, ranging from 22.6% to 54.9% of responses. Twelve of these items were from the competency scale. The top five items included (a) developing collegiality, (b) understanding teaching and learning processes, (c) modeling ethics and integrity, (d) appreciating diversity, and (e) appreciating the history and purposes of higher education.

PAGE 133

116 Students are viewed as primarily responsible for possessing motivation for lifelong learning and nurturing professional pas sion while maintaining balance in life. They were also selected frequently by participants for possessing teamwork and collaboration skills and understanding one’s profe ssional identity. Although not receiving the most responses, students were viewed as primarily responsible for preparing new courses by 17.3% of respondents. The option of “Nobody” was selected most often by senior faculty for eight roles. As shown in Table 26, the top five roles were (a) advising a student organization, (b) assisting with fundraising activities, (c) providing online instruction, (d) engaging in strategic planning, and (e) providing professi onal services to government, business, and community groups. The additional three items included (f) participating in university governance, (g) serving on thesis / dissertation committees, and (h) developing / reviewing department curriculum. Percentages for these eight items ranged from 28.1% to 49.8%. Five items were from the service scale and three items were part of the teaching scale. In sum, doctoral student advisors and all faculty members in the department were viewed as primarily responsible for introducing doctoral students to various competencies and skills. However, there was marked variability across some responses. The options of “Student” and “Nobody” were selected frequently (more than 10% of the time) for 21 and 19 items, respectively. These latter results can have important implications for doctoral education.

PAGE 134

117 Table 26 Top Five Competencies and Roles Identified for Each Response Option by Total Group Responsible Individual(s) Item # Competency or Role Doctoral Student Advisor 21 37 2 22 27 Write articles for publication Make conference presentations in the discipline Understand research processes Design and implement scholarly projects Write grants or other proposals Student’s Advisory Committee 12 16 22 24 2 Cultivate professional networks Possess a critical knowledge of the discipline Design and implement scholarly projects Participate in interdiscip linary research projects Understand research processes All Faculty in Department 3 6 10 15 1 Develop collegiality Understand teaching and learning processes Model ethics and integrity Appreciate student, faculty, and disciplinary diversity Appreciate the history and purpose of higher ed Department Chair 34 31 41 35 39 Provide input on hiring decisions Engage in department or institution committee work Develop / review department curriculum Assist with fundraising activities Participate in university governance Graduate Program Director 33 14 6 36 19 Mentor / advise graduate students Participate in professional development opportunities Understand teaching and learning processes Assess student learning Prepare new courses Graduate School Staff 5 4 1 28 3 Understand types of institutions and missions Understand institutional service and citizenship Appreciate the history and purposes of higher ed Oversee grant management Develop collegiality

PAGE 135

118 Table 26 (Continued) Responsible Individual(s) Item # Competency or Role Campus Teaching Center 25 20 36 30 6 Integrate technology in teaching Encourage active learning in the classroom Assess student learning Provide online instruction Understand teaching and learning processes Professional Associations 8 12 7 5 29 Become active in professional associations Cultivate professional networks Understand community engagement and service Understand types of institutions and missions Provide professional services Student 11 18 13 17 19 Possess motivation for lifelong learning Nurture professional passion / balance in life Posses teamwork and collaboration skills Understand one’s professional identity Prepare new courses Hiring Institution 35 23 39 28 31 Assist with fundraising activities Engage in strategic planning Participate in university governance Oversee grant management Engage in department / institution committee work Nobody 42 35 30 23 29 Advise a student organization Assist with fundraising activities Provide online instruction Engage in strategic planning Provide professional services

PAGE 136

119 Research Question 4 How do responses to the first three research questions vary by discipline? Univariate statistics for each scale for “Importance to Faculty” and “Doctoral Student Preparation” by discipline are presented in Appendix I. The percentage of responses to each item by discipline (for the first three research questions) is located in Appendix J. For ease of reading and interpretation, the percentage of responses to “Who is Responsible” by discipline is presented in two formats. This section also includes results of various statistical tests used to identify differences among the disciplines for Research Questions 1 and 2. Statistical results will be presented first in narrative format to describe the big picture differences prior to considering individual items. A visual representation of observed differences by discipline of both “Importance to Faculty” and “Doctoral Student Preparation” for each scale can be seen in Figures 3 through 6. The figures, which show distinct differences among disciplines for some scales, are followed by the results of MANOVA, ANOVA, and appropriate follow-up procedures. Tables 27 through 29 present descriptive statistics by total group and discipline for “Importance to Faculty,” “Doctoral Student Preparation,” and the mean difference scores. With the exception of the service scale for “Doctoral Student Preparation,” all responses appear to be normally distributed.

PAGE 137

120 Competency Scale Mean Differences by Discipline3.14 3.17 2.91 3.05 2.94 2.96 2.65 2.90 1.2 1.7 2.2 2.7 3.2Biological Sciences English Mathematics PsychologyDisciplineMean of Competency Scale Faculty Doctoral Students Teaching / Learning Scale Mean Differences by Discipline2.81 275 2.29 2.81 1.84 2.10 1.67 2.03 1.2 1.7 2.2 2.7 3.2Biological Sciences English Mathematics PsychologyDisciplineMean of Teaching / Learning Scale Faculty Doctoral Students Figure 4. Mean Differences by Discipline Teaching / Learning Scale Figure 3. Mean Differences by Discipline Competency Scale

PAGE 138

121 Research Scale Mean Differences by Discipline3.52 2.89 3.00 3.35 3.06 2.44 2.38 3.04 1.2 1.7 2.2 2.7 3.2Biological Sciences English Mathematics PsychologyDisciplineMean of Research Scale Faculty Doctoral Students Service Scale Mean Differences by Discipline2.01 2.00 1.80 1.83 1.35 1.45 1.22 1.31 1.2 1.7 2.2 2.7 3.2Biological Sciences English Mathematics PsychologyDisciplineMean of Service Scale Faculty Doctoral Students Figure 5. Mean Differences by Discipline Research Scale Figure 6. Mean Differences by Discipline – Service Scale

PAGE 139

122 Table 27 Descriptive Statistics for the Four Scales by Total Group and Discipline Importance to Faculty Scale Discipline n M SD Skewness Kurtosis Competency Total Group Biology English Mathematics Psychology 953 354 241 206 152 3.08 3.14 3.17 2.91 3.05 0.36 0.34 0.35 0.39 0.34 -0.25 -0.24 -0.47 0.06 -0.12 -0.15 -0.06 0.30 -0.25 -0.56 Teaching/Learning Total Group Biology English Mathematics Psychology 942 352 237 206 147 2.68 2.81 2.75 2.29 2.81 0.49 0.44 0.42 0.50 0.42 -0.32 -0.24 -0.11 0.10 -0.28 -0.06 -0.06 0.06 -0.17 -0.24 Research Total Group Biology English Mathematics Psychology 947 354 239 206 148 3.22 3.52 2.89 3.00 3.35 0.45 0.30 0.37 0.44 0.34 -0.57 -1.14 -0.10 -0.47 -0.64 -0.06 2.63 -0.28 0.58 0.41 Service Total Group Biology English Mathematics Psychology 943 352 237 206 148 1.93 2.01 2.00 1.80 1.83 0.50 0.51 0.45 0.51 0.50 0.50 0.62 0.49 0.43 0.63 -0.09 0.12 -0.08 -0.64 -0.13 Note. Importance was measured on the following scale: 1 = Not Important, 2 = Somewhat Important, 3 = Important, 4 = Extremely Important.

PAGE 140

123 Table 28 Descriptive Statistics for the Four Scales by Total Group and Discipline – Doctoral Student Preparation Scale Discipline n M SD Skewness Kurtosis Competency Total Group Biology English Mathematics Psychology 947 353 241 205 148 2.88 2.94 2.96 2.65 2.90 0.41 0.37 0.42 0.42 0.37 -0.21 0.03 -0.44 0.04 -0.24 -0.07 0.65 -0.08 -0.63 -0.06 Teaching/Learning Total Group Biology English Mathematics Psychology 918 345 227 203 143 1.90 1.84 2.10 1.67 2.03 0.53 0.52 0.50 0.45 0.54 0.63 0.86 0.45 0.97 0.29 0.30 1.01 0.49 0.89 -0.29 Research Total Group Biology English Mathematics Psychology 938 352 238 204 144 2.75 3.06 2.44 2.38 3.04 0.54 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.38 -0.25 -0.32 0.22 0.17 -0.08 -0.47 0.14 -0.28 -0.12 -0.44 Service Total Group Biology English Mathematics Psychology 924 349 230 201 144 1.34 1.35 1.45 1.23 1.31 0.38 0.37 0.40 0.37 0.31 1.47 1.52 1.18 2.13 1.24 2.27 2.65 1.49 4.49 1.12 Note. Importance was measured on the following scale: 1 = Not Important, 2 = Somewhat Important, 3 = Important, 4 = Extremely Important.

PAGE 141

124 Table 29 Descriptive Statistics for the Four Scales by Total Group and Discipline Mean Difference Scores Scale Discipline n M SD Skewness Kurtosis Competency Total Group Biology English Mathematics Psychology 995 353 241 206 148 0.21 0.20 0.21 0.27 0.15 0.23 0.21 0.22 0.27 0.20 0.55 0.32 0.56 0.47 0.60 0.41 -0.03 -0.09 0.12 1.20 Teaching/Learning Total Group Biology English Mathematics Psychology 922 345 227 203 143 0.78 0.97 0.64 0.62 0.79 0.48 0.46 0.43 0.42 0.52 0.04 -0.34 -0.08 0.23 0.32 -0.18 0.06 0.15 0.49 -0.30 Research Total Group Biology English Mathematics Psychology 949 352 238 204 144 0.47 0.46 0.45 0.62 0.32 0.37 0.35 0.37 0.43 0.29 0.38 0.34 0.14 0.11 0.35 0.51 1.31 0.19 -0.23 0.01 Service Total Group Biology English Mathematics Psychology 928 349 230 201 144 0.59 0.65 0.55 0.58 0.53 0.44 0.44 0.42 0.47 0.39 0.41 0.52 -0.06 0.50 0.81 0.72 0.67 1.48 0.01 0.86 A MANOVA was run to determine if differences among the four disciplines existed in the data for the first two research questions. The MANOVA was selected as the initial test due to the correlated nature of the four scales (competency, teaching / learning, research, service). Tables 30 and 31 show that, for Research Questions 1 and 2, each scale was correlated with the other three; Pearson correlation coefficients ranged from .35 for the research and service scales for “Importance to Faculty” to .71 for the teaching / learning and service scales for “Doctoral Student Preparation”. Correlation matrices for all scales by discipline are provided in Appendix K. Table 32 lists the correlation between “Importance to Faculty” and “Doctoral Student Preparation” for each

PAGE 142

125 of the four scales. The responses are moderately to strongly correlated, with values ranging from 0.53 for the service scale to 0.83 for the competency scale. Table 30 Pearson Correlation Coefficients of All Scales for Total Group – Importance to Faculty Competency Teaching / Learning Research Service Competency ( n = 1000) 1.00 Teaching / Learning ( n = 946) .57* 1.00 Research ( n = 958) .41* .45* 1.00 Service ( n = 947) .51* .61* .35* 1.00 Note. *Correlation is significant at the .01 level. Table 31 Pearson Correlation Coefficients of All Scales for Total Group – Doctoral Student Preparation Competency Teaching / Learning Research Service Competency ( n = 992) 1.00 Teaching / Learning ( n = 922) .58* 1.00 Research ( n = 949) .47* .40* 1.00 Service ( n = 928) .50* .71* .37* 1.00 Note. *Correlation is significant at the .01 level. Table 32 Pearson Correlation Coefficients of All Scales for Total Group – Importance to Faculty Compared with Doctoral Student Preparation Scale r Faculty n Student n Competency .83* 1000 992 Teaching / Learning .56* 946 922 Research .73* 958 949 Service .53* 947 928 Note. *Correlation is significant at the .01 level. Sample sizes varied.

PAGE 143

126 Box’s M test revealed unequal covariance matrices across groups. Similarly, Levene’s test showed unequal error variances across groups. These two findings, in addition to the unequal sample sizes, led to the use of Pillai’s Trace in determining the significance of the MANOVA. Pillai’s Trace is the most conservative of the multivariate tests and most robust to violations of assumptions (Olsen, 1976). Significant differences were found across dependent variables for both “Importance to Faculty (F12,2799 = 64.16, p = .000) and “Doctoral Student Preparation” (F12,2712 = 55.11, p = .000). To identify specific differences among disciplines, a one-way ANOVA was conducted with appropriate follow up procedures for each scale. Assumptions of independence, normality, and equal variance were considered and addressed to support the use of the MANOVA and ANOVA procedures. The same procedures were used to identify differences in the mean scores by scale between dissertation and nondissertation advisors. Institutions and departments can be viewed as clusters and could potentially violate the assumption of independence and impact the way faculty members respond to the items. In fact, differences are often expected among such groups. Although it is not possible to track the number of respondents from each institution, for purposes of the ANOVA, the assumption of independence remains intact because of the large number and diversity of institutions included in the initial group. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic was calculated to assess normality. Histograms were created to verify the result. Although some scales were skewed, there were no bimodal distributions. The ANOVA is robust to moderate violations of normality. Homogeneity of variances was tested by calculating the Levene statistic. If variances were equal, the F-statistic was reviewed for differences in overall means. The Scheffe post-hoc procedure was used to determine specific differences when the F-

PAGE 144

127 statistics was significant. When the Levene statistic identified unequal variances among groups, the Welch statistic was computed rather than the F statistic, followed by the Games-Howell post-hoc test if between groups differences were found. Both the Scheffe and Games-Howell post-hoc procedures were selected because of the unequal group sizes in the data set. The Scheffe is also considered the most conservative of the posthoc procedures, as is the Welch statistic, which was used because of its conservative estimations. The alpha level for all tests was .01. Omega squared was calculated to determine the effect size (of the ANOVA) as a means of assessing the practical significance of any statistically significant findings. Omega squared values of .01, .06, and .14 represent small, medium, and large effect sizes, respectively (Cohen, 1988). Cohen’s d was calculated to determine the effect sizes of all significant disciplinary differences based on the post-hoc tests. Cohen’s d values of 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8, represent small, medium and large effect sizes, respectively. These values were used as a guide, although based on current recommendations (Vasquez, Gangstead, & Henson, 2000), the multitude of contextual issues surrounding the study was used to make the final j udgment on practical meaning and significance. As visually represented in Figure 3, the mean score of mathematics faculty for the competency scale was lower than the three other disciplines for both “Importance to Faculty” and “Doctoral Student Preparation.” The ANOVA and post hoc results (Appendix L) demonstrated that the mathematics mean scores were significantly lower than the other three for both research questions. Omega squared was .07 for “Importance to Faculty” and .03 for “Doctoral Student Preparation,” which are relatively modest effect sizes accounting for only 7% and 3% of the variance, respectively. Similar findings appeared in the teaching / learning scale for “Importance to Faculty.” Mathematics faculty again had significantly lower mean scores than the other

PAGE 145

128 three disciplines. Mean differences ranged fr om 0.46 to 0.52 points. The effect size appeared large ( 2 = .18). Differences in the teaching / learning scale for “Doctoral Student Preparation” were not as defined. With the exception of psychology and English, all disciplines had mean scale scores that we re found to differ significantly with the others. For this test, however, only 9% of the variance could be explained by discipline alone ( 2 = .09). Discipline accounted for a much greater proportion of variability for the research scale for both “Importance to Faculty” ( 2 = .37) and “Doctoral Student Preparation” ( 2 = .35). Games-Howell post hoc procedures were used because of the unequal variances among groups. Despite the similarity in responses and the overall high rankings of research items for “Importance to Faculty,” there were significant disciplinary differences. For example, faculty in the biological sciences, on average, rated research scale items 0.52 points higher than mathematics faculty and 0.63 points higher than their English counterparts. Although there were statistically significant differences between biological sciences and psychology faculty, the differences were much less pronounced with a mean difference of only 0.17 points. English and mathematics faculty were the only two groups that did not differ significantly on the research scale. Findings related to the research scale for “Doctoral Student Preparation” were similar to those for “Importance to Faculty” in that mean differences were large compared to the other scales. Differences scores ranged from 0.60 to 0.67 points. Again, faculty in the biological sciences rated the research items higher than faculty in mathematics or English. There were no significant differences in mean scale scores between biological sciences and psychology or mathematics and English.

PAGE 146

129 Significant differences also existed for the service scale. The faculty in biological sciences rated service items more favorably than mathematics or psychology faculty for “Importance to Faculty.” Results for “Doctoral Student Preparation” identified other disciplinary differences. In both cases, however, mean differences were negligible and discipline accounted for less than 4% of the variance. Therefore, statistical significance for the service scale does not offer very meaningful results from a practical perspective. A review of the percentage of responses by discipline (Appendix J) sheds some light on which specific competencies and roles contributed to the differences in scale scores. The responses at the extremes – Not Important and Extremely Important – point to the most obvious variations. For instance, when considering “Importance to Faculty,” 72.2% of faculty in the biological sciences reported that mentoring and advising graduate students was extremely important, whereas only 16.5% of mathematics faculty selected the same response. The item “Write grants and other proposals” showed tremendous disparity among the disciplines. This item was rated ex tremely important by 91.8% of faculty in the biological sciences, 70.3% of faculty in psychology, and 48.8% of faculty in mathematics, but by only 12.2% of faculty in English. Another variable item was “Design and implement scholarly projects” with an extremely important rating made by 36.8% and 87.8% of mathematics and psychology faculty, respectively. “Possess strong communication skills” was rated extremely impor tant by 72.0% of psychology faculty, more than 80.0% of biological sciences and English faculty, but only 46.9% of mathematics faculty. On the other extreme are those items with variability in the “Not important” response. For example, “Engage in department or institution committee work” was rated as not important by 2.1% of English faculty to 18.0% of mathematics faculty. “Provide

PAGE 147

130 professional services” was rated not important by 34.2% of faculty in biological sciences to 64.3% of English faculty. Over 37% of mathematics faculty rated “Integrate technology in teaching” as “Not Important,” whereas only 15.5% to 18.9% of faculty in the other disciplines rated it the same. More than 37% of mathematics faculty reported that “Prepare new courses” was not important during the first three years of faculty employment. The same response was offered by only 7.3%, 2.1%, and 3.4% of faculty in biological sciences, English, and psychology, respectively. Differences in the percentage of “Not Important” responses also existed among the competency items, but not to the same extent. Responses to “Understanding types of higher education institutions and missions” ranged from 7.9% of English faculty to 20.3% of psychology faculty. Responses to “Appreciate student, faculty, and disciplinary diversity” ranged from 3.7% of English faculty to 11.2% of mathematics faculty and responses to “Understand community engagement and service” ranged from 16.0% of faculty in biological sciences and 29.3% of faculty in mathematics. Responses to items for “Doctoral Student Preparation” were also markedly different among disciplines. With the exception of “Provide professional services,” which had much less variability, the response patterns were very similar to those for “Importance to Faculty” described above. An illustration of this point is the item “Design and implement scholarly projects” for which an extremely important rating was reported by 18.1% and 80.4% of mathematics and psychology faculty, respectively. The item concerning diversity is another good example. Appreciating diversity was viewed as unimportant during doctoral education by 21.4% of mathematics faculty, but only 5.0% of faculty in English. In these two cases, the magnitude of the differences increased. In other cases, they were not as far apart, yet the patterns of responses were constant.

PAGE 148

131 In addition to the items presented for “Importance to Faculty,” several other items resulted in large variations for “Doctoral Student Preparation.” For instance, 28.6% of faculty in the biological sciences reported that “Develop collegiality” was extremely important to be introduced during doctoral education, whereas only 15.8% of mathematics faculty offered the same response. Nearly 90% of psychology faculty said that “Write articles for publication” is extremely important, in contrast with 34% of English faculty. Just over 5% of mathematics faculty perceived “Become active in professional / disciplinary associations” as extremely important, whereas one fifth of faculty from the three other disciplines said the same. “Read and analyze literature” and “Make conference presentations” were also items that displayed variability in “Doctoral Student Preparation.” In both cases, faculty in the biological sciences rated these items as “Extremely Important” nearly 40% more often than faculty in mathematics. When considering the “Not Important” response option, additional variability emerged. “Encourage active learning in the classroom” was viewed as “Not Important” during doctoral education for 21.8% of faculty in biological sciences, but only 4.2% of faculty in English. “Serve as a reviewer of articles, etc.” was rated “Not Important” by nearly half of the mathematics faculty, but only 11.1% of the psychology faculty. “Oversee grant management” resulted in a mo re than 40% difference between biological sciences and mathematics. In sum, there is clearly more variability among the disciplines for responses to “Doctoral Student Preparation” than “Importance to Faculty.” The final set of comparisons for disciplinary differences relates to Research Question 3. Specifically, do faculty members in these four disciplines select different individuals or entities as primarily responsible for introducing doctoral students to the competencies and roles considered in the study?

PAGE 149

132 A review of Appendix J reveals four general findings. First, faculty members in English placed less responsibility upon the doctoral student advisor than the other three disciplines did. Instead, they reported that all faculty members in the department carry the primary responsibility of introducing doctoral students to several competencies and roles. This is evident for (a) understanding research processes, (b) possessing strong communication skills, (c) possessing a motivation for lifelong learning, (d) writing articles for publication, (e) designing and implementing scholarly projects, (f) participating in interdisciplinary research projects, and (g) reading and analyzing literature. Two exceptions included cultivating professional networks and making conference presentations, where responses were more evenly split among “All Faculty in Department” and the “Student’s Advisory Committee.” Second, when percentage of responses for the doctoral student advisor differ by discipline, faculty in biological sciences and psychology seem to mirror one another with higher percentages, whereas English and mathematics faculty are closely matched with lower percentages. This is true for 14 items, but is most apparent for (a) overseeing grant management; (b) mentoring / advising both graduate and undergraduate students; (c) serving as a reviewer for articles, books, and conference proposals; (d) developing collegiality; and (e) becoming active in professional associations. Third, graduate program directors were rarely chosen by faculty in biological sciences or psychology, but were selected by up to 16.5% and 21.1% of mathematics and English faculty, respectively. Similarly, mathematics faculty members were apt to select the option of “Nobody” more often than faculty in the other three disciplines. Finally, there was little variability among the disciplines for any other option except “Student,” but these differences were very small, with only four items having differences greater than 10%. These items included (a) possessing a critical knowledge

PAGE 150

133 of the discipline, (b) preparing new courses, (c) encouraging active learning in the classroom, and (d) possessing a motivation for lifelong learning.

PAGE 151

134 Research Question 5 How do responses to the first three questions vary by faculty status as a dissertation advisor? For consistency of reporting, a MANOVA and one-way ANOVAs with appropriate follow up procedures were computed to determine differences in mean scores for each scale by status as a dissertation advisor. Tabl e 33 presents descriptive statistics and the 99% confidence interval for each mean. Three scales, including the competency scale for both “Importance to Faculty” and “Doctoral Student Preparation” and the service scale for “Doctoral Student Preparation,” were found to have unequal variances at the .01 level. Significant differences were found for “Importance to Faculty” and “Doctoral Student Preparation” based on Pillai’s Trace (F4,932 = 8.45, p = .000 and F4,906 = 7.83, p = .000, respectively). Mean scores for dissertation advisors were higher than non-dissertation advisors for all three scales for “Importance to Faculty” and for the teaching / learning and research scales for “Doctoral Student Preparation.” Results of the ANOVA (Appendix M) showed statistical significance for the teaching / learning and research scales for “Importance to Faculty” and the competency and research scales for “Doctoral Student Preparation.” Practical significance is difficult to determine because omega squared values ranged from .000 to .016; in other words, status as a dissertation advisor explained zero to two percent of the overall variability. However, Cohen’s d revealed medium effect sizes with values of 0.37 and 0.46 for the teaching / learning and research scales, respectively, in “Importance to Faculty” and 0.28 and 0.42 for the two significant scales (competency and research, respectively) related to “Doctoral Student

PAGE 152

135 Preparation.” Distinctions between advisors and non-advisors could be important, but it is difficult to make any determinations based on these results. A review of the percentage of responses by status as a dissertation advisor (Appendix M) also provided little information. For almost all items, the dissertation advisor selected “Extremely Important” more often than non-dissertation advisors for both “Importance to Faculty” and “Doctoral Student Preparation.” The average difference was less than 5%. Six of the eight research items were at or near the 10% mark for “Importance to Faculty” and the two most marked differences were writing grants and other proposals (61.8% and 40.2%) and mentoring / advising graduate students (50.5% and 24.0%). Two additional items fell in the 10% range for “Doctoral Student Preparation”: possessing strong communication skills and appreciating student, faculty, and disciplinary diversity. The final analysis was to identify differences in who dissertation advisors viewed as primarily responsible for introducing doctoral students to specific competencies and roles compared to non-dissertation advisors. There was tremendous similarity between the two groups, although two broad and three specific observations were made. First, for 11 items (7 competencies and 4 roles) the dissertation advisors selected the doctoral student advisor, which in most cases represent themselves, as primarily responsible 10% more often than the non-advisor group. It would be expected that the 10% difference appears in the “All Faculty in Department” response. However, with the exception of one item, “Possess a critical knowledge of the discipline,” this was not the case. The 10% appeared to be spread evenly among the other response options. The second general observation deals with trends in the selection of the “Department Chair” and “Student” options. For all but seven items, which had only

PAGE 153

136 negligible differences, the department chair was selected more often by the non-advisor group than the dissertation advisors. Overall, the responses for “Student” were more variable than the other 10 options. Finally, only three items had differences of more than 12%. The greatest difference was when 15.9% more dissertation advisors selected “Doctoral Student Advisor” as primarily responsible for “Serve as a reviewer of articles, books, and conference proposals” than non-advisors. Twenty-two percent of non-advisors suggested that students are primarily responsible for “Become active in professional / disciplinary associations.” They did not see the professional associations having primary responsibility. On the other had, dissertation advisors selected these two groups 7.7% and 10.0%, respectively. “Nobody” was selected 13% more often by non-advisors (30.0%) than dissertation advisors (17.0%) for the item “Understand community engagement and service.”

PAGE 154

137 Table 33 Descriptive Statistics for All Scales by Status as a Dissertation Advisor 99 % Confidence Interval Scale Status n M SD Skew Kurtosis Lower Bound Upper Bound Competency F Yes No 828 124 3.10 3.01 0.35 0.44 -0.22 -0.29 -0.22 -0.27 3.07 2.93 3.13 3.10 Competency S Yes No 822 124 2.89 2.77 0.40 0.48 -0.16 -0.16 -0.01 -0.55 2.86 2.65 2.93 2.87 Teach / Learn – F Yes No 820 121 2.71 2.51 0.48 0.54 -0.33 -0.19 -0.04 -0.21 2.66 2.40 2.75 2.63 Teach / Learn – S Yes No 796 121 1.91 1.85 0.53 0.55 0.56 1.08 0.10 1.72 1.86 1.73 1.96 1.98 Research – F Yes No 824 122 3.25 3.04 0.43 0.50 -0.55 -0.46 -0.24 0.21 3.21 2.93 3.29 3.14 Research – S Yes No 816 121 2.78 2.55 0.53 0.57 -0.28 0.12 -0.48 -0.24 2.73 2.43 2.83 2.68 Service – F Yes No 821 121 1.94 1.89 0.49 0.56 0.46 0.76 -0.28 0.79 1.89 1.77 1.98 2.00 Service – S Yes No 802 121 1.34 1.36 0.01 0.04 1.36 1.75 1.85 2.74 1.31 1.27 1.38 1.45 Note. F = Importance to Faculty, S = Doctoral Student Preparation Importance was measured on the following scale: 1 = Not Important, 2 = Somewhat Important, 3 = Important, 4 = Extremely Important.

PAGE 155

138 CHAPTER 5 Discussion, Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations Summary of Purpose and Study Design Calls for reform in doctoral education are not new. However, the past decade has experienced renewed interest and discussion in preparing the future professoriate. Whereas most studies of graduate student socialization and preparation for faculty roles have focused on doctoral students or new faculty, this study examines the perceptions of senior faculty members who are involved in doctoral education. The purpose of this study was to describe how senior faculty members in a national sample of research universities perceive: 1) the importance of 42 specific roles and competencies early in a faculty member’s career, and 2) the importance for doctoral students to be introduced to these specific faculty roles and competencies during graduate school. Faculty members were also asked whom they view as primarily responsible for introducing each of these specific competencies and roles to students during their doctoral programs. The study was aimed at exploring five specific research questions. 1. How do senior faculty members at research universities rate the importance of specific faculty roles and competencies during the first three years of faculty employment?

PAGE 156

139 2. To what extent do senior faculty members at research universities support the expectation that doctoral students learn about specific faculty roles and competencies during their doctoral program? 3. Whom do senior faculty members at re search universities view as primarily responsible for socializing doctoral students in preparation for specific faculty roles and competencies? 4. How do responses to the first three research questions vary by discipline? 5. How do responses to the first three research questions vary by faculty status as a dissertation advisor? The population of interest was senior faculty members in the departments of biology, English, mathematics, and non-clin ical psychology from a stratified random sample of research universities nationwide. A stratified cluster sampling design was used to select institutions within four Ca rnegie classifications. Following approval from each institution’s IRB office, 4970 faculty members at 69 institutions were solicited for participation. A ten-step survey development process was followed to ensure the reliability and validity of the findings. Relevant literature, faculty input, and statistical analyses were used to create the final set of four scales, including competencies, teaching / learning roles, research roles, and service roles. An analysis of reasons for non-response and non-completion of the survey was reviewed to better understand the 18.9% to 19.2% usable response rate. Findings were presented in table and narrative format for each research question in Chapter 4; further analysis and discussion are included here. The remainder of this

PAGE 157

140 chapter includes general conclusions, implications for the study and practice of doctoral education, and recommendations for future research. Discussion of Findings Importance of Roles and Competencies in Early Faculty Work (Research Question 1) As a whole, senior faculty in this study commonly responded that research roles and general competencies were important during the first three years of faculty employment. The relative importance of teaching roles was scattered throughout the ranked list and service roles clearly fell at the bottom. The findings related to research and service were not surprising given the nature of tenure and promotion at many institutions where “publish or perish” is the norm and service activities are rarely rewarded (Diamond, 2007). The most notable findings were related to the teaching / learning and competency scales. Critics often blame faculty for emphasizing research at the expense of teaching (Tierney & Rhoads, 1994) when, in fact, faculty may not have decreased their teaching effort, but simply increased their overall number of work hours per week spending the additional time on research and writing tasks (Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006). Of course, time alone is not the sole indicator of the importance research or teaching roles have in faculty work. Items such as preparing new courses, encouraging active learning, and assessing student learning were rated with means near 3.0 (at the margin of mid-range and high levels of importance). The other teaching items were rated even lower. Therefore, regardless of whether time dedicated to teaching has decreased or remained the same, teaching items overall did not elicit the same level of importance as research among senior faculty at institutions involved in professional preparation of doctoral students.

PAGE 158

141 It is plausible that preparing new cour ses would not be considered extremely important during the first three years of faculty work. For example, if courses were already developed, new faculty members may only be expected to adapt or facilitate the existing course when they first are assigned to teach it. This assessment could be the case in mathematics, for example, where the content of an algebra course probably changes relatively little from year to year. Di sciplinary differences are certainly evident in this data set, as supported by the finding that over 25% of mathematics faculty identified preparing new courses as “Not Important” to new faculty compared with 2.1% to 7.3% of faculty in biological sciences, English, and psychology reporting the same rating. As a whole, the lower ratings on the teaching scale support claims by several researchers (Austin, 2002b; Meacham, 2002) t hat doctoral programs are falling short in meeting the needs of future faculty. For teaching roles, in particular, Sorcinelli (1998) highlighted the disparity with new faculty identifying inadequate teaching preparation and the number of different courses to be planned and taught as two primary concerns and sources of stress during the first year of employment. Encouragement for active learning received marginally high ratings by respondents to the survey. That is, the mean value for all faculty respondents fell within 0.2 points of the mid-range and high level category boundaries described in Chapter 4. Despite the large literature base describing active learning programs and techniques since their introduction 20 years ago (Chickering & Gamson, 1987) and their popularization by Bonwell and Eison (1991), some authors still question the effectiveness of active learning methods (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006; Prince, 2004). This fact might explain why the active learning item was not rated more highly. Again, the perceived importance of active learning during the first three years of faculty

PAGE 159

142 work appears to be discipline specific with 44.1% of English faculty viewing active learning as “Extremely Important” compared to 18.9%, 23.1%, and 25.8% of mathematics, psychology, and biological sciences faculty, respectively. Another concern arising from the data is why assessment of student learning was not considered “Extremely Important” by a larger percentage of respondents (29% selected “Extremely Important” and 6% reported it was “Not Important”). Whereas there may be several explanations for this observation, one specific reason relates to the purposes of assessment and the roles of faculty and administrators. The primary mission of most higher education institutions relates to teaching and learning (Meacham, 2002). Although research institutions rarely reward teaching excellence on par with research exce llence (Rhodes, 2001), teaching is listed, nevertheless, as an integral part of their missions. As such, and as an ethical practice in college teaching (Braxton & Bayer, 1999; Svinicki, 1994), assessment of student learning should be considered extremely im portant. When interpreting the item “Assess student learning” in this manner, mean values were expected to be higher. However, a second interpretation of assessment may have influenced the respondents’ ratings. Accountability for student learning outcomes has been at the forefront of public policy, including budgetary considerations for public institutions at the state level (Business-Higher Education Forum, 2004) in recent years. Often times, the terms assessment and accountability have seemed to be used interchangeably. Notably, authors of the Public Accountability report (Business-Higher Education Forum, 2004) cited no lack of assessment in higher education, simply a disconnect between assessment and public accountability. Although this is a current issue that could have

PAGE 160

143 widespread impact for higher education, given th is interpretation, faculty might view assessment as a concern to be address ed primarily by administrators. One other observation regarding the perceived importance of the teaching / learning items during the first three years of faculty employment is worthy of discussion. The two lowest rated items on the teaching scale dealt with technology. In fact, “Provide online instruction” was the lowest rated item on the survey with a mean value of 1.33. A recent survey suggests the prevalence of online and web-enhanced classes has burgeoned in the past 10 years with more than 90% of schools offering online courses (Lee & Nguyen, 2007). The authors also reported enrollment growth from 350,000 to over 2 million students between 1997 and 2003. This growth has continued with nearly 3.2 million students enrolled in at least one online course during fall 2005 (Allen & Seaman, 2006). Many institutions are investing resources in a technology infrastructure and offering more online courses and programs to recruit students and increase enrollments. Indeed, although most notable in doctoral/research universities, all types and sizes of institutions view online education as increasingly important to their long-term strategies (Allen & Seaman, 2006). As a result, faculty members will be increasingly needed to create and teach these online courses. Thus, instructional technology will most likely become a more important aspect of faculty work in the near future. However, the same report by Allen and Seaman (2006) identified the “lack of accept ance of online instruction by faculty” as a barrier to the growth of online programs, which is consistent with the low level of importance placed on the two technology items by faculty in this study.

PAGE 161

144 There are at least three plausible reasons for both low ratings and the perceived resistance of senior faculty to technology in the classroom. First, many online courses offered at institutions are in applied fields such as business and education. The availability of fewer online or web-enhanced courses in the four pure disciplines examined here may have influenced the pattern of faculty responses reported in this study. Similarly, an unknown but possibly significant proportion of senior faculty may not have had considerable exposure to instructiona l technology during the course of their careers. Finally, as could be the case with other items, senior faculty might consider instructional technology important in faculty work, but not during the first three years. Had this study surveyed assistant professors, the relative importance of the items may have differed. Overall, the competency scale was rated more important during the first three years of faculty work than the teaching or service scales. In addition, some competencies were rated higher than some research items. Two explanations seem to support this observation. First, it stands to reason that having mastered general competencies could help a faculty member fill many roles successfully, even without formal preparation for the role. For exam ple, possessing good communication skills might affect one’s ability to successfully encourage active learning, make conference presentations, or provide professional se rvices to government, business, or the community. Similarly, teamwork and collaboration skills can contribute to effective engagement in committee work or interdisciplinary research projects. Modeling ethics and integrity clearly transcends research, teaching, and service roles. Additionally, the competencies may have been rated higher than teaching and service roles because they generalize to all institutional types much more so than

PAGE 162

145 specific roles (a concern highlighted in several participant comments). For instance, the three items above are just as important at a co mmunity college as they are at liberal arts institutions or research universities. Collegiality, the development of professional networks, and understanding professional identity are other items that should be no more important in one type of institution over another. On the other hand, specific roles such as grant writing, serving on thesis committees, participating in governance, and providing professional services outside of higher education can have differing levels of importance at different types of institutions. Despite the high ratings of competencies as a whole, however, responses to three specific items were unexpected. First, collegiality was rated as only “Somewhat Important” or “Not Important” by 132 respondents. Although this group represents less than 20% of faculty in the study, the finding supports Sorcinelli’s (1994) statement that new faculty reported feelings of isolation and lack of collegiality as the most surprising and disappointing aspects of their first year on the job. In a worst case scenario, a lack of collegiality could lead to failure in a junior faculty member’s tenure and promotion review. McKinney (2005) refers to collegiality as Pandora’s Box in tenure review because its criteria are perhaps the least concretely defined of all relevant elements in the tenure review decision-making process. A second item of concern was the appreciation of student, faculty, and disciplinary diversity. More than 35% of respondents felt that an appreciation of diversity was either “Not Important” or only “Somewhat Important” during the first three years of faculty work. Given the increasing diversity among college students (Business-Higher Education Forum, 2002) and the efforts to bring a more diverse faculty into higher education, it was expected that this competency would be more highly valued. Rather, these findings support claims that faculty members are not always responsive to the

PAGE 163

146 administrative efforts to increase diversity on campuses (Kayes, 2006; Smith & Moreno, 2006). Finally, 5.3% of respondents rated ethics and integrity as “Somewhat Important” and an additional 0.6% said these values were “Not Important” in the first three years of faculty work. Whereas these percentages only represent 54 and 6 individuals, respectively, the fact that 60 faculty members do not view ethics and integrity as important in faculty work is somewhat disc oncerting. It is possible, however, that these figures are a result of measurement error. Importance of Roles and Competencies in Doctoral Student Preparation (Research Question 2) The perceived importance of introducing m any competencies, roles, and skills during doctoral preparation clearly parallels the ratings obtained for importance to new faculty. Although the importance of all items were rated lower for doctoral student preparation than for faculty during the first three years of employment, the general competencies were consistently ranked higher than specific roles during doctoral student preparation. The large percentage of “Not Important” ratings for introducing specific roles (compared to competencies) to students during doctoral education might be explained several ways; five possible explanations are discussed here. First, roles may be rated as unimportant during doctoral student preparation because senior faculty truly believe the roles are unimportant during the first three years of faculty work, thereby seeing little need to introduce students to the tasks. This explanation appears to be plausible for several items, especially those on the service scale where six of the eight service items had mean values below 2.2 for importance to new faculty.

PAGE 164

147 A second explanation could be related to respondents’ limited personal experience with activities pertinent to some items, such as the two items related to technology and teaching. The findings of this study, then, provide a conceivable reason why fewer than 20% of doctoral students felt comfortable incorporating technology in the classroom and why preparation for service activities was nearly absent (Golde & Dore, 2001). Third, faculty may not view doctoral programs as having the capacity to “do it all.” Doctoral programs are finite in time and resources, and faculty must decide which activities and skills are most important to include in the curriculum or as part of advising. Because not all graduates ultimately pursue careers in higher education (Golde & Dore, 2004), some faculty may believe that spending critical time and energy on preparing all students for all faculty roles would seem unwise. Fourth, developing specific competencies and values during doctoral education can provide a solid foundation upon which to learn specific roles when appointed as a new faculty member, thereby decreasing the need to focus on specific roles during doctoral preparation. Two explanations were offered in response to similar results for question one. First, having mastered general competencies could help a new faculty member fill many roles successfully, even without formal preparation for the role. Additionally, the competencies may have been rated higher than the other three scales (all roles) because they generalize to all institutional types much more so than specific roles. Finally, the focus of faculty work is clearly different at different institution types. Although most institutions expect faculty to teach, pursue a scholarly agenda, and fill a service role, the relative emphasis on each is based not only on institution type, but

PAGE 165

148 sometimes, on the specific institution. Training for too much role specificity during doctoral work might actually contradict what graduate students are expected to do as new faculty at another institution. Although the introduction of competencies was rated more important than an introduction to roles during doctoral education, the research scale was rated nearly one point higher than the teaching / learning and service scales. The high ratings of research roles demonstrate clearly that survey respondent s perceived research as more important than teaching or service. This parallels the perceived importance of research roles during the first three years of faculty employment. The difference between mean values of the other scales, however, was closer to one half of a point for faculty work. The large difference between mean scores for the research scale compared to the other role scales for doctoral student preparation might have been influenced by two factors. First, faculty participants may have based their responses on the specific institutional environment in which they are familiar (i.e., research universities) rather than considering the items within a more general context of higher education. Several respondents noted it was challenging to answer the questions because their responses would vary based on institutional type. This observation sustains the point that differences do exist among institutional types. However, based on the results of this study, understanding different institutional types and missions was not rated as important ( M = 2.33) in doctoral student preparation. Second, because the placement of graduates at prestigious research institutions upon receiving the doctoral degree is a common goal of academic departments, faculty might be apt to focus on the importance of preparing doctoral students for their future roles as researchers, thus rating the research items higher than others. Unfortunately,

PAGE 166

149 because a relatively small percentage of graduates actually secure positions in research universities (Austin, 2002b), this strategy might prove less helpful to those graduates who accept positions in other types of institutions. As described in Chapter 2, doctoral students and new faculty have reported feeling unprepared for several faculty roles. For example, Golde and Dore (2004) reported that less than one-half of doctoral students felt prepared to publish, fewer than one-third were comfortable with interdisciplinary research, about one-fourth felt prepared to create an inclusive classroom or advise students, and even fewer reported skill with incorporating technology in teaching. With the exception of writing articles for publication, results of this study reveal that many senior faculty members perceive little or no importance to introducing doctoral students to the other three roles with mean values of 2.04, 2.03, and 1.97, respectively. Therefore, it seems likely that the gap between doctoral student preparation and new faculty work will remain. Additional information about the similarities and differences in perceived importance was garnered through the calculation of mean difference scores for “Importance to Faculty” and “Doctoral Student Preparation.” The magnitude of differences was highest for the teaching / learning scale, followed by the service, research, and competency scales with mean differences of 0.78, 0.59, 0.47, and 0.21, respectively. All items, with the exception of one, were considered more important during the first three years of faculty employment than for doctoral student preparation; five of these resulted in mean difference scores of more than one point. These items include mentoring / advising graduate students, serving on thesis and dissertation committees, preparing new courses, providing input on hiring decisions, and engaging in department

PAGE 167

150 or institution committee work. The top three items were from the teaching / learning scale. Assuming that doctoral students are receiving training in the areas considered important by senior faculty, these results demonstrate that there could be a serious gap between doctoral student preparation and what is deemed important in the first three years of faculty work for these specific items. One item worthy of mention is the importance of serving on thesis or dissertation committees. This item was rated as “Not Important” for doctoral student preparation by more than three-fourths of respondents, but was ranked number two in mean score differences. This finding clearly supports the assumption highlighted by the Council of Graduate Schools (1991) that faculty members learn to be dissertation advisors by reflecting on their own experience as a doctoral student, not from formal training. Because these and several other items are considered to be important and relevant for faculty, but not considered important to learn during doctoral education, it is not surprising that new faculty exhibit varying levels of skill in fulfilling these roles. When and where, then, should new faculty members develop these skills? Adequate mentoring of new faculty can address some of these deficits. Unfortunately, new faculty mentoring programs are only now regaining popularity. Mentoring of new faculty is one of the many topics in higher education whose momentum fluctuates. According to a review of faculty mentoring by Savage, Karp, and Logue (2004), faculty mentoring was once common at colleges and universities, but began to decline in the 1950s as young scholars wanted to focus on their research agendas and expressed concerns about authoritarian structures. As these scholars moved up the ranks over the ensuing 30 years, the tradition of mentoring new faculty

PAGE 168

151 was on the verge of extinction. During the same time, incoming faculty began reporting feelings of isolation and lack of collegiality (Boice, 1992; Tierney & Bensimon, 1996). These issues continued to surface through the 1990s and the development of structured mentoring programs for new faculty based on empirical evidence (Rice, Sorcinelli, & Austin, 2000) and experience (Gerhardt, 2004) has seen renewed interest. Program evaluations (Piercy, Giddings, Allen, Dixon, Meszaros, & Joest, 2005; Richards, 2006; Savage, Karp, & Logue, 2004) and new books highlighting faculty mentoring programs (Bensimon, Ward, & Sanders, 2007; Mullen, forthcoming) are now more readily available. However, not all scholars believe that mentoring programs are the answer to the needs of new faculty. Slevin (1992) believes that faculty development begins in graduate school. Tierney and Rhoads (1994) concur, saying that the anticipatory socialization of faculty occurs while in graduate school and the bidirectional nature of socialization, theoretically, permits organizations to change. This concept was criticized by Creswell (cited in Fife, 1994), who found that socialization in graduate school was lost to the culture of the hiring institution. Some may ask then, why focus on graduate student socialization at all? Proponents would argue that understanding an institution’s culture and the multitude of faculty roles before accepting a position will help graduates make informed decisions about career choices. These choices and the “right fit” will also benefit the hiring institution. For those supporting doctoral student socialization and preparation for future faculty roles, the responsible individuals and mechanisms are still in need of identification.

PAGE 169

152 Who is Responsible? (Research Question 3) Even with the addition to the final survey of “Student Advisory Committee” after considering comments from the pilot study, the percentage of respondents selecting this option was low. In fact, for 17 of the 42 items, all faculty members in the department were seen as primarily responsible for introducing doctoral students to the competencies and roles. The doctoral student advisor was a close second, being listed as primarily responsible for 14 items. These account for almost three-fourths of the items on the survey. Refer to Table 26 in Chapter 4 and Appendix J for more detail. Spillett and Moisiewicz (2004) conceptualized and described the roles of the dissertation advisor. Based on their own experiences, they identified and categorized specific roles a dissertation advisor should undertake to help move students beyond “ABD” status. Supportive roles included being willing and available to meet, building trust rather than exercising a power relationship, encouraging student effort to increase motivation, identifying roadblocks (and removing them if possible), streamlining work processes, and trying to normalize the dissertation experience. Challenge roles included creating small, short-term goals, honing research skills, providing constructive criticism, and creating opportunities to develop student thinking. In essence, the authors were describing a faculty-student mentoring relationship. Results of the current study add to what Spillett and Moisiewicz (2004) call a lack of scholarly attention to the roles of the dissertation advisor by considering the competencies and roles that a national sample of senior faculty perceive as the most important for doctoral students to learn. As stated earlier, the senior faculty respondents viewed dissertation advisors as primarily responsible for introducing research roles to doctoral students. Other responsibilities included encouraging students (a) to become

PAGE 170

153 active in professional and disciplinary associations, (b) to cultivate professional networks, and (c) to understand the issues related to advising and mentoring students. With respect to “Who is Responsible,” the percentages of responses for “Student” and “Nobody” were surprising. Students were viewed as primarily responsible for possessing motivation for lifelong learning, nurturing professional passion while maintaining balance in life, and understanding one’s professional identity. Responses to these items make sense, as they are internal values and cannot necessarily be taught. Nevertheless, maintaining balance and understanding identity do not always come naturally. These are things that are often learned by observing role models. For instance, it might be difficult to believe that balance can be achieved without seeing current faculty members doing it. This is not to say that the doctoral student advisor must be the role model; it is often the case, but other role models and mentors for doctoral students exist. This idea is presented with caution, however, because balance in a faculty member’s life and work might be more easily achieved after tenure, giving students unrealistic expectations of new faculty work. There was one striking observation related to the “Student” response. Students were viewed as primarily responsible for “Preparing new courses” by 17.3% of respondents. This was one item for which both doctoral students (Golde & Dore, 2001) and new faculty (Sorcinelli, 1988) wished they had been better prepared. If nearly onefifth of senior faculty members believe that students should learn this skill on their own, there is a disconnect in professional preparation that ought to be examined more closely by institutions and individual programs. Between one-fourth and nearly one-half of respondents selected “Nobody” as being responsible for introducing doctoral students to eight specific roles. These

PAGE 171

154 included (a) advising a student organization, (b) assisting with fundraising activities, (c) providing online instruction, (d) engaging in st rategic planning, (e) providing professional services to government, business, and comm unity groups, (f) participating in university governance, (g) serving on thesis / dissertation committees, and (h) developing / reviewing department curriculum. It was surprising that “Hiring Institution” was not selected more often for the eight items above. In hindsight, responses may have been low because the questions all focused on preparation during graduate school. It may have been better to say, “if your answer is ‘Nobody ’ then would the hiring institution be responsible for introducing these competencies, roles, skills, etc. during the early phases of employment?” However, some faculty did respond that hiring institutions should have responsibility in training and supporting their new faculty, again pointing to the need for comprehensive mentoring programs. It is important to note that many respondents commented on the difficulty of choosing just one response, demonstrating that doctoral education is not only complex, but the responsibility of a team -including faculty, administration, professional staff, and the student. Differences by Discipline (Research Question 4) Based on the quantity of literature focusing on disciplinary differences in higher education, it was expected that the perceptions of senior faculty respondents concerning doctoral student preparation for faculty roles w ould differ by academic discipline. As this was an exploratory study, however, no hypothes es were made concerning the direction or magnitude of the differences.

PAGE 172

155 Figures 3 through 6 in Chapter 4 provide a graphical representation of mean scale scores for both “Importance to Faculty” and “Doctoral Student Preparation” by discipline. These visual images provide a starting point for describing discipline-based similarities and differences. First, these graphs reveal that competency, teaching, research, and service scales are considered more important during the first three years of faculty work than during doctoral student preparation across disciplines. It appears that faculty in all four disciplines rated the competency scale with the most consistency with responses for “Importance to Faculty” and “Doctoral Student Preparation” showing the least variability compared to the other three scales. The service scale was rated the least important for all disciplines and, again, there were similarities in the mean scores for faculty and students. The greatest disciplinary differences appeared in the research scale and the teaching / learning scale. These scales also had the widest range of responses for “Importance to Faculty” and “Doctoral Student Preparation,” and the broadest range of mean score differences. Finally, the graphs show that mathematics faculty rated these scales consistently lower than faculty in the other disciplines, with one exception. Lower scores of mathematics faculty. The first area of speculation concerns why mathematics faculty rate almost all scales lower than faculty members in the other three disciplines. Perhaps mathematics faculty members view their role as trainers of future mathematicians rather than future faculty compared to the other three disciplines. This explanation, though, does not explain the consistency of lower ratings for the scales in question one (Importance to Faculty). Perhaps then, faculty in mathemati cs simply rate survey items lower than other respondents on quantitative surveys. A review of literature of disciplinary differences in

PAGE 173

156 higher education, however, reveals no consistent pattern of lower responses among responses of mathematics faculty (or other faculty in the paradigmatic, pure, non-life category of Biglan’s classification) compared to other disciplines. Additionally, mean score differences between “Importance for Faculty” and “Doctoral Student Preparation” were similar to those differences among other disciplines. Thus, beyond noting this observation, there may be little practical significance to this finding. Disciplinary differences in teaching/learning. Figure 3, presented in Chapter 4, shows the mean scores of the teaching / learning scale for Research Questions 1 and 2 by discipline. In terms of “Doctoral Student Preparation,” the mean value of the teaching / learning scale was highest for English faculty ( M = 2.10) followed by psychology, biological sciences, and mathematics faculty with mean scores of 2.03, 1.84, and 1.67, respectively. When interpreting these differences, however, it is important to consider how the faculty respondents in each discipline rated the same scale for “Importance to Faculty.” In this case, although the mean values for the teaching / learning scale were most disparate for English and mathematics faculty, the mean difference scores between “Importance to Faculty” and “Doctoral Student Preparation” for English and mathematics faculty were very similar at 0.65 and 0.62, respectively. The mean difference scores for psychology faculty were somewhat higher at 0.78. The biological sciences faculty showed the greatest disparity between “Importance to Faculty” and “Doctoral Student Preparation” for teaching roles with a mean difference of 0.97. Although there are clear differences between perceptions of English and mathematics faculty related to the importance of teaching, the implications for practice might be greater for those disciplines where a lar ger gap exists between the perceived importance

PAGE 174

157 or the roles for new faculty compared with level of importance placed on introducing doctoral students to these roles during their graduate programs. Whether considering mean values for the teaching / learning scale, or mean differences, the variation among disciplines suggests the need to consider disciplinary contexts when addressing gaps in future faculty preparation related to teaching. It is important to identify factors that might be related to the creation of these gaps. For instance, average class sizes vary by discipline, so too, does the availability of teaching assistantships (Golde & Dore, 2001). Paradigmatic (hard) disciplines, such as biology and mathematics, have been found to subscribe to different teaching goals and assessment techniques in instruction compared to more non-paradigmatic (soft) fields (Barnes, Bull, Campbell, & Perry, 2001; Smart & Ethington, 1995). On the other hand, differences could be attributed to the items selected for use in the specific scale. As an example, three of the eight items in the teaching / learning scale related to academic advising, and advising practice s could vary by discipline. Again, it is difficult to speculate on the exact reasons for the disparities among disciplines. Nonetheless, these gaps in importance may guide doctoral student preparation for teaching roles among all disciplines. Simply stated, doctoral students, as a group, need more and better preparation. However, the findings also suggest that there will be no one-size-fits-all recommendation for closing the gap between importance in faculty work and doctoral student preparation. Disciplinary differences must be considered when addressing this issue. Disciplinary differences in preparation for research. Of the four scales employed in this study, disciplinary differences accounted for the greatest amount of variance in the research scale. Mean differences between

PAGE 175

158 importance in faculty work and doctoral student preparation were of smaller magnitude in this scale than in the teaching / learning scale. The primary differences among disciplines, for the research scale, were on the specific values obtained for Research Questions 1 and 2. Mathematics and English faculty rated research items lower than their biological sciences and psychology count erparts. “Writing articles for publication” and “Reading and analyzing literature” were consistently ranked high across disciplines. However, noteworthy variations began to appear with other research items. One can speculate about possible reasons for these differences. First, research activities in English may require fewer monetary resources than in the other fields examined. Similarly, available grant opportunities are less numerous. The variation in responses to the two grant-related items (items 27 and 28) across disciplines supports this notion. For example, “Writing grants and other proposals” was ranked 31st by English faculty, compared with 3rd, 9th and 10th by respondents in the biological sciences, psychology, and mathematics, respectively. Although a possibility, emphasis on research activities and the availability of funding does not necessarily explain the lower ratings of research items by mathematics faculty. One simple and plausible explanation for the low ratings is that they rated all items, regardless of category, lower than their peers from the other three disciplines. The results of one research item were puzzling. “Designing and implementing scholarly projects” was ranked 4th and 8th by psychology and biology faculties, respectively, among the 42 items. On the other hand, this same item was ranked 14th and 16th for mathematics and English faculty, respectively. Although measures of scholarly production differ across disciplines, scholarly activity within a disciplinary context is still considered important for a ll faculty members in the promotion and tenure

PAGE 176

159 process (Diamond, 2007). Whereas there may be disciplinary differences in what defines a “scholarly project,” the reason for the variability in ranking is not evident. Possibly, indepth interviews or other qualitative data collection modes could illuminate the explanation. Disciplinary differences in preparation for service. Differences in service scale scores were statistically significant by discipline. Lower scores on the service scale by all faculty and negligible effect sizes, however, led to a conclusion that there would be no practical significance to the findings from a disciplinary perspective. Student perceptions of preparation by discipline. Although many studies report disciplinary differences in a variety of student and faculty issues, comparing the results of this study with Golde and Dore’s (2001) report from the Survey of Earned Doctorates provides the most meaningful information. Golde and Dore (2001) compared responses of doctoral students from the four disciplines used in this study, among others, on issues of their understanding of doctoral education, advisor satisfaction, interest in campus citizenship, teaching requirements, and the availability of career development and research opportunities. Findings from the current study provide a mechanism for understanding some variations in the Golde and Dore (2001) study by discipline. Table 34 highlights Golde and Dore’s (2004) findings related to teaching, research, service, and career development.

PAGE 177

160 Table 34 Student Perceptions of Doctoral Preparation Molecular Biology English Math Psych Teaching / Learning A teaching assistantship is required % responding “yes” 70.8 59.6 38.6 43.4 Doctoral students have the oppor tunity for progressively responsible teaching roles % responding “yes” 20.0 65.1 63.0 65.7 A TA training course lasting one term is available % responding “yes” 30.1 79.2 58.3 50.9 A seminar on teaching in the discipline is available % responding “yes” 36.1 68.3 59.2 52.3 I feel prepared to create an inclusive classroom % responding “yes” 13.2 43.0 23.4 29.2 I feel prepared to teach lecture courses % responding “yes” 19.4 30.7 51.4 45.2 Research Doctoral students have the opportunity to make presentations at regional / national meetings % responding “yes” 97.7 83.8 82.5 98.0 Of the group above, % who are encouraged to use the opportunity 92.7 85.0 68.8 91.7 Doctoral students have the oppor tunity for progressively responsible research roles % responding “yes” 51.3 26.0 39.5 69.6 Of the group above, % who are encouraged to use the opportunity 86.0 82.6 84.5 88.7 Service % of students who were interested in serving on an academic senate 42.1 62.2 43.2 45.9 Career Development Doctoral students have the oppor tunity to participate in an academic job search workshop % responding “yes” 56.0 82.0 48.0 38.0 Doctoral students have the oppor tunity to participate in a workshop on careers outside of academe % responding “yes” 68.8 50.6 42.3 25.2 Note Adapted from Golde and Dore (2001).

PAGE 178

161 According to Golde and Dore (2001), 38.6% of mathematics students, 43.4% of psychology students, 59.6% of English students, and 70.8% of molecular biology students reported that a teaching assistantship was required as part of their graduate programs. The lower requirement for assistantships in mathematics is consistent with the low ratings provided by mathematics faculty in this study concerning the importance of teaching roles during “Doctoral Student Preparation.” Interestingly, the low ratings of teaching roles provided by faculty in biological sciences in the current study appear inconsistent with the high number of teaching assistantships required in the field. Although Golde and Dore (2001) reported that a teaching experience was often required of biology students, the results of their survey also demonstrated that preparation for the TA experiences were weak. Only 20% to 36% of the biology students reported the availability of development opportunities for teaching compared with over half of students in the other three disciplines. The fact that TA experiences in biology are often solely comprised of facilitating lab work may be a reason for this disparity. Availability of and preparation for TA experiences reported by students in the Golde and Dore (2001) study can be compared with how faculty in the same disciplines reported the importance of teaching roles during “D octoral Student Preparation.” Compared with faculty in the biological sciences, faculty in psychology and English reported higher levels of importance for teaching roles during doctoral student preparation. This finding seems reflected in the availability of teaching opportunities for students in these two fields even though teaching assistantships were not required. Similar comparisons can be made with the Golde and Dore (2001) data related to the availability of research opportunities. Recall the lower ratings on the importance of

PAGE 179

162 preparation for research roles by mathematics and English faculty and the greater disparity between “Importance to Faculty” and “Doctoral Student Preparation” for the same two groups. According to Golde and Dore (2001), 98% of students in biology and psychology reported the opportunity to make a presentation at a regional or national meeting. Over 92% of those students said they were encouraged to do so. This figure is compared to approximately 83% of English and mathematics students reporting availability of the same opportunity, with only 85% and 69% of English and mathematics students, respectively, being encouraged to do so. Although plausible, the argument that students are not being encouraged to participate in such activities is not supported by results of this study. The disparity in research scale scores by discipline does not reflect responses to the specific question regarding conference presentations across disciplines. In fact, responses showed little variation in this study. Faculty in biological sciences ranked making conference presentations in the discipline as the 7th most important item of the 42 in the survey. It was ranked 8th by faculty in the other three disciplines. Of course, because faculty rated “Make conference presentations in the discipline” as important does not mean they are actually encouraging their students to do so or have the funding to support such activities. Nonetheless, a stronger argument supporting to presence of disciplinary differences related to preparation for research roles might be made when comparing the availability of progressively responsible roles in research reported in Golde and Dore’s (2001) work. Psychology students reported the greatest availability (69.6%) and the greatest amount of encouragement to participate (88.7%) in research activities. Just

PAGE 180

163 over half of biology students reported the opportunity, whereas 39.5% of mathematics students and 26.0% of English student reported the same. Golde and Dore (2001) also looked at student interest in service activities. English students (62.2%) expressed interest in serving as a member of the academic senate compared to 42.1% to 45.9% of students in the other three disciplines. In the current study, one service item (engage in department or institution committee work) was rated higher by English faculty, but respons es to all other items were similar to the other disciplines. Perhaps reasons for self -selection into a given discipline (e.g., humanities) also influence interest in some service roles. Differences by Status as a Dissertation Advisor (Research Question 5) With the exception of the service scale for “Doctoral Student Preparation,” nonadvisors rated each scale at a lower level of importance than the dissertation advisors did, with the greatest differences being only 0.21 points. Although results of MANOVA and ANOVA procedures (Appendix M) demonstrated statistical differences between dissertation advisors and non-advisors for severa l scales, the effect sizes were so small in the first test that determining whether these differences have any practical significance would be a complex task involving considerable speculation. Concerning “Who is Responsible?”, the most notable difference was that dissertation advisors selected “Doctoral Student Advisor” as primarily responsible for introducing doctoral students to the competencies and roles more often than the nonadvisors did. This was the case for 39 of the 42 items and there was no clear pattern of responses where differences occurred. Sparse empirically-based literature exists comparing these two faculty groups. Because there is such limited literature, it would be difficult to draw any conclusions for

PAGE 181

164 the current data. Additional research considering these two groups would prove valuable. Comparing Results with a Qualitative Study of Doctoral Student Learning Prior to discussing final conclusions, implications, and recommendations, the results of this study were compared with a qualitative study by Bair, Haworth, and Sandfort (2004) designed to elicit similar information about faculty roles related to doctoral student preparation. The authors interviewed 148 individuals in 12 doctoral programs; 22 faculty members were included in the sample. They sought to discover the most important roles and responsibilities that faculty members have to their students during doctoral education and identified four major themes. The themes included (a) scholarly activity and research productivity, (b) advising and mentoring, (c) selection and retention of students, and (d) defining and shaping program culture. Within scholarly activity, nearly all participants mentioned the traditional teaching and research roles as important. Participants also stressed the importance of continuous learning, much like the lifelong learning competency in Austin and McDaniels’ (2006) framework. They also believed the ability to translate research into practice was an important role, mirroring the ability to communicate to different audiences as described by Austin and McDaniels. These findings are consistent with the results of this study, which showed communication skills rated fourth and fifth in importance for new faculty and doctoral students, respectively. Motivation for lifelong learning was rated eighth for both groups. Bair, Haworth, and Sandfort (2004) also provided an explanation other than promotion and tenure for faculty emphasis on research roles. Faculty in their study believed it was important to “send a clear message to students that research is and should be a key

PAGE 182

165 responsibility of doctorally prepared professional s” (p. 714). This statement is consistent with the results of the current study, and when taken together, there should be some concern about why other authors such as Nyquist et al. (2005) report that doctoral students feel they are receiving mixed messages about faculty priorities including the value placed on teaching and research. It seems clear from the result of this study that research is viewed as the priority by many faculty. In terms of advising and mentoring, nearly all participants in the qualitative study believed faculty members have the responsib ility to guide and promote professional development of doctoral students. However, less than half of faculty in the current study believed participation in professional developm ent activities was important for doctoral students. Just over half (52.5%) identified faculty (including the doctoral advisor, advisory committee, and all faculty in the department) as responsible for introducing doctoral student to professional development opportunities. Over 15% viewed the students as responsible for professional development and the remaining one-third selected other options. Moreover, Bair, Haworth, and Sandfort (2004) reported that their participants believed dissertation advisors were responsible for the socialization of doctoral students into the discipline, by “helping them develop broad and deep understandings of the knowledge, skills, values, and behaviors characteristic of doctorally prepared professionals” (p. 715). The third theme identified by Bair, Haworth, and Sandfort (2004) was a faculty member’s role in selection, retention, and funding of students. Most faculty participants acknowledged that they only admit students with research interests and career goals that match the program. This relationship with research interests and career goals echoes the remarks by Bess (1978) made nearly 30 years ago that faculty and doctoral

PAGE 183

166 students had similar values based on admission practices, thereby limiting the need for graduate student socialization into the academic profession. Two concerns become apparent. If faculty members are only choosing students similar to themselves, then they might be unknowingly limiting student and future faculty diversity within their discipline. Second, if they only admit students with researchoriented career goals, they might see little need to introduce students to employment options in other sectors of academe. Results of the current study suggest that this is the case, with only 39% of respondents viewing an understanding of different institutional types and missions as important for doctoral students. Bair, Haworth, and Sandfort (2004) suggested that such admission practices can benefit students because they will receive more faculty support and better integration into the program, resulting in a “richer understanding of what they, as doctorally educated professionals in their fields should know and be able to do” (p. 718). Unfortunately, it is likely that the 90% of graduates accepting positions in institutions with missions different from the universities in which they were trained, could consequently find themselves holding unrealistic and uni nformed expectations of faculty life. The final area of responsibility identified by faculty in the qualitative study was defining and shaping the culture of the doctoral program “with the goal of socializing students to their professional roles” (p. 719). For example, faculty in a psychology program made an effort to include students in governance. Results of the current study, however, show that more than 81% of psychology faculty perceived introducing doctoral students to participation in university governance as not important (only 0.3% identified it as important); this was also true for 76% of faculty in all four disciplines. More similar to

PAGE 184

167 the results of this study was the faculty’s emphasis on doctoral student scholarship and their encouragement of roles such as reviewing articles. Clearly, individual faculty members and different departments within different institutions have different values. This difference in values is demonstrated by both the qualitative study and the current quantitative analysis. Of course, comparing the perceptions of the 22 faculty in Bair, Haworth, and Sandfort’s (2004) study with over 1000 faculty representing different disciplines in the current study is not empirically sound. Nevertheless, it does support the thesis that doctoral education is extraordinarily complex and that no unitary recommendations for change can be made. Conclusions Several conclusions can be drawn from the results of this study. Results support the notion that research roles are viewed as being more important than teaching or service among the traditional triad of faculty roles. This pattern was true for both new faculty and for doctoral student preparation regardless of discipline or status as a dissertation advisor. Competencies were rated important for both new faculty and doctoral student preparation, exhibiting the lowest mean difference scores across disciplines. Ratings for the teaching / learning, research, and service scales showed greater variability among the four disciplines studied. All faculty members in the department and the doctoral student advisor were most often selected as being primarily responsible for introducing doctoral students to specific competencies and roles. Nevertheless, numerous written comments provided by survey respondents suggest that many faculty members perceive doctoral education as a team effort.

PAGE 185

168 Integrating technology in the classroom and teaching online courses were perceived as having low levels of importance for both new faculty and doctoral student preparation. It seems fair to conclude that senior faculty members, at least in these four disciplines, are either less familiar with technology or simply believe that new faculty and doctoral students need not be concerned with it. Differences in the importance of each competency or role, as measured through four scales, do exist among these four disciplines. Scale scores were consistently lower for mathematics faculty and with the exception of the teaching/ learning scale for faculty in the biological sciences, responses for “Importance to Faculty” and “Doctoral Student Preparation” closely paralleled each other across disciplines. Mean difference scores between importance for faculty and doctoral student preparation were only moderate for the top five rated items in faculty employment. There were larger discrepancies, however, in several important teaching roles. Implications Based on the results and conclusions drawn from this survey of faculty perceptions, there are several implications for higher education at national, institutional, and departmental levels. The section below addresses (a) disciplinary differences, (b) the identification and setting of priorities, (c) recognition in promotion and tenure, (d) doctoral student support services, (e) new faculty mentoring programs, and (f) the responsibility of doctoral students in preparing for future faculty roles.

PAGE 186

169 Disciplinary Differences First, it is critical to acknowledge that disciplinary differences do impact doctoral student preparation. Therefore, making broad generalizations about faculty responses or recommendations for overarching changes to doctoral education seem to be of little practical value. Discussions of doctoral educat ion at the national level would benefit from making a strong and clear argument about how any and all proposed changes would impact, or could be implemented within, individual disciplines. As noted below, some issues are often only addressed at the institutional level. However, all implications of this study should be framed within both the broad context of doctoral student preparation in higher education and within a disciplinary perspective. Identifying Priorities Doctoral programs cannot prepare students for all roles inside or outside of academe. Programs are finite in both time and resources. Additionally, institutions and disciplines have different goals and values, therefore, recommendations and expectations for changes to doctoral education cannot be generalized to all of doctoral education. Institutions have specific missions and strategic plans. Goals for doctoral education at the university level should complement and support the mission and goals of the institution. Similarly, the goals of each academic department should be reflected in doctoral work. Understanding and articulating the institutional and departmental goals for doctoral education can help students and faculty members close the gap in training versus actual roles that has been identified in past research and this study. However, closing this gap does not occur in a vacuum. Institutional leaders must engage in conversations about the role doctoral education plays in the institutional

PAGE 187

170 mission and culture, and all stakeholders in the process should be included in such conversations. The efforts should culminate in a product that articulates what the institution expects and will provide to each of their doctoral students. Then, given differences in disciplinary contexts and cultures, departments should be asked to engage in similar discussions. Once priorities, expectations, and resources have been identified, they should be clearly explained in recruitment and academic materials related to the doctoral programs. The purpose here is to present a unified goal with a commitment to the resources needed to meet the institutional and departmental priorities regarding doctoral preparation. The objective is to close the gap between expectations and practice, but more importantly to move the values and implementation of doctoral education from an individual faculty perspective to a broader departmental or institutional view. Most importantly, if any changes are to be implement ed and sustained over time, the priorities defined by institutions and departments should be explicitly recognized and rewarded in promotion and tenure processes. Recognition in Promotion and Tenure Since the publication of Boyer’s Scholarship Reconsidered (1990) over 15 years ago, a flurry of activity has surfaced regarding the promotion and tenure process. It is undeniable that promotion and tenure processes, most often based on research and publication, impact faculty work during the first three years. Promotion and tenure guidelines could similarly influence the perceptions of senior faculty regarding new faculty work, which in turn, could affect doctoral student preparation. Work that is rewarded can, and usually is, perceived as what is most highly valued. This perception is true at both the institution and department levels.

PAGE 188

171 Thirty years ago, Smart and McLaughlin (1978) demonstrated that different disciplines benefited by different reward structures. This variation may or may not still be the case today. However, it opens the door to exploring new and innovative reward systems based on the goals and priorities that are clearly set forth by the university and individual departments. If institutional leaders, for example, declare that undergraduate education is a priority, then faculty work in undergraduate education should be rewarded. Similarly, if some departments value community-oriented resear ch over other types of research, that too, should be clearly communicated as a value and properly rewarded as such. The values that are rewarded will be passed on to doctoral students. Therefore, if institutions or departments have any desire to make changes in the doctoral programs, they must recognize the changes through a reward mechanism. Scholars, including Diamond (2007), are making significant contributions to the current debate. Doctoral Student Services Departments are the clear choice for training doctoral students in the values and practices of the discipline. The results of this study demonstrate that senior faculty members most often view the faculty, either as a group or at an individual level, as primarily responsible for introducing doctoral students to specific competencies and roles. However, given the many and varied demands on faculty time, which are evident from the 42 items on the survey, even the most student-centered faculty member cannot do it all. Clearly, faculty respondents in this study believe that research roles are important in both faculty life and doctoral student preparation, although the level of importance varied by discipline. Therefore, it is logical that faculty should concentrate on

PAGE 189

172 preparing doctoral students for these roles in addition to any others identified as priorities through the process suggested above. Additionally, the departments should be responsible for introducing roles, such as designing scholarly projects, which vary markedly across disciplines. Although all items and scales, based on mean scores, were rated more important during the first three years of faculty employment than during doctoral student preparation, it was also evident from the results that faculty respondents viewed general competencies as important for both groups, wi th smaller mean differences compared to those of the three scales comprised of faculty roles. This finding was true across disciplines. Just because faculty identified these competencies as important during both early faculty employment and doctoral preparation, however, does not indicate a commitment to introduction or modeli ng these skills for doctoral students. Knowing this, institutions can take some burden off of the faculty by creating doctoral student development programs, similar to the Preparing Future Faculty effort, focusing on the areas that clearly cross disciplines. Topics might include developing good communication skills, collegiality, professional identity, or teamwork and collaboration skills. Addressing institutional types and missions would also be worthwhile. Programs such as these could be housed within the Graduate School or, as suggested by Bair, Haworth, and Sandfort (2004), a student affairs environment. These authors, in response to the growing numbers and diversity of graduate students, are charting new territory and exploring how student affairs professionals might redefine their visions and expand their services to become involved in doctoral student development.

PAGE 190

173 An area already addressed at the institutional level is teaching preparation, which frequently occurs through workshops at a campus-wide teaching center. However, some students are either unaware of, or discouraged from participating in, these programs (Golde & Dore, 2001). Results of this study revealed that faculty view teaching items with varying levels of importance by discipline. They also show that senior faculty members perceive different individuals or groups as responsible for introducing teaching skills. These findings suggest two things. First, it is conceivable that faculty themselves contribute to the low participation rates in these programs. Faculty member s who do not perceive teaching roles as important during doctoral student preparation might not encourage their students to participate in structured activities. Second, the findings point to the need for careful design and marketing of any campus-wide program. Although the most successful programs are built with faculty input and buy-in throughout the process, the expectation that faculty will participate appears idealistic. Again, if the institution values these opportunities for doctoral students, additional efforts will need to be made to encourage participation. An introduction to service and campus ci tizenship might appear valuable at the institutional level. However, given the low ratings of service items, programs addressing issues of service would most likely receive little support of faculty. From a fiscal and human resource standpoint, service roles might best be left to subsequent hiring institutions. New Faculty Programs As previously stated, doctoral programs cannot prepare students for all roles inside or outside of higher education. Programs are finite in both time and resources.

PAGE 191

174 Additionally, institutions and disciplines have different goals and values. Research institutions can close the gap between faculty and student expectations within their own environment, but will not be able to address the goals and needs of other institutional types. As a result, and as supported by the current data, there will always be some level of disparity between doctoral student preparation and new faculty responsibilities. Faculty orientation and mentoring programs have resurfaced over the past decade in response to research on new faculty expectations and satisfaction. Although the purposes of new faculty programs and doctoral student preparation programs are different, the importance of considering disciplinary differences in the development of such programs is the same. Institution-wide programs might concentrate their efforts on areas of similarity across disciplines, such as collegiality and diversity, or issues at the institutional level such as service, governance, or interdisciplinary connections. Because of the variation in faculty work and values by discipline, however, new faculty programs, to be most applicable, must also occur at the departmental levels. Departments might focus on the specifics of the discipline and the culture of the department. Additionally, institution and departmental orientation and mentoring programs might be more valuable if they address the most needed issues at the start. For this focus to occur, one might consider the roles with mean differences over 0.5 based on institutional type. For instance, mentor ing / advising graduate students and serving on thesis or dissertation committees show the largest differences and might be addressed early on for faculty newly hired at research institutions. Writing grants and overseeing grant management also fall into this category, although differences existed by discipline.

PAGE 192

175 Based on mean differences, items such as preparing new courses, mentoring / advising undergraduate students, and developing curriculum, should be near the top of the list of items to be included in programs across all institutional types (e.g., comprehensive universities, liberal arts colleges, community colleges). Service activities, such as engaging in department or institution committee work would also be applicable. Institutions interested in creating programs for new faculty need not recreate the wheel. Many model programs exist at instit utions across the nation (Bensimon, Ward, & Sanders, 2007; Mullen, forthcoming; Savage, Karp, & Logue, 2004; Sorcinelli, 1994). Doctoral Student Responsibilities Based on the discussion thus far, one might conclude that doctoral education is a unilateral activity with faculty and institutions holding the primary responsibility for each doctoral student’s success. Recommendations for improving doctoral student preparation for faculty roles have revolved around changes at the institutional level (at both training and hiring institutions). Literature refers to socialization and mentoring as a reciprocal process, however few authors have mentioned the specific responsibility that students have in the process of learning about specific faculty competencies and roles during doctoral preparation. Students are admitted to doctoral programs based on their interest in the discipline, record of prior academic achievement, and potential among other factors. It also seems logical to assume that they hav e an idea of what they wish to pursue during graduate school and as a career. Because doctoral students are adults who are capable of seeking out information and making decisions, they should play an active role in their own educational process.

PAGE 193

176 Golde and Dore (2001) reported that doctoral students, as a group, felt unprepared for specific research, teaching, and service responsibilities. The authors also reported the extent to which doctoral students were aware of development opportunities on their campuses and if they were encouraged to participate. What is still unknown, though, is whether or not students sought out opportunities on their own. If a student feels the need to prepare better for teaching roles, should not he or she seek out ways to do so? Narrowing the gaps in doctoral preparation and faculty work does not rest only on the shoulders of senior faculty. Faculty members appear to agree. Results of this study show that faculty members expect students to take responsibility for developing specific competencies during their doctoral programs. Students were selected as primarily responsible for possessing motivation for lifelong learning and nurturing professional passion while maintaining balance in life. With the exception of some research roles, students were identified as primarily responsible for all competency and role items by 10% to 38% of faculty respondents. Support of this position by a substantial percentage of faculty members does not necessarily mean that they believe students must teach themselves the competencies and skills to be a future faculty member. Rather, doctoral students should be responsible for seeking out information about some of the competencies and skills that they might feel least comfortable with. There are a variety of means to accomplish this task. First and foremost, students can talk with their advisor because faculty-student mentoring relationships and graduate student socialization are reciprocal processes (Hager, 2003; Weidman et al., 2001). Students can also discuss issues with other faculty, the Graduate School staff, peers, or professionals in the campus teaching center to name a few.

PAGE 194

177 Beyond the confines of each institution, a wide range of online and print resources are available for students. From books such as Advice for New Faculty Members (Boice, 2000) and New Faculty: A Practical Guide for Academic Beginners (Lucas & Murry, 2002) to online resources such as the Successful Academic (http://www.successfulacademic.com/) or Tomorrow’s Professor Mailing List (http://ctl.stanford.edu/Tomprof/index.shtml), doctoral students can find a range of helpful tips and additional resources. Another venue for seeking out information is at professional and disciplinary meetings. In sum, doctoral students should not rely solely on their programs or institutions to determine what is best for their future career goals. Students should be proactive, identify the skills needed for the type of work they hope to pursue, learn about the wide range of options available in higher education, and seek out information and resources. Doctoral students can play an integral role in better preparing themselves to be future faculty by asking questions, requesting professional development opportunities, and building relationships with both faculty and peers. Final Thoughts Doctoral education is a complex process. No one individual can be expected to assume responsibility for introducing students to all faculty roles. It was made clear through several participant comments on the survey that it was difficult to choose just one response regarding who is responsible. Doctoral education, then, should be seen as a team effort. All faculty members in the department, the student’s advisor, the department chair, the Graduate School, and the student him or herself each play a role in doctoral education. How students are trained can also be influenced by many factors. Based on the results of this study, discipl ine is clearly one of those factors.

PAGE 195

178 Over the years, scholars have made m any recommendations for doctoral student reform to help close the gap between doctoral student preparation and faculty roles. These include integrating coursework, developing national initiatives, creating institutional programs, fostering mentoring for new faculty, and recognizing the efforts in promotion and tenure. Additionally, students could benefit from being proactive in seeking out such programs. Many of these recommendations were highlighted in Chapter 2 and others were discussed earlier in this chapter. This study has helped to identify what competencies and roles senior faculty members perceive as important for new faculty and doctoral students. Based on the results of this study, it appears there would be little buy-in from faculty respondents to change doctoral training, at least in these four disciplines. Related to “Doctoral Student Preparation” for specific roles, research roles were deemed most important, service roles were the least important, and teaching roles fell somewhere between to two. Why would faculty agree there is a need to better prepare doctoral students for all faculty roles, and support efforts to do so, when some roles are clearly viewed as unimportant? It is still too soon, however, to make such a claim. Just because a specific competency or role was not highly rated does not indicate a faculty member would not support a student’s exposure to it. It is possible that faculty might actually be in favor of referring students to other resources to take some burden off of themselves. The next step, then, will be to identify whether seni or faculty members perceive such resources and recommendations as worthwhile. Although the study considered discipline and status as a dissertation advisor, it did not take institution type, faculty rank, or gender into consideration. Each of these factors, or others such as age or when a respondent’s doctoral degree was earned,

PAGE 196

179 could also influence faculty perceptions. For example, being educated 30 years ago might bring with it different values and priorities related to faculty work and doctoral education as the research of new faculty perceptions suggests (Sorcinelli, 1994). As older faculty members retire and newer faculty climb the ranks of the professoriate, these viewpoints could change. On the other hand, one participant commented that he recalls faculty and graduate students being concerned about such issues during his doctoral work in the late 1960s, confirming the observation that calls for reform in doctoral education are not new. Additional recommendations for further research are listed below. Finally, although this study focused on doctoral training for students seeking academic careers, the fact of the matter is that not all graduates will seek employment in higher education. Therefore, based on the finite time and resources available during graduate education, a doctoral program may not be the appropriate place to provide all levels of training. Limitations of the Survey and Study Design There are inherent limitations to any quantitative research that attempts to explore complex issues such as the multidimensional circumstances of doctoral education. The written comments provided by faculty participants through direct email or on the survey itself suggest some limitations and where future research might begin. For example, the majority of comments revolved around two themes: (a) variation in responses based on type of hiring institution, and (b) that more than one individual or entity was responsible for introducing doctoral students to the specific roles and competencies. A similar issue was the inability to draw distinctions between what is actually important and what ought to be viewed as important. A qualitative research

PAGE 197

180 component that explored how answers would have differed for a subset of items based on the type of hiring institution might have strengthened the design of the study. Other comments were focused on the logistics of the survey. Some found the items to be confusing, the drop-down menus to be cumbersome, and the length to be unwieldy. Others thought the list of options related to who is responsible was arbitrary or too limiting. Many offered additional options -the most common was the department’s TA coordinator or course supervisor. Whereas following a specific survey development process was meant to limit these issues, it was difficult to eliminate them. The sampling procedure resulted in more limitations than what was originally expected. The stratified sampling scheme was meant to ensure adequate representation of faculty at four institutional types. However, the final pool of faculty was dependent on the institutions’ IRB offices. Finally, web-based searches for compiling faculty information did not permit complete accuracy in identifying the initial pool of potential participants. On a positive note, the number of comments about the survey (and the topic itself) demonstrates an interest by faculty to continue the discussion about doctoral education. Additionally, whether positive or negative, the comments, along with limitations of the study, provide new opportunities for research. Recommendations for Further Research As a broad survey of faculty perceptions, this study provides a first step in exploring how senior faculty members view doctoral education and preparation for specific faculty roles. It also offers many avenues for future research. First, the results of this study can be used as a springboard for others to consider the perceived importance of competencies and roles for new faculty and doctoral student

PAGE 198

181 preparation in a broader array of academic disciplines. Although the four disciplines selected in this study represented half of all disciplines as categorized by Biglan (1973), it is unwise to make generalizations across disciplines, even within the same Biglan category. Whether expanding the disciplinary scope or not, seeking explanations for any identified disciplinary differences can allow researchers to make more concrete recommendations for practice. Introducing qualitative methods both before and after soliciting quantitative data can assist in the process. For example, researchers might seek to identify discipline–specific areas of concern related to doctoral education or to describe the academic cultures in which faculty members do their work. This information, along with post-survey interviews, might provide researchers with additional insight to better interpret information obtained in the quantitative phase. In short, future research can enhance the robustness of the study design with a true mixed methods approach. Of course, discipline is only one of many factors that might influence perceptions of senior faculty regarding the preparation of doctoral students for specific faculty roles. Using audience segmentation techniques, res earchers could examine how factors such as institutional size, Carnegie research level status, AAU status, federal funding status, private endowment status, and other similar variables shape faculty perceptions of doctoral training. Findings from such a study could assist prospective doctoral students in selecting programs with specific charac teristics that would provide training most closely matched with the students’ career goals. Exploring the perceptions of senior faculty to assess the worth and feasibility of recent recommendations for improving doctoral education is another clear extension of this research study. The level of importance placed on the introduction of specific faculty

PAGE 199

182 roles during doctoral training may or may not be related to a faculty member’s willingness to refer students to available resources or to support initiatives for doctoral program reform. If perceived importance of roles and readiness to support recent recommendations are highly correlated, then proponents of change in doctoral education will face significant challenges in improving doctoral student preparation for faculty roles, specifically the service roles, some areas of teaching, and general knowledge related to different institutional types and missions. Of course, seeking mechanisms for improving the quality of the survey instrument and to optimize response rates would enhance any future research projects. Additional, more secondary, lines of research might include (a) adding assistant professors to the participant pool to assess how their perceptions of doctoral-level skills and professional preparation needs differ from those of more senior faculty members, (b) examining the relationship between faculty seniority and perceptions of selected doctoral training needs (e.g., development of courses using the Internet or other technologybased, technology-driven means), (c) examining how perceptions of doctoral training and faculty skills evolve over time – i.e., are they “fixed” at some point in time or are they dynamic in their evolution over the course of an academic career, and (d) examining the continuing education needs of faculty members to meet the developmental needs of doctoral students in an improved, responsive fashion. In sum, optimizing doctoral education will continue to challenge university faculty, administrators, and students as current and future faculty roles are explored and expanded. Moreover, this set of challenges will span disciplinary and institutional boundaries. Whereas the current study has only scratched the surface in addressing these roles and their preparation, it has demonstrated the complexity of the issues

PAGE 200

183 confronting higher education in the years to come. It will be important to monitor the evolution of doctoral education in further studies in an effort to illuminate the impact of change and new paradigms.

PAGE 201

184 REFERENCES Adams, K. A. (2002). What colleges and universities want in new faculty Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2006). Making the grade: Online education in the United States. Sloan Consortium. Retrieved May 23, 2007, from http://www.sloanc.org/publications/survey/index.asp. American Association of University Professors. (2006). What Do Faculty Do? Retrieved October 11, 2006, from http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/issuesed/facultywork/facultydolist.htm. American Association of University Professors. (2001). Statement on Graduate Students (Policy Document) Washington DC: AAUP. Retrieved July 26, 2006, from www.aaup.org. Anderson, M. S. (1996). Collaboration, the doctoral experience, and the departmental environment. Review of Higher Education, 19 305-326. Anderson, M. S. (Ed.). (1998). The experience of being in graduate school: An exploration. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 101 San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Associated Press (2006). Some universities shift future professors’ focus to teaching. Seattle, WA: CNN.com. Retrieved September 20, 2006, from http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/09/18/teaching.to.teach.ap/ index.html

PAGE 202

185 Association of American Universities. (1998). AAU graduate education committee report. Washington, DC: AAU. Retrieved October 10, 2006, from http://www.aau.edu/reports/GradEdRpt.html. Austin, A. E. (2002a). Preparing the next generation of faculty. The Journal of Higher Education, 73 (1), 94-122. Austin, A. E. (2002b). Creating a bridge to the future: Preparing new faculty to face changing expectations in a shifting context. The Review of Higher Education, 26 119-144. Austin, A. E., & Barnes, B. J. (2005). Preparing doctoral students for faculty careers that contribute to the public good: Highlights of recent studies. In A. J. Kezar, T. C. Chambers, & J. C. Burkhardt and Associates (Eds.). Higher Education for the Public Good pp. 272 – 292. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Austin, A. E., & McDaniels, M. (2006). Preparing the professoriate of the future: Graduate student socialization for faculty roles. In J. C. Smart (Ed.). Higher education: Handbook of theory and practice, 21 397-456. New York: Springer Publishers. Austin, A., Sorcinelli, M.D., & McDaniels, M. (2007). Understanding new faculty: background, aspirations, challenges and growth. In J.C. Smart and R. P. Perry (Eds.). Higher education: A handbook of teaching and learning. New York: Springer Publishers. Bair, C. R., Haworth, J. G., & Sandfort, M. (2004). Doctoral student learning and development: A shared responsibility. NASPA Journal, 41 (3), 709-727. Baldwin, R. G., & Chronister, J. L. (2001). Teaching without tenure: Policies and practices for a new era. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press

PAGE 203

186 Ball, C., Metcalfe, J., Pearce, E., & Shinton, S. (2004). What do PhDs do? Cambridge, England. The UK GRAD Programme. Retrieved October 1, 2006, from http://www.grad.ac.uk/cms/ShowPage/Home_page/ Resources/What_Do_PhDs_Do_/p!eXeccLa Barnes, L. B., Bull, K. S., Campbell, N. J., & Perry, K. M. (2001). Effects of academic discipline and teaching goals in predicting grading beliefs among undergraduate teaching faculty. Research in Higher Education, 42 (4), 455-467. Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 27 (6), 12-25. Bashara, C. G. N. (2002). The last word. Liberal Education, 88 (3), 54-59. Bensimon, E. M., Ward, K., & Sanders, K. (2007). The department chair’s role in developing new faculty in to teachers and scholars. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bess, J. L. (1976). Organizational implications of faculty role/activity preferences Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Eric No. ED134089. Bess, J. L. (1978). Anticipatory socialization of graduate students. Research in Higher Education 8, 289-317. Biglan, A. (1973a). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments Journal of Applied Psychology, 57 204-213. Biglan, A. (1973b). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57 195-203. Boice, R. (2002). The new faculty member San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

PAGE 204

187 Boice, R. (1991). New faculty as teachers. The Journal of Higher Education, 62 (2), 150173. Bowen, W.G., & Rudenstein, N.L. (1992). In pursuit of the Ph.D Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Bowen, H. R., & Schuster, J. H. (1986). American professors: A national resource imperiled. New York: Oxford University Press. Boyer, Ernest L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: The priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Boyle, P. (1996) Socialization experiences of new graduate students Abstract retrieved September 5, 2006, from ProQuest digital dissertations. Publication No. AAT 9636655. State University of New York at Stony Brook. Boyle, P., & Boice, B. (1998). Best practices for enculturation: Collegiality, mentoring and structure. New Directions for Higher Education, 101 87-94. Bragg, A. K. (1976). The socialization process in higher education ERIC-AAHE Research Report, no. 7. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Braxton, J. M., & Bayer, A. E. (1999). Faculty Misconduct in Collegiate Teaching. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Business-Higher Education Forum (2004). Public accountability for student learning in higher education: Issues and options. Washington DC: American Council on Education. Campbell, D. T., & Stanely, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research Chicago: Rand McNally.

PAGE 205

188 Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (2005). Basic Classification Tables Retrieved September 20, 2006 from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications. Cawyer, C. S., Simonds, C., & Davis, S. (2002). Mentoring to facilitate socialization: The case of the new faculty member. Qualitative Studies in Education, 15 225-242. Chait, R. P., & Trower, C. A. (2004). The study of new scholars: Summary of literature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education. Retrieved August 8, 2006 from http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~newscholars. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39 (7), 3-7. Cody, J. A., & Hagerman, M. E. (1997). Transforming graduate education: A new vision of the professoriate. Journal of Chemical Education, 74 525-528. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analyses for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (1995). Reshaping the graduate education of scientists and engineers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Cook, C., Health, F., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in webor internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60 821-836. Council of Graduate Schools (1991). The role and nature of the doctoral dissertation: A policy statement. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools. Creswell, J., & Bean, J. P. (1981). Research output, socialization, and the Biglan model. Research in Higher Education, 15 69-91.

PAGE 206

189 Creswell, J., & Roskens, R. (1981). The Biglan studies of differences among academic areas. Review of Higher Education, 4 1-16. Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group. Curtis, J. W. (2004). Faculty Salary and Faculty Distribution Fact Sheet 2003-04 Washington, DC: American Association of University Professors. Retrieved September 20, 2006, from http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsresearch/research/2003-04factsheet.htm. Daugherty, J. Y. (1999). Integration of marginality? The socialization of graduate students. Abstract retrieved September 5, 2006, from ProQuest digital dissertations. Publication No. AAT 9952999. University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. Denecke, D. (2005). Ph.D. Completion Project: Preliminary results from baseline data. Communicator, 38 (9). DeNeef, A. L. (2002). The Preparing Future Faculty Program: What difference does it make? Number 8. Washington D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Diamond, R. M. (2007). Priorities and the promotion and tenure process: The faculty reward system. St. Petersburg, FL: The National Academy for Academic Leadership. Retrieved May 24, 2007, from http://thenationalacademy.org/readings/priorities.html. Dillman, D. A., Tortora, R. D., & Bowker, D. (1999). Principles for constructing web surveys. SESRC Technical Report 98-50, Pullman, Washington. Retreived October 30, 2006, from http://www.sesrc.wsu.edu/dillman/papers.htm.

PAGE 207

190 Duderstadt, J. J. (2001). Preparing future faculty for future universities. Liberal Education, 87 (2), 24-31. Ellis, E. M. (1997). The impact of race and gender on graduate school socialization, satisfaction with graduate study, and commitment to completion of the degree among black and white doctoral students. Abstract retrieved September 5, 2006, from ProQuest digital dissertations. Publication No. AAT 9802626. The Pennsylvania State University. Fairweather, J. (1996). Faculty work and public trust: Restoring the value of teaching and public service in American academic life. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Ferron, A., Gaff, J. G., & Clayton-Pedersen, A. (2002). Will reforms survive: Strategies for sustaining Preparing Future Faculty programs. Liberal Education, 88 (3), 1421. Finkelstein, M. J. (1984). The American academic profession: A synthesis of social scientific inquiry since World War II. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press. Finkelstein, M. J. (2003). The morphing of the American academic. Liberal Education, 89 (4) 6-15. Finkelstein, M. J., Seal, R. K., & Schuster, J. H. (1998). The new academic generation: A profession in transformation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Fricker, R. D., & Schonlau, M. (2002). Advantages and disadvantages of Internet research surveys: Evidence from the literature. Field Methods, 14 347-367. Gaff, J. G. (2002a). Preparing future faculty and doctoral education. Change, 34 (6), 6366. Gaff, J. G. (2002b). The disconnect between graduate education & faculty realities: A review of recent research. Liberal Education, 88 (3), 6-13.

PAGE 208

191 Gaff, J G., & Lambert, L. M. (1996). Socializing future faculty to the values of undergraduate education. Change, 28 38-45. Gaff, J. G., Pruitt-Logan, A. S., Weibl, R. A. (2000). Building the faculty .we need: Colleges and universities working together. Washington, DC: Association of Colleges and Universities. Gardner, E. J. (1972). Ph.D. degrees in a changing scene. In L. J. Kent & G. P. Springer (Eds.). Graduate education today and tomorrow (p. 39-51). Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. Gardner, S. K. (2005) If it were easy, everyone would have a Ph.D. Abstract retrieved June 27, 2006, from ProQuest digital dissertations. Publication No. AAT 3176464. Washington State University. Geiger, R. (1997). Doctoral education: The short-term crisis vs. long term challenge. The Review of Higher Educaiton, 20 239-251. Geiger, R. (1999). The ten generations of American higher education. In Altbach, P. G., Berdahl, R. O., & Gumport, P. J. (Eds.). American Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century: Social, Political and Economic Challenges Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press. Gerhardt, L. A. (2004). Mentors wanted. ASEE Prism online, 13 (8). Retrieved May 23, 2007, from http://www.prism-magazine.org/april04/research.cfm. Glasgow, D. J. (2004). Unheard voices: The socialization experiences of AfricanAmerican and Caucasian doctoral students. Abstract retrieved September 5, 2006, from ProQuest digital dissertations. Publication No. AAT 3140476. University of Southern California.

PAGE 209

192 Golde, C. M. (1996). How departmental contextual factors shape doctoral student attrition. Abstract retrieved September 5, 2006, from ProQuest digital dissertations. Publication No. AAT 9702896. Stanford University. Golde, C. M., & Dore, T. M. (2001). At Cross Purposes: What the experiences of doctoral students reveal about doctoral education Philadephia, PA: The Pew Charitable Trusts. Golde, C. M., & Dore, T. M. (2004). The survey of doctoral education and career preparation. In D. H. Wulff & A. E. Austin (Eds.). Paths to the professoriate: Strategies for enriching the preparation of future faculty San Francisco: JosseyBass. Hager, M. J. (2003). Mentoring relationships in doctoral education: Doctoral students’ socialization into communities of practice Abstract retrieved September 5, 2006, from ProQuest digital dissertations. P ublication No. AAT 3079453. University of Michigan. Hartle, T. W., & Galloway, F. J. (1996). Too many PhDs? Too many MDs? Change, 28, 26-33. Hartnett, R. T., & Katz, J. (1977). The education of graduate students. The Journal of Higher Education, 48 646-664. Heathcott, J. (2005). Trained for nothing [Electronic version]. Academe, 91 (6), 14-17. Heggins, W. J., III. (2001). Examining the academic experiences of minorities preparing for the professoriate. Abstract retrieved September 5, 2006, from ProQuest digital dissertations. Publication No. AAT 3016709. Iowa State University.

PAGE 210

193 Hirt, J. B., & Muffo, J. A. (1998). Graduate students: Institutional climates and disciplinary cultures. In K. W. Bauer (Ed.), Campus climate: Understanding the critical components of today’s colleges and universities. New Directions for Institutional Research, 98 17-32. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hoffer, T.B., V. Welch, Jr., K. Williams, M. Hess, K. Webber, B. Lisek, D. Loew, and I. Guzman-Barron. (2005). Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities: Summary Report 2004. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center. Hollenshead, C. S., Sullivan, B., Smith, G. C., August, L., & Hamilton. S. (2005). Work/family policies in higher education: Survey data and case studies of policy implementation. In J. W. Curtis (Ed.), The Challenge of Balancing Faculty Career and Family Work. New Directions for Higher Education 130 41-66. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Jaschik, S. (2006). The Gen X professor. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved July 29, 2006 from http://insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2006/04/05/genx Jencks, C., & Riesman, D. (1968). The academic revolution Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Johnson, L. D. (1997). Faculty teaching goals at senior research universities etd-7897134349. Retrieved October 7, 2006, from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-7897-134349/. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2002). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. (2nd Ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Kayes, P. E. (2006). New paradigms for diversifying faculty and staff in higher education: Uncovering cultural biases in the search and hiring process. Multicultural Education, 14 (2), 65-69.

PAGE 211

194 Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land Grant Universities. (1997). Returning to our roots: The student experience. Washington, DC: National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. Kent, L. J. (1972). Introduction. In L. J. Kent & G. P. Springer (Eds.). Graduate education today and tomorrow (pp. ix – xvi). Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. Kerr, C. (2001). The uses of the university, 5th ed Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Kezar, A. J. (2001). Understanding and facilitation change in the 21st century: Recent research and conceptualization ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28(4). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquire-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41 (2), 75-86. Kwok, M. (2004). Disciplinary differences in the development of employability skills of recent university graduates in Manitoba: Some initial findings. Higher Education Perspectives, 1 (1), 60-77. Lang, J. M. (2006). An education in education. The Chronicle of Higher Education July 10, 2006. Retrieved August 8, 2006 from http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2006. Lee, R. (2001). Justifying Preparing Future Faculty programs. Liberal Education, 87 (2), 46-51. Lee, Y., & Nguyen, H. (2007). Get your degree from an educational ATM: An empirical study in online education. International Journal on E-Learning, 6 (1), 31-40.

PAGE 212

195 Levine, A. (2001). The remaking of the American university. Innovative Higher Education, 25 253-267. Lovett, C. M. (1993). To affect intimately t he lives of the people: American professors and their society. Change, 25 (4), 27-37. Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower New York: Rowman & Littlefield. Lovitts, B. E., & Nelson, C. (2001). The hidden crisis in graduate education: Attrition from Ph.D. programs. Academe, 86 (6), 44-50. McKinney, M. (2005). Collegiality: The tenure track’s Pandora’s Box. The Successful Academic News. June 13, 2005. Retrieved May 24, 2007, from http://www.successfulacademic .com/ezines/june132005.htm. Meacham, J. (2002). Our doctoral programs are failing our undergraduate students. Liberal Education, 88 (3), 22-27. Mitchell-Kernan, C. (2005). Doctoral education: Reform on a weakened foundation [Electronic version]. Communicator, 38 (10), 1-2, 6. Retrieved August 28, 2006 from http://www.cgsnet.org/. Mlinek, D. D. (2002). The differences in the reasons and issues impacting the implementation of technology-based distance education courses and programs as identified by department chairs using the Biglan model. Digital Commons @ UNL. Retrieved May 2, 2007 from http:// digitalcommons.unl.edu/dissertations/AAI3045526. Muffo, J. A., & Langston, I. W. (1981). Biglan’s dimensions: Are the perceptions empirically based? Research in Higher Education, 15 141-159.

PAGE 213

196 Mullen, C. A. (Ed.). (forthcoming) The handbook of successful faculty mentoring programs. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers. Retrieved July 24, 2007 from http://www.coedu.usf.edu/mullen/books.htm. National Association of Graduate-Professional Students (2001). The 2000 National Doctoral Program Survey Retrieved August 8, 2006 from http://cresmet.asu.edu/nagps/about/team.php National Center for Education Statistics (2006). The Condition of Education, 2006 NCES 2006-071. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Nyquist, J. D. (2002). The PhD: A tapestry of change for the 21st century. Change, 34 (6), 12-20. Nyquist, J. D., Manning, L., Wulff, D. H., Austin, A. E., Sprague, J., Fraser, P. K., et al. (1999). On the road to becoming a professor: The graduate student experience. Change, 31(3), 18-27. Nyquist, J. D., & Woodford, B. J. (2000). Re-envisioning the Ph.D.: What concerns do we have? University of Washington: Center for Instructional Development and Research. Nyquist, J. D., & Wulff, D. H. (2000). Recommendations from national studies on doctoral education. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. Retrieved September 20, 2006 from http://www.grad.washington.edu/envision/project_resources/national_recommen d.html Olsen, C. L. (1976). On choosing a test statistic in MANOVA. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 579 – 586.

PAGE 214

197 Olsen, D., & Sorcinelli, M. D. (1992). The pre-tenure years: A longitudinal perspective. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 50 15-25. Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2003). Expanding the framework of internal and external validity in quantitative research. Research in the Schools, 10 (1), 71-90. Piercy, F., Giddings, V., Allen, K., Dixon, B ., Meszaros, P., & Joest, K. (2005). Improving campus climate to support faculty diversity and retention: A pilot program for new faculty. Innovative Higher Education, 30 (1), 53-66. Preparing Future Faculty Program (n.d.a). Similar versions of PFF Retrieved June 22, 2006, from http://www.preparing-faculty.org/PFFWeb.Like.htm Preparing Future Faculty Program (n.d.b). Who’s involved in PFF Retrieved October 22, 2006, from http://www.preparing-faculty.org/PFFWeb.History.htm Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93 (3), 223 231. Pruitt-Logan, A. S., & Gaff, J. G. (2004). Preparing future faculty: Changing the culture of doctoral education. In D. H. Wulff & A. E. Austin (Eds.). Paths to the professoriate, pp. 177-193. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rhodes, F. H. (2001). The creation of the future: The role of the American university. Ithaca, NY; Cornell University Press. Rice, R. E., Sorcinelli, M. D., & Austin, A. E. (2000). Heeding new voices: Academia careers for a new generation. New Pathways Working Paper Series #7. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Richards, M. (2006). CFPD Mentor program provides additional support to new faculty. Academic Leader, 22 (8), 3.

PAGE 215

198 Richlin, L. (1991). Preparing future faculty: Meeting the need for teacher-scholars by enlarging the view of scholarship in Ph.D. programs. Abstract retrieved September 5, 2006, from ProQuest digital dissertations. Publication No. AAT 9135384. The Claremont Graduate University. Rosensitto, A. M. (1999). Faculty perceptions of the need for graduate programs to include formal curricula designed to prepare candidates to teach in college and university settings. Abstract retrieved June 27, 2006, from ProQuest digital dissertations. Publication No. AAT 9943986. Pepperdine University. Savage, H. E., Karp, R. S., & Logue, R. (2004). Faculty mentorship at colleges and universities. College Teaching, 52 (1), 21-24. Schuster, J. H., & Finkelstein, M. J. (2006). The American faculty: The restructuring of academic work and careers. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Sinclair, A., & Muffo, J. (2002). The use of Biglan categories in assessing general education courses. Paper presented at the Annual Forum for the Association for Institutional Research Toronto, Canada, June 2-5, 2002. Singer, E. R., (1996). Espoused teaching paradigms of college faculty. Research in Higher Education, 37 659-679. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1999). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Slevin, J. F. (1992). The next generation: Preparing graduate students for the professional responsibilities of college teachers Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges.

PAGE 216

199 Smallwood, S. (2004). Doctor dropout. The Chronicle of Higher Education 50. January 16. Smart, J. C., & Elton, C. F. (1975). Goal orientations of academic departments: A test of Biglan’s theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60 580-588. Smart, J. C., & Elton, C. F. (1982). Validation of the Biglan model. Research in Higher Education, 3 213-229. Smart, J. C., & Ethington, C. A. (1995). Disciplinary and institutional differences in undergraduate education goals. In N. Havita & M. Marincovich (Eds.). Disciplinary Differences in Teaching and Learning: Implications for Practice, pp. 49-58. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Smart, J. C., & McLaughlin, G. W. (1978). Reward structures of academic disciplines. Research in Higher Education, 8 39-55. Smith, D. G., & Moreno, J. F. (2006). Hiring the next generation of professors” Will myths remain excuses? The Chronicle of Higher Education 53.6 (September 29, 2006). Smith, M. L., & Glass, G. V. (1987). Research and evaluation in education and the social sciences. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Sorcinelli, M. D. (1988). Satisfactions and concerns of new university teachers. To Improve the Academy, 7 121-133. Sorcinelli, M. D. (1994). Effective approaches to new faculty development. Journal of Counseling and Development, 72 (5), 474-480. Sotello, C., Turner, V., & Thompson, J. R. ( 1993). Socializing women doctoral students: Minority and majority experiences. The Review of Higher Education, 16 355-370.

PAGE 217

200 Spillett, M. A., & Moisiewicz, K. A. (2004). Cheerleader, coach, counselor, critic: Support and challenge roles of the dissertation advisor. College Student Journal, 38 (2), 246-256. SPSS (2006). SPSS 15.0. Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc. Stevens, J. P. (1999). Intermediate statistics: A modern approach (2nd Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Stewart. D. W. (2005). Five trends shaping graduate education: The leadership challenge. Communicator, 38 (7). Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools. Stoecker, J. L. (1993). The Biglan classification revisited. Research in Higher Education, 34 451-464. Storr, R. L. (1973). The beginning of the future: A historical approach to graduate education in the arts and sciences. New York: McGraw Hill. Strum Kinney, S. (1998). Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America's research universities Retrieved September 11, 2006, from http://naples.cc.sunysb.edu/Pres/boyer.nsf/ Svinicki, M. (1994). Ethics in College Teaching. In W. J. McKeachie (Ed.), Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and University Teachers. (9th ed.). Lexington, Mass.: Heath. Sykes, C. J. (1988). Profscam: Professors and the demise of higher education. Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway. Taylor, T. N. (1997). Teaching and research: A faculty perspective. Planning for the research mission of public universities in the twenty-first century, 101. University of Kansas. Retrieved May 24, 2007, from http://merrill.ku.edu/publications/1997whitepaper/taylor.html.

PAGE 218

201 Tierney, W. G., & Bensimon, E. M. (1996). Promotion and tenure: Community and socialization in academe Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Tierney, W. G., & Rhoads, R. A. (1994). Faculty socialization as culture process: A mirror of institutional commitment. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 93 (6). Washington, DC: The George Washington University Trower, C. A. (2003). Whither the traditional faculty. Trusteeship, 11 (1), 34-35. Trower, C. A., Austin, A. E., & Sorcinelli, M. D. (2001). Paradise lost: How the academy converts enthusiastic recruits into early-career doubters. AAHE Bulletin, 53 (9) 36. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education. University of Washington (2006). Ph.D. resources: Obtaining employment Reenvisioning the Ph.D. website. Retrieved June 23, 2006, from http://www.grad.washington.edu/envision/phd/employment_index.html. Vasquez, L. M., Gangstead, S. K., & Henson, R. K. (2000). Understanding and interpreting effect size measures in general linear model analyses. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Assocation, Dallas, TX. January 27-29, 2000. Ward, K., & Wolf-Wendell, L. E. (2005). Work and family perspectives from research university faculty. In J. W. Curtis (Ed.), The Challenge of Balancing Faculty Career and Family Work. New Directions for Higher Education 130, 67-80. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Weidman, J. C., & Stein, E. L. (2003). Socialization of doctoral students to academic norms. Research in Higher Education, 44 641-656.

PAGE 219

202 Weidman, J. C., Twale, D. J., & Stein, E. L. (2001). Socialization of graduate and professional students in higher education: A perilous passage? ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28 (3). Washington, DC: The George Washington University. Wheeler, D. W. (1992). The role of the chairperson in support of junior faculty. In M. D. Sorcinelli & A. E. Austin (Eds.), Developing New and Junior Faculty. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 50 87-96. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Whitt, E. J. (1991). Hit the ground running: Experiences of new faculty in a school of education. Review of Higher Education, 14, 177-197. Wilson, L. (1965). Shaping American higher education Lecture given at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, September 15, 1965. Printed by American Council on Education: Washington D.C. Wingspread Group on Higher Education. (1993). An American imperative: Higher expectations for higher education. Racine, WA: Johnson Foundation. Wulff, D. H., & Austin, A. E. (2004). Paths to the professoriate San Francisco: JosseyBass. Youn, T. I. K. (2005). The academic job market is bad for all of us [Electronic version]. Academe, 91 (6), 27-30.

PAGE 220

203 APPENDICES

PAGE 221

204 Appendix A List of Institutions in Study Population and Sample Note. Randomly selected in initial group. IRB did NO T respond or approve request. ** Randomly selected in initial group. IRB approval granted. *** Randomly selected in second group. IRB did NOT respond or approve request. **** Randomly selected in second group. IRB approval granted. Faculty were contacted if institutions are designated with ** or **** Very High Research Activity (RU-VH) in the 2005 Carnegie Classification System Public Institutions Arizona State University – Tem pe University of Connecticut Colorado State University* University of Delaware** Florida State University University of Florida* Georgia Institute of Technol ogy University of Georgia* Indiana University-Bloomington* Un iversity of Hawaii at Manoa* Iowa State University**** Univer sity of Illinois at Chicago Kansas State University University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign** Louisiana State University* University of Iowa* Michigan State University* Univer sity of Kansas Main Campus* Montana State University Un iversity of Kentucky*** North Carolina State University Raleigh ** University of Maryland-College Park*** Ohio State University**** Universi ty of Massachusetts-Amherst** Oregon State University**** Univer sity of Michigan-Ann Arbor Pennsylvania State University Univer sity of Minnesota-Twin Cities**** Purdue University University of Missouri-Columbia** Rutgers University – New Brunswick* Un iversity of Nebraska at Lincoln* SUNY at Albany* University of New Mexico-Main Campus**** SUNY at Buffalo* University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill*** SUNY at Stony Brook**** Universi ty of Pittsburgh-Main Campus**** Texas A & M University* University of South Carolina-Columbia** University of Alabama at Birming ham* University of South Florida University of Arizona* Un iversity of Tennessee**** University of California-Berkeley University of Texas at Austin University of California-Da vis* University of Utah* University of California-Irvi ne University of Virginia**** University of California-Lo s Angeles University of Washington-Seattle Campus** University of California-Riverside** ** University of Wisconsin-Madison** University of California-San Diego ** Virginia Polytechnic Institute **** University of California-Santa Barb ara*** Washington State University*** University of California-Santa Cruz Wayne State University** University of Cincinnati-Main Campus University of Colorado at Boulder** University of Colorado at Denver / Health Sciences Center

PAGE 222

205 Appendix A (Continued) Note. Randomly selected in initial group. IRB did NO T respond or approve request. ** Randomly selected in initial group. IRB approval granted. *** Randomly selected in second group. IRB did NOT respond or approve request. **** Randomly selected in second group. IRB approval granted. Faculty were contacted if institutions are designated with ** or **** Very High Research Activity (RU-VH) in the 2005 Carnegie Classification System Private Institutions Boston University Brandeis University*** Brown University California Institute of Technology Carnegie Mellon University** Case Western Reserve University**** Columbia University in the City of New York** Cornell University Dartmouth College*** Duke University Emory University*** Georgetown University* Harvard University* Johns Hopkins University Massachusetts Institute of Technology*** New York University** Northwestern University* Princeton University* Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Rice University* Stanford University Tufts University** Tulane University**** University of Chicago**** University of Miami** University of Notre Dame University of Pennsylvania* University of Rochester* University of Southern California** Vanderbilt University Washington University in St. Louis Yale University Yeshiva University

PAGE 223

206 Appendix A (Continued) Note. Randomly selected in initial group. IRB did NO T respond or approve request. ** Randomly selected in initial group. IRB approval granted. *** Randomly selected in second group. IRB did NOT respond or approve request. **** Randomly selected in second group. IRB approval granted. Faculty were contacted if institutions are designated with ** or **** High Research Activity (RU-H) in the 2005 Carnegie Classification System Public Institutions Auburn University** University of Central Florida**** Bowling Green State University** University of Houston Clemson University** University of Idaho** College of William and Mary* University of Louisiana at Lafayette* Colorado School of Mines University of Louisville CUNY Graduate School and University Center University of Maine Florida Atlantic University-Boca Raton** University of Maryland Florida International Universi ty** University of Memphis** George Mason University*** University of Mississippi* Georgia State University**** University of Missouri-Kansas City** Indiana University-Purdue University* University of Missouri-Rolla Jackson State University University of Missouri-St. Louis Kent State University ** University of Montana-Missoula Miami University** University of Nevada-Las Vegas** Michigan Technological University** University of Nevada-Reno*** Mississippi State University** University of New Hampshire** New Jersey Institute of Technology University of New Orleans New Mexico State University*** University of North Carolina at Greensboro**** North Carolina A & M State University University of North Dakota North Dakota State University ** University of North Texas Northern Arizona University* University of Oklahoma Northern Illinois University**** University of Oregon** Ohio University-Main Campus** University of Puerto Rico Oklahoma State University University of Rhode Island*** Old Dominion University University of Southern Mississippi** Rutgers University-Newark University of Texas at Arlington* San Diego State University**** University of Texas at Dallas* South Dakota State University**** University of Texas at El Paso Southern Illinois University Carbondale**** University of Toledo**** SUNY at Binghamton* University of Vermont** SUNY College of Environmental Science University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Temple University**** University of Wyoming*** Texas Tech University Utah State University University of Akron** Virginia Commonwealth University University of Alabama* West Virginia University University of Alabama in Huntsville Western Michigan University*** University of Alaska Fairbanks*** Wichita State University University of Arkansas** Wright State University

PAGE 224

207 Appendix A (Continued) Note. Randomly selected in initial group. IRB did NO T respond or approve request. ** Randomly selected in initial group. IRB approval granted. *** Randomly selected in second group. IRB did NOT respond or approve request. **** Randomly selected in second group. IRB approval granted. Faculty were contacted if institutions are designated with ** or **** High Research Activity (RU-H) in the 2005 Carnegie Classification System Private Institutions Baylor University Boston College Brigham Young University**** Catholic University of America** Claremont Graduate University** Clark Atlanta University Clark University Clarkson University** Drexel University Florida Institute of Technology-Melbourne Fordham University* George Washington University* Howard University Illinois Institute of Technology Lehigh University* Loyola University Chicago** Marquette University** Northeastern University**** Polytechnic University Saint Louis University-Main Campus Stevens Institute of Technology Syracuse University* Teachers College at Columbia University University of Dayton*** University of Denver** University of Tulsa Wake Forest University**

PAGE 225

208 Appendix B Roles and Skills Identified Two or More Times in the Literature Table B-1 Teaching Roles/Skills Role Author(s) Preparing new courses AAUP (2006); Bess (1976); Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, & Weibl (2000) Incorporating technology in teaching AAUP (2006); Austin (2002b) Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, & Weibl (2000) Understanding student diversity Austin (2002b) Chickering & Gamson (1987) Gaff & Lambert (1996) Acting as a mentor/advisor to graduate students AAUP (2006); Bess (1976) Gaff & Lambert (1996) Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, & Weibl (2000) Rhodes (2001) Acting a mentor/advisor to undergraduate students AAUP (2006); Austin (2002a) Rhodes (2001) Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, & Weibl (2000) Serving on/Chairing thesis or dissertation committees AAUP (2006); Bess (1976) Developing / reviewing department or university-wide curriculum AAUP (2006); Bess (1976) Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, & Weibl (2000) Assessing student learning Ga ff, Pruitt-Logan, & Weibl (2000) Bess (1976) Managing conflict in the classroo m Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, & Weibl (2000) Gaff & Weibl (1998) Encouraging active learning and /or learning outside of the classroom (e.g. service learning) AAUP (2006) Chickering & Gamson (1987) Gaff & Lambert (1996) Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, & Weibl (2000) Advising a student organization AAUP (2006); Gaff & Lambert (1996)

PAGE 226

209 Appendix B (Continued) Table B-2 Research Roles/Skills Role Author(s) Engaging in scholarly work in the discipli ne Austin (2002a; 2002b); Gaff & Lambert (1996) Rhodes (2001) Conducting interdisciplinary research Austin (2002b); Nyquist (2002) Working on collaborative research projects Austin (2002b); Bess (1976) Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, & Weibl (2000) Writing grant and other proposals AAUP (2002); Austin (2002a) Bess (1976); Wheeler (1992) Overseeing grant management (e.g., budget and personnel) Austin (2002a); Bess (1976); Nyquist (2002) Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, & Weibl (2000) Reading and analyzing literature Austin (2002); Bess (1976) Writing articles for publication Bess (1976); Nyquist (2002); Rhodes (2001) Making conference presentations AAUP (2006); Bess (1976)

PAGE 227

210 Appendix B (Continued) Table B-3 Service Roles/Skills Role Author(s) Engaging in faculty governance Austin (2002b) Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, & Weibl (2000) Engaging in committee work Bess (1976); Nyquist (2002) Gaff & Lambert (1996) Engaging in institutional strategic planning Gaff & Weibl (1998) Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, & Weibl (2000) Providing input on hiring / promotion and tenure decisions AAUP (2006); Bess (1976) Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, & Weibl (2000) Fundraising Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, & Weibl (2000) AAUP (2006); Rhodes (2001) Reviewing articles, books, and conference proposals AAUP (2006); Bess (1976) Providing professional service to government, businesses, or community groups AAUP (2006); Bess (1976); Gaff & Lambert (1996)

PAGE 228

211 Appendix C Faculty Competencies / Roles Not Included in the Survey Ability to adapt to changing situations (Austin, 2002b) Advising library about future acquisitions (AAUP, 2006) Answering phone calls from citizens (AAUP, 2006) Balancing work-life expectations (Wheeler, 1992) Being active in department, college and university life (Rhodes, 2001) Being active in professional/disciplinary associations (AAUP, 2006) Communicating high expectations (Chickering & Gamson, 1987) Commitment to undergraduate teaching (Gaff & Lambert, 1996) Computation skills (Austin, 2002) Creating syllabi (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, & Weibl, 2000) Developing collegiality (Wheeler, 1992) Directing student research (Bess, 1976) Editing a professional journal (AAUP, 2006) Giving prompt feedback (Chickering & Gamson, 1987) Handling paperwork (Austin, 2002) Improving skills and performance in professional roles (Wheeler, 1992) Keeping in touch with alumni (AAUP, 2006) Maintaining standards (Austin, 2002) Managing complexity/Balance multiple demands (Austin, 2002) Meeting management (Gaff & Weibl, 1998) Placement of graduate students (Bess, 1976)

PAGE 229

212 Appendix C (Continued) Providing feedback to colleagues (Austin, 2002) Recruiting (Nyquist, 2002) Remedial instruction (Bess, 1976) Responding to students’ academic inquiries (AAUP, 2006) Setting shared goals (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, & Weibl, 2000) Teaching adult/continuing education courses (Bess, 1976) Time management (Gaff & Weibl, 1998) Understanding institutional roles and expectations (Wheeler, 1992) Understanding how an institution operates (Wheeler, 1992) Worker training (Nyquist, 2002) Working independently (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, & Weibl, 2000) Writing letters of recommendation (AAUP, 2006)

PAGE 230

213 Appendix D Survey Correspondence Pre-Contact Email SUBJECT HEADING: Are your doctoral st udents prepared to become faculty members? Dear Colleague, Changes in the academic workplace over the past decade have renewed the national debate about doctoral education. Most research studies recommending reforms have considered the perspectives of either doctoral students or new faculty members. Our goal is to add a new and vital dimensi on to this discussion by exploring the perceptions of the group most closely affected by doctoral education: graduate faculty. If you currently work with doctoral students, we want to hear from you. In a few days, you will receive an email reques t to participate in a national survey of faculty perceptions concerning the preparation of doctoral students for specific faculty roles. When you receive the survey, simply click on the link to participate. Your time commitment should be 10 minutes or less. We look forward to viewing doctoral education through the faculty lens. Please share your perspective with us. Thanks in advance. Sincerely, Jennifer Purcell, Doctoral Candidate Department of Adult, Career, and Higher Education University of South Florida USF IRB Approval #105445F

PAGE 231

214 Appendix D (Continued) Cover Letter Explaining Study and Requesting Participation SUBJECT HEADING: Preparing doctoral students for faculty roles: What is your perspective? Date Dear Dr. Last Name: The landscape of higher education in the U.S. has changed dramatically over the past fifty years. Expectations of administrators and other stakeholders regarding faculty work have also changed. Faculty members fill a myriad of roles at a wide range of postsecondary institutions and preparing doctoral students for these roles has been a recurring topic of discussion among professional organizations and on campuses. You were selected as part of a random sample of faculty members at 69 research universities. Because of your role in preparing the future professoriate, we are extremely interested in learning your perc eptions about faculty roles / competencies and graduate education. Sharing your individual perspective is critical to the success of this project and the results will impact the national discussion about doctoral education. Please take a few minutes to complete an online survey, which is available at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=928703559996 The survey should take no more than 10 minutes to complete. Your participation is voluntary, all responses are anonymous, and you may exit the survey to withdraw from the study at any time. This research study is not affiliated with your institution in any way and IRB approval has been secured through the University of South Florida (#105445F). Thank you in advance for assisting us to view doctoral education through a faculty lens. If you have any questions about this study, please email me at purcell@coedu.usf.edu or call the USF IRB Office at 813-974-5638. I will also be happy to provide a copy of the findings at your request. Sincerely, Jennifer Purcell, Doctoral Candidate Department of Adult, Career, and Higher Education University of South Florida

PAGE 232

215 Appendix D (Continued) First Reminder Letter SUBJECT HEADING: A thank you and reminder Date Dear Dr. Last Name: Last week, you should have received a request to participate in a national study of faculty perceptions concerning the preparation of doctoral students for specific faculty roles. If you have completed the survey, please accept my sincerest thanks for sharing your valuable time and insights. If you are ready to complete the survey, but have not yet had the chance to do so, I have included the link here for your convenience. http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=928703559996 Again, thank you for your participation. Sincerely, Jennifer Purcell, Doctoral Candidate Department of Adult, Career, and Higher Education University of South Florida

PAGE 233

216 Appendix D (Continued) Final Reminder Letter SUBJECT HEADING: Final chance to share your views about doctoral education Date Dear Dr. Last Name: With only a few days before closing the Preparing Doctoral Students for Faculty Roles: A Faculty Perspective survey website, we are making one more request for participation. Your input supports an integral piece of the national discussion about doctoral education Please click on http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=928703559996 to share your perceptions about doctoral student preparation for faculty roles. Your perspective is important to us. Sincerely, Jennifer Purcell, Doctoral Candidate Department of Adult, Career, and Higher Education University of South Florida

PAGE 234

217 Appendix D (Continued) Letter to Faculty Review Panel Participants Dear Dr. INSERT NAME HERE, Thank you for agreeing to serve as a panel reviewer in the survey development process of my dissertation, Perceptions of Senior Faculty Concerning Doctoral Student Preparation for Faculty Roles I expect that your time commitment will range from 20 to 30 minutes. The proposal was defended successfully on Tuesday, January 23, 2006 and I am hoping to begin the pilot study on February 19th. In this packet of materials, you will find: 1. Research Questions 2. Email Correspondence for Participant Recruitment 3. Competency Framework by Austin and McDaniels (2006) 4. Link to Draft Survey 5. Survey Instructions 6. Survey Items by Scale 7. List of Additional Roles Please review the research questions, email correspondence, and the competency framework as they will provide background information to assist you with reviewing the survey. You may choose to review the paper copy of the survey or take the survey online at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=51543090538 The layout of the survey is different, but the text is the same. Otherwise, please begin on page 8. Your primary task is to review the survey instruct ions and the specific items for content and clarity It will probably be easiest to begin by looking at the Survey Items by Scale as items in the draft survey are listed in random order. Then, consider the items on the List of Additional Roles Please make recommendations directly on the packet of materials by 1. Suggesting modifications (on the Survey Instructions) 2. Crossing out items to be deleted (on either Survey items by Scale or the Draft Survey) 3. Rewriting items that are unclear (on either Survey items by Scale or the Draft Survey) 4. Placing a check mark by items that should be included (on List of Additional Roles) Additional faculty members have been asked to review the email correspondence and logistical pieces of the survey, including ease of online use. I am not asking that you consider these in your review. However, if you wish to make comments related to either, please feel free to do so. The more feedback I receive, the better the outcomes will be. I am available to answer questions by email at purcell@coedu.usf.edu by phone at 813-989-9051, or can meet with you in person at your convenience. When you have completed the review, please send the entire packet to me email or I will stop by campus to pick up the paper copy. Preferred Return Date: February 14, 2007. Again, thank you for your assistance. Your input is integral to the success of my dissertation and I appreciate your willingness to help. Sincerely, Jennifer Purcell

PAGE 235

218 Appendix E Survey Instrument WEB SCREEN #1 Preparing Doctoral Students for Faculty Roles: A Faculty Perspective THANK YOU for agreeing to participate in a national survey about docto ral preparation. Your input is vital to the success of this project. The survey you are about to complete has three parts: Part I considers 18 knowledge, skill and attitude items that describe general competencies of faculty. Part II consists of 24 specific faculty roles. Fo r both Parts I and II you will be asked to rate the importance of each item during a) the first th ree years of faculty employment and b) in preparing doctoral students during graduate school for academic pos itions. You will also be asked to ident ify who is primarily responsible for providing doctoral students with informat ion about each competency or role. Part III requests general demographic information. Items for Part I were derived from a framework presented by Austin and McDaniels (2006). Ite ms for Part II are based on recent literature. All items were re viewed by a panel of graduate faculty. Source: Austin, A. E., & McDaniels, M. (2006). Preparing the professoriate of the future: Graduate student socialization for fa culty roles. In J.C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, 21, 397-456.

PAGE 236

219 Appendix E (Continued) WEB SCREEN #2 Part I – General Competencies When responding to these questions, consider the goal of preparing doctoral students for academic positions in a wide-range of institutions (including Community College s, 4-year Colleges, and Universities). IMPORTANCE TO FACULTY: How important is this knowledge / skill / attitude during the first three years of faculty employment? Responses for these items are: Not Important, Somewhat Important, Import ant, Extremely Important. DOCTORAL STUDENT PREPARATION: How important is it for doctoral st udents preparing for the professoriate to be introduced to this knowledge / skill / attitude during graduate school? Responses for these items are: Not Important, Somewhat Important, Import ant, Extremely Important. RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL(S): Use the drop down menu to select th e individual or en tity you consider primarily responsible for introducing doctoral students to these competencies. Options include: Doctoral Student Advisor, Student Advisory Committee All Faculty in Departme nt, Department Chair, Graduate School St aff, Campus Teaching Center, Graduate Program Director, Professional Associations Student, Hiring Institution, Nobody Note. The paper version of this survey uses scales, whereas drop down menus with specific text were used in the online version. For columns 1 and 2: NI = Not Important, SI = Somewhat Important, I = Important, EI = Extremely Important For column 3: DSA = Doctoral Student Advisor, SAC = Student Advi sory Committee, AF = All Faculty in Department, DC = Department Chair, GSS = Graduate School Staff, CTC = Campus Teaching Center, GPD = Graduate Program Dire ctor, PA = Professio nal Associations, ST = Student, HI = Hiring Institution, NO = Nobody

PAGE 237

220 Appendix E (Continued) WEB SCREEN #2 (Continued) KNOWLEDGE, SKILL, ATTITUDE IMPORTANCE TO FACULTY DOCTORAL STUDENT PREPARATION RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL Appreciate the history and purposes of higher education NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO Understand research processes NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO Develop collegiality NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO Understand and appreciate institutional service and citizenship NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO Understand types of higher education institutions and missions NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO Understand teaching and learning processes NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO Understand community engagement and service NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO Become active in professional / disciplinary associations NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO

PAGE 238

221 Appendix E (Continued) WEB SCREEN #3 IMPORTANCE TO FACULTY: How important is this knowledge / skill / attitude during the first three years of faculty employment? Responses for these items are: Not Important, Somewhat Important, Import ant, Extremely Important. DOCTORAL STUDENT PREPARATION: How important is it for doctoral st udents preparing for the professoriate to be introduced to this knowledge / skill / attitude during graduate school? Responses for these items are: Not Important, Somewhat Important, Import ant, Extremely Important. RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL(S): Use the drop down menu to select th e individual or en tity you consider primarily responsible for introducing doctoral students to these competencies. Options include: Doctoral Student Advisor, Student Advisory Committee All Faculty in Departme nt, Department Chair, Graduate School St aff, Campus Teaching Center, Graduate Program Director, Professional Associations Student, Hiring Institution, Nobody Note. The paper version of this survey uses scales, whereas drop down menus with specific text were used in the online version. For columns 1 and 2: NI = Not Important, SI = Somewhat Important, I = Important, EI = Extremely Important For column 3: DSA = Doctoral Student Advisor, SAC = Student Advi sory Committee, AF = All Faculty in Department, DC = Department Chair, GSS = Graduate School Staff, CTC = Campus Teaching Center, GPD = Graduate Program Dire ctor, PA = Professio nal Associations, ST = Student, HI = Hiring Institution, NO = Nobody

PAGE 239

222 Appendix E (Continued) WEB SCREEN #3 (Continued) KNOWLEDGE, SKILL, ATTITUDE IMPORTANCE TO FACULTY DOCTORAL STUDENT PREPARATION RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL Possess strong communication skills NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO Model ethics and integrity NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO Possess a motivation for lifelong learning NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO Cultivate professional networks NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO Possess teamwork and collaboration skills NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO Participate in professional development opportunities NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO Appreciate student, faculty and disciplinary diversity NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO Possess a critical knowledge of the discipline NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO Understand one’s professional identity as professor and scholar NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO Nurture professional passion while maintaining balance in life NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO You have completed 2 of 5 screens

PAGE 240

223 Appendix E (Continued) WEB SCREEN #4 Part II – Faculty Roles IMPORTANCE TO FACULTY: How important is this role during the first three years of faculty employment? Responses for these items are: Not Importan t, Somewhat Important, Important, Extremely Important. DOCTORAL STUDENT PREPARATION: How important is it for doctoral st udents preparing for the professoriate to be introduced to this role during graduate school? Responses for th ese items are: Not Importan t, Somewhat Important, Important, Extremely Important. RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL(S): Use the drop down menu to select th e individual or en tity you consider primarily responsible for introducing doctoral students to these competencies. Options include: Doctoral Student Advisor, Student Advisory Committee All Faculty in Departme nt, Department Chair, Graduate School St aff, Campus Teaching Center, Graduate Program Director, Professional Associations Student, Hiring Institution, Nobody Note. The paper version of this survey uses scales, whereas drop down menus with specific text were used in the online version. For columns 1 and 2: NI = Not Important, SI = Somewhat Important, I = Important, EI = Extremely Important For column 3: DSA = Doctoral Student Advisor, SAC = Student Advi sory Committee, AF = All Faculty in Department, DC = Department Chair, GSS = Graduate School Staff, CTC = Campus Teaching Center, GPD = Graduate Program Dire ctor, PA = Professio nal Associations, ST = Student, HI = Hiring Institution, NO = Nobody

PAGE 241

224 Appendix E (Continued) WEB SCREEN #4 (Continued) FACULTY ROLE or TASK IMPORTANCE TO FACULTY DOCTORAL STUDENT PREPARATION RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL Prepare new courses NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO Encourage active learning in the classroom NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO Write articles for publication NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO Design and implement scholarly projects in the discipline NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO Engage in strategic planning at one or more institutional levels NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO Participate in interdisciplinary research projects NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO Integrate technology in teaching NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO Serve on thesis or dissertation committees (if in a graduate institution) NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO Write grants or other proposals NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO Oversee grant management (e.g., budget, personnel) NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO Provide professional services to government, businesses, and community group NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO Provide online instruction NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO

PAGE 242

225 Appendix E (Continued) WEB SCREEN #5 IMPORTANCE TO FACULTY: How important is this role during the first three years of faculty employment? Responses for these items are: Not Importan t, Somewhat Important, Important, Extremely Important. DOCTORAL STUDENT PREPARATION: How important is it for doctoral st udents preparing for the professoriate to be introduced to this role during graduate school? Responses for th ese items are: Not Importan t, Somewhat Important, Important, Extremely Important. RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL(S): Use the drop down menu to select th e individual or en tity you consider primarily responsible for introducing doctoral students to these competencies. Options include: Doctoral Student Advisor, Student Advisory Committee All Faculty in Departme nt, Department Chair, Graduate School St aff, Campus Teaching Center, Graduate Program Director, Professional Associations Student, Hiring Institution, Nobody Note. The paper version of this survey uses scales, whereas drop down menus with specific text were used in the online version. For columns 1 and 2: NI = Not Important, SI = Somewhat Important, I = Important, EI = Extremely Important For column 3: DSA = Doctoral Student Advisor, SAC = Student Advi sory Committee, AF = All Faculty in Department, DC = Department Chair, GSS = Graduate School Staff, CTC = Campus Teaching Center, GPD = Graduate Program Dire ctor, PA = Professio nal Associations, ST = Student, HI = Hiring Institution, NO = Nobody

PAGE 243

226 Appendix E (Continued) WEB SCREEN #5 (Continued) FACULTY ROLE or TASK IMPORTANCE TO FACULTY LEARN AS A GRADUATE STUDENT RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL Mentor / advise undergraduate students NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO Mentor / advise graduate students (if in a graduate institution) NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO Provide input on hiring decisions NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO Assist with fundrais ing activities for the program or institution NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO Assess student learning NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO Make conference presentations in the discipline NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO Engage in department or institution committee work NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO Serve as a reviewer of articles, books, and conference proposals NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO Participate in university governance NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO Read and analyze literature NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO Develop / review departmental curriculum NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO Advise a student organization NI SI I EI NI SI I EI DSA SAC AF DC GSS CTC GPD PA ST HI NO You have completed 4 of 5 screens

PAGE 244

227 Appendix E (Continued) WEB SCREEN #6 Part III – Demographic Information Please select the appropriate responses. Discipline: Biological Sciences English Mathematics Psychology Institution type: Public Private Are you currently serving as a dissertation advis or (or have Yes No you chaired a successful dissertation in the past four years)? Rank: Assistant Professor Associate Professor Professor Other Gender: Male Female Have we missed any important roles? List them and other comments here. ________________________ _____________________ ___________________________ _________________________ Thank you for participating! Your responses will assist us in examining the level of congruen ce between the literature on preparation for future faculty rol es and the perceptions of senior faculty involved in doctoral preparation. We appreciate your time. If you have any questions, comments, o r would like to learn the results of this research project, please contact Jennifer Purcell at Purcell@coedu.usf.edu. Click DONE to exit the survey

PAGE 245

228 Appendix E (Continued)

PAGE 246

229 Appendix E (Continued)

PAGE 247

230 Appendix E (Continued)

PAGE 248

231 Appendix E (Continued)

PAGE 249

232 Appendix E (Continued)

PAGE 250

233 Appendix E (Continued)

PAGE 251

234 Appendix E (Continued)

PAGE 252

235 Appendix E (Continued)

PAGE 253

236 Appendix E (Continued)

PAGE 254

237 Appendix E (Continued)

PAGE 255

238 Appendix F Demographic Characteristics of Faculty in the Initial Contact List by Discipline Full Assoc UnknownSubtotal % of Faculty in Contact List Biology RUH-PR 80 38 4 122 RUH-PU 225 175 65 465 RUVH-PR 96 45 0 141 RUVH-PU 453 209 21 683 Subtotal 854 467 90 1411 28.4% % Rank all disciplines 29.0% 28.6% 23.0% % Rank within discipline 60.5% 33.1% 6.4% English RUH-PR 65 36 11 112 RUH-PU 209 176 24 409 RUVH-PR 98 74 3 175 RUVH-PU 313 221 29 563 Subtotal 685 507 67 1259 25.4% % Rank all disciplines 23.2% 31.1% 17.1% % Rank within discipline 54.4% 40.3% 5.3% Math RUH-PR 65 38 22 125 RUH-PU 260 161 39 460 RUVH-PR 123 32 0 155 RUVH-PU 425 126 83 634 Subtotal 873 357 144 1374 27.6% % Rank all disciplines 29.6% 21.9% 36.8% % Rank within discipline 63.5% 26.0% 10.5% Psych RUH-PR 57 26 8 91 RUH-PU 180 122 32 334 RUVH-PR 74 24 5 103 RUVH-PU 225 128 45 398 Subtotal 536 300 90 926 18.6% % Rank all disciplines 18.2% 18.4% 23.0% % Rank within discipline 57.9% 32.4% 9.7% TOTAL 2948 1631 391 4970 % Rank 59% 33% 8%

PAGE 256

239 Appendix G Descriptive Statistics and Item Ranking for Total Group Table G-1 Descriptive Statistics for All Items by Total Group – Importance to Faculty Scale Item M SD Skewness Kurtosis n R Write articles for public ation 3.92 0.30 -3.71 14.11 961 C Understand research proc esses 3.88 0.34 -2.62 6.16 1123 C Possess a critical knowledge of the discipline 3.82 0.44 -2.43 5.35 1004 R Read and analyze literatur e 3.75 0.52 -2.25 5.45 946 C Possess strong communication skills 3.68 0.52 -1.33 0.79 1113 R Make conference presentations in the discipline 3.68 0.56 -1.70 2.68 949 C Model ethics and integr ity 3.56 0.62 -1.28 1.19 1012 C Possess a motivation for lifelon g learning 3.44 0.73 -1.23 1.08 1011 R Design and implement scholarly projects in the discipline 3.44 0.84 -1.41 1.07 953 C Understand teaching and learning processes 3.43 0.64 -0.72 -0.31 1114 R Write grants or other pr oposals 3.39 0.83 -1.11 0.13 959 T Mentor / advise graduate stude nts 3.26 0.82 -0.86 -0.05 949 C Cultivate professional netwo rks 3.24 0.70 -0.43 -0.71 1009 C Develop collegiality 3.24 0.67 -0.47 -0.17 1121 C Nurture professional passion while maintain ing balance in life 3.19 0.84 -0.82 0.01 1000 C Understand one’s professional identity as professional and sc holar 3.06 0.83 -0.65 -0.11 992 T Prepare new courses 3.04 0.97 -0.68 -0.59 963 T Encourage active learning in th e classroom 2.99 0.81 -0.40 -0.44 959 C Possess teamwork and collaborati on skills 2.97 0.76 -0.22 -0.61 1007 T Assess student learning 2.96 0.86 -0.50 -0.38 942

PAGE 257

240 Appendix G (Continued) Table G-1 (Continued) Scale Item M SD Skewness Kurtosis n R Serve as a reviewer of articles, books, and conference proposals 2.92 0.85 -0.40 -0.50 948 T Mentor / advise undergraduate students 2.89 0.81 -0.34 -0.40 950 C Become active in professional / discip linary associations 2.84 0.88 -0.31 -0.66 1113 C Appreciate student, faculty, and discipl inary diversity 2.79 0.85 -0.24 -0.61 1004 T Serve on thesis or dissertation committees 2.78 0.87 -0.31 -0.56 958 S Provide input on hiring decisions 2.74 0.88 -0.24 -0.64 946 C Understand and appreciate institutional se rvice and citizenship 2.71 0.73 -0.06 -0.34 1118 C Participate in professional developm ent opportunities 2.70 0.81 -0.09 -0.53 1005 S Engage in department or institution committee work 2.56 0.84 0.05 -0.60 951 C Appreciate the history and purposes of higher education 2.42 0.87 0.11 -0.67 1122 R Oversee grant management (e.g. budge t, personnel) 2.41 1.08 0.09 -1.27 956 C Understand types of higher education inst itutions and missions 2.33 0.82 0.29 -0.39 1115 R Participate in interdisciplinary re search projects 2.28 0.80 0.20 -0.42 956 T Integrate technology in t eaching 2.20 0.84 0.23 -0.58 958 S Develop / review department curriculum 2.16 0.81 0.27 -0.47 947 C Understand community engagement and service 2.05 0.07 0.35 -0.12 1111 S Participate in university governance 1.72 0.77 0.83 0.06 947 S Engage in strategic planning at one or more institutional levels 1.69 0.76 0.79 -0.17 948 S Provide professional services to govt, busi nesses, and community groups 1.66 0.72 0.83 0.16 955 S Assist with fundraising activities for t he program or institut ion 1.51 0.71 1.26 0.88 946 S Advise a student organization 1.40 0.60 1.28 0.90 944 T Provide online instruct ion 1.33 0.59 1.84 3.25 951 Note. C = competency, T = teaching / learning, R = research, S = servic e. Items are listed in order of importance. 1 = Not Importan t, 4 = Extremely Important.

PAGE 258

241 Appendix G (Continued) Table G-2 All Items Rank Ordered by Discipline and Status as a Dissertation Advisor – Importance to Faculty Scale Item (Ranked by total group) Bio Sciences English Math Psychology Dissertation Advisor Non-Diss Advisor R Write articles for publication 1 1 1 2 1 2 C Understand research processes 2 2 2 1 2 1 C Possess a critical knowledge of the discipline 4 4 3 3 3 3 R Read and analyze literature 5 5 5 5 4 4 C Possess strong communication skills 6 3 8 7 5 5 R Make conference presentations in the discipline 7 6 4 8 6 6 C Model ethics and integrity 10 8 7 6 7 7 C Possess a motivation for lifelong learning 11 10 6 13 9 9 R Design and implement scholarly projects in the discipline 8 16 14 4 8 10 C Understand teaching and learning processes 12 7 9 12 10 8 R Write grants or other proposals 3 31 10 9 11 13 T Mentor / advise graduate students 9 21 20 10 12 18 C Cultivate professional networks 13 14 13 15 14 14 C Develop collegiality 14 13 11 14 13 12 C Nurture professional passion while maintaining balance in life 15 11 12 16 15 11 C Understand one’s professi onal identity as professional and scholar 19 15 15 21 17 16 T Prepare new courses 21 9 30 11 16 22 T Encourage active learning in the classroom 23 12 18 23 18 17 C Possess teamwork and collaboration skills 17 26 17 18 19 19 T Assess student learning 25 18 16 20 20 15

PAGE 259

242 Appendix G (Continued) Table G-2 (Continued) Scale Item (Ranked by total group) Bio Sciences English Math Psychology Dissertation Advisor Non-Diss Advisor R Serve as a reviewer of articles, books, and conference proposals 16 29 19 19 21 24 T Mentor / advise undergraduate students 22 20 24 22 22 20 C Become active in professional / disciplinary associations 26 17 22 24 23 21 C Appreciate student, faculty, and disciplinary diversity 27 19 25 25 25 26 T Serve on thesis or dissertation committees 20 28 31 17 24 27 S Provide input on hiring decisions 24 25 27 26 26 29 C Understand and appreciate institutional service and citizenship 28 24 21 29 27 25 C Participate in professional dev elopment opportunities 29 22 23 28 28 23 S Engage in department or institution committee work 30 23 29 30 29 30 C Appreciate the history and purposes of higher education 32 27 26 33 31 28 R Oversee grant management (e.g. budget, personnel) 18 38 35 27 30 33 C Understand types of higher education institutions and missions 33 30 28 34 32 31 R Participate in interdisciplinary research projects 31 35 32 32 33 34 T Integrate technology in teaching 34 33 36 31 34 35 S Develop / review department curriculum 36 32 33 35 35 32 C Understand community engagement and service 35 34 34 36 36 36 S Participate in university governance 39 36 37 37 37 37 S Engage in strategic planning at one or more institutional levels 38 37 39 39 38 38 S Provide professional services to govt, businesses, and community groups 37 40 38 38 39 39 S Assist with fundraising activities fo r the program or institution 40 41 40 40 40 40 S Advise a student organization 41 39 41 41 41 41 T Provide online instruction 42 42 42 42 42 42 Note. C = competency, T = teaching / learning, R = research, S = service.

PAGE 260

243 Appendix G (Continued) Table G-3 Descriptive Statistics for All Items by Total Group – Doctoral Student Preparation Scale Item M SD Skewness Kurtosis n C Understand research proc esses 3.88 0.34 -2.84 7.60 1115 R Read and analyze literatur e 3.77 0.53 -2.69 8.19 933 R Possess a critical knowledge of the discipline 3.74 0.52 -1.92 3.06 997 C Possess strong communication skills 3.60 0.59 -1.26 0.99 1107 C Model ethics and integr ity 3.52 0.69 -1.39 1.61 1004 R Write articles for publicat ion 3.52 0.73 -1.43 1.34 954 R Make conference presentations in the discipline 3.43 0.74 -1.05 0.23 933 C Possess a motivation for lifelon g learning 3.39 0.77 -1.19 0.99 1003 C Understand teaching and learning processes 3.15 0.76 -0.49 -0.47 1108 R Design and implement scholarly projects in the discipline 3.04 1.06 -0.71 -0.83 947 C Develop collegiality 2.93 0.76 -0.28 -0.37 1111 C Nurture professional passion while maintaini ng balance in life 2.90 0.91 -0.39 -0.72 993 C Cultivate professional netwo rks 2.82 0.78 -0.16 -0.50 1002 C Possess teamwork and collaborati on skills 2.80 0.83 -0.20 -0.59 999 C Understand one’s professional identity as professional and sc holar 2.72 0.86 -0.24 -0.59 986 C Appreciate student, faculty, and discipl inary diversity 2.64 0.88 -0.14 -0.68 997 R Write grants or other propos als 2.63 1.03 -0.16 -1.12 951 C Become active in professional / discip linary associations 2.54 0.91 -0.01 -0.81 1107 T Encourage active learning in the classroom 2.53 0.93 -0.04 -0.85 953 C Participate in professional developm ent opportunities 2.52 0.88 0.08 -0.71 996 T Assess student learning 2.42 0.96 0.04 -0.95 927

PAGE 261

244 Appendix G (Continued) Table G-3 (Continued) Scale Item M SD Skewness Kurtosis n C Understand types of higher education instit utions and missions 2.33 0.87 0.25 -0.58 1109 C Appreciate the history and purposes of higher education 2.26 0.88 0.26 -0.63 1116 C Understand and appreciate institutional se rvice and citizenship 2.16 0.77 0.27 -0.28 1112 R Serve as a reviewer of articles, books, and conference proposals 2.09 0.94 0.48 -0.69 929 T Mentor / advise undergraduate students 2.04 0.90 0.45 -0.68 938 R Participate in interdisciplinary res earch projects 2.03 0.81 0.41 -0.41 951 T Integrate technology in teac hing 1.97 0.85 0.46 -0.59 952 T Prepare new courses 1.92 0.96 0.68 -0.65 957 C Understand community engagement and service 1.79 0.73 0.62 -0.02 1106 T Mentor / advise graduate stude nts 1.75 0.95 0.98 -0.20 923 S Provide input on hiring decisions 1.69 0.80 1.01 0.46 926 S Engage in department or instituti on committee work 1.55 0.69 1.08 0.71 940 R Oversee grant management (e.g. budget, personnel) 1.52 0.77 1.39 1.26 944 S Develop / review department curriculum 1.39 0.61 1.38 1.20 928 T Serve on thesis or dissertati on committees 1.37 0.74 1.98 2.93 926 S Provide professional services to govt, busi ness, and community groups 1.29 0.55 1.90 3.41 943 S Participate in university governance 1.27 0.52 1.90 3.53 929 T Provide online instruct ion 1.23 0.52 2.39 5.69 937 S Engage in strategic planning at one or more institutional levels 1.22 0.51 2.53 0.86 942 S Assist with fundraising activities for the program 1.18 0.45 2.96 10.38 928 S Advise a student organization 1.15 0.41 2.96 9.18 922 Note. C = competency, T = teaching / learning, R = research, S = servic e. Items are listed in order of importance. 1 = Not Importan t, 4 = Extremely Important.

PAGE 262

245 Appendix G (Continued) Table G-4 All Items Rank Ordered by Discipline and Status as a Dissertation Advisor – Doctoral Student Preparation Scale Item (Ranked by total group) Bio Sciences English Math Psychology Dissertation Advisor Non-Diss Advisor C Understand research processes 1 1 1 1 1 1 R Read and analyze literature 2 2 3 4 2 3 C Possess a critical knowledge of the discipline 3 4 2 3 3 2 C Possess strong communication skills 5 3 6 7 4 4 C Model ethics and integrity 6 6 5 6 5 5 R Write articles for publication 4 10 7 2 6 7 R Make conference presentations in the discipline 7 8 8 8 7 9 C Possess a motivation for lifelong learning 8 7 4 9 8 6 C Understand teaching and learning processes 13 5 9 10 9 8 R Design and implement scholarly projects in the discipline 9 20 17 5 10 10 C Develop collegiality 11 14 11 12 11 12 C Nurture professional passion while maintaining balance in life 14 11 10 14 12 11 C Cultivate professional networks 15 15 12 15 13 13 C Possess teamwork and collaboration skills 12 22 13 11 14 15 C Understand one’s professional identity as professional and scholar 16 13 14 16 15 14 C Appreciate student, faculty, and disciplinary diversity 17 12 19 18 16 17 R Write grants or other proposals 10 26 23 13 17 22 C Become active in professional / disciplinary associations 18 16 22 17 18 19 T Encourage active learning in the classroom 25 9 15 21 20 18 C Participate in professional dev elopment opportunities 19 18 18 19 19 21

PAGE 263

246 Appendix G (Continued) Table G-4 (Continued) Scale Item (Ranked by total group) Bio Sciences English Math Psychology Dissertation Advisor Non-Diss Advisor T Assess student learning 27 17 16 20 21 16 C Understand types of higher education in stitutions and missions 21 19 20 26 22 20 C Appreciate the history and purposes of higher education 22 21 21 29 23 23 C Understand and appreciate institutional service and citizenship 26 24 24 25 24 24 R Serve as a reviewer of articles, books, and conference proposals 20 29 26 22 25 27 T Mentor / advise undergraduate students 23 27 29 24 27 25 R Participate in interdisciplinary research projects 24 32 25 27 26 28 T Integrate technology in teaching 30 25 27 28 28 26 T Prepare new courses 33 23 30 23 29 29 C Understand community engagement and service 29 30 28 32 30 30 T Mentor / advise graduate students 28 34 31 30 32 32 S Provide input on hiring decisions 32 28 32 31 31 31 S Engage in department or institution committee work 34 31 35 34 34 34 R Oversee grant management (e.g. budget, personnel) 31 39 37 33 33 33 S Develop / review department curriculum 37 33 33 36 35 35 T Serve on thesis or dissertation committees 36 37 36 35 36 36 S Provide professional services to govt, business, and community groups 35 41 34 37 37 37 S Participate in university governance 38 35 38 38 38 38 T Provide online instruction 40 36 41 40 39 39 S Engage in strategic planning at one or more institutional levels 39 38 39 39 40 40 S Assist with fundraising activi ties for the program 41 40 42 41 41 41 S Advise a student organization 42 42 40 42 42 42 Note. C = competency, T = teaching / learning, R = research, S = service.

PAGE 264

247 Appendix G (Continued) Table G-5 Mean Difference Scores Between Importance to Faculty and Doctoral Student Preparation for Total Group by Item Scale Item Mean Difference SD Skewness Kurtosis n T Mentor / advise graduate stude nts 1.51 1.03 -0.26 -0.51 923 T Serve on thesis or dissertation committees 1.42 1.01 -0.12 -0.79 926 T Prepare new courses 1.12 1.00 0.16 -0.58 957 S Provide input on hiring decisions 1.05 0.89 0.17 -0.05 926 S Engage in department or institution committee work 1.02 0.86 0.16 -0.28 940 R Oversee grant management 0.89 0.93 0.61 -0.50 944 T Mentor / advise undergraduate students 0.86 0.88 0.18 -0.15 938 R Serve as a reviewer of articles, books, and proposals 0.83 0.88 0.10 0.44 929 S Develop / review departmental curriculum 0.77 0.77 0.38 0.13 928 R Write grants or other propos als 0.76 0.89 0.52 -0.09 951 T Assess student learning 0.55 0.75 0.70 0.23 927 C Understand institutional service and citizenship 0.55 0.72 0.35 0.46 1112 S Engage in strategic planning at one or more levels 0.47 0.68 0.75 0.26 942 T Encourage active learning in th e classroom 0.46 0.76 0.87 1.52 953 S Participate in university governance 0.45 0.72 0.62 1.36 929 C Cultivate professional net works 0.42 0.69 0.50 0.31 1002 R Design and implement scholarly projects 0.40 0.72 0.86 1.44 947 R Write articles for public ation 0.39 0.70 1.35 1.70 954 S Provide professional services to govt, busines ses, and community groups 0.37 0.61 0.87 1.88 943 C Understand one’s professional identity 0.34 0.63 0.87 1.44 985

PAGE 265

248 Appendix G (Continued) Table G-5 (Continued) Scale Item Mean Difference SD Skewness Kurtosis n S Assist with fundraising ac tivities 0.33 0.64 1.27 2.00 928 C Develop collegiality 0.32 0.63 0.76 1.32 1111 C Become active in professional associations 0.30 0.68 0.34 1.14 1107 C Nurture professional passion / main tain balance 0.29 0.62 10.2 2.91 992 C Understand teaching and learning processes 0.28 0.60 0.92 1.25 1108 C Understand community engagement and service 0.26 0.59 0.74 2.00 1106 S Advise a student organization 0.26 0.56 0.68 2.40 922 R Participate in interdisciplinary re search projects 0.26 0.59 0.56 1.29 951 R Make conference presentations in the discipline 0.25 0.62 0.66 2.57 933 T Integrate technology in t eaching 0.23 0.63 0.65 1.82 952 C Possess teamwork and collaborat ion skills 0.18 0.55 0.48 1.95 999 C Participate in professional developm ent opportunities 0.17 0.70 -0.03 1.31 996 C Appreciate the history and purposes of higher education 0.16 0.64 0.17 2.17 1115 C Appreciate student, faculty, and disci plinary diversity 0.15 0.47 1.31 3.31 997 T Provide online instruct ion 0.10 0.42 1.20 5.97 936 C Possess a critical knowledge of the discipline 0.08 0.38 1.07 6.61 997 C Possess strong communication skills 0.08 0.39 1.10 4.67 1105 C Possess a motivation for lifelon g learning 0.06 0.53 0.41 5.55 1003 C Model ethics and integr ity 0.04 0.42 0.90 9.04 1004 C Understand types of institutions and missions 0.00 0.79 -0.27 1.15 1109 C Understand research proce sses 0.00 0.33 -0.08 7.87 1115 R Read and analyze literatur e -0.01 0.36 0.82 14.38 932

PAGE 266

249 Appendix H Percentage of Responses by Total Group – Who is Responsible Item # DAS SAC AF DC GPD GSS CTC PA ST HI NO n 1 13.3 1.9 48.7 1.0 2.1 4.6 1.5 2.1 10.8 2.9 11.0 1089 2 57.2 13.4 27.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.1 1104 3 16.7 4.3 55.4 1.5 0.0 2.2 0.5 0.3 15.7 1.3 2.1 1099 4 21.1 3.6 40.6 7.9 0.5 6.5 0.9 1.0 4.4 7.7 6.0 1092 5 18.2 8.3 27.4 1.9 1.6 9.0 2.8 4.9 11.4 5.5 9.1 1088 6 8.5 5.3 54.9 0.7 6.4 0.9 14.5 0.5 6.3 0.8 1.1 1091 7 10.0 3.8 30.9 3.7 3.3 2.0 1.1 5.0 12.3 8.2 19.7 1076 8 42.6 11.7 17.0 1.2 2.8 0.5 0.1 9.7 8.2 0.5 5.6 1091 9 27.1 12.4 38.7 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.2 0.0 16.8 0.6 1.7 1094 10 26.4 5.6 54.1 0. 5 1.7 0.6 0.0 0. 0 9.2 0.9 1.0 994 11 13.5 4.9 37.1 0. 2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0. 4 38.0 0.5 5.0 986 12 39.3 19.6 17.7 0. 6 0.8 0.3 0.0 5. 8 14.4 0.4 1.1 989 13 26.9 11.9 31.3 0. 9 1.3 0.2 0.3 0. 3 22.9 0.5 3.5 983 14 21.5 11.1 19.9 4. 0 8.8 1.9 2.3 3. 4 15.9 5.9 5.4 982 15 4.6 2.3 53.0 3.2 2.3 1. 6 1.1 1.1 16. 6 7.3 6.8 983 16 31.4 19.4 37.0 0. 0 0.7 0.2 0.0 0. 2 11.0 0.1 0.1 985 17 25.9 11.4 32.0 1. 0 1.1 0.2 0.0 0. 8 20.1 2.2 5.2 973 18 22.4 5.0 25.3 1. 3 0.6 0.6 0.1 0. 3 35.5 1.2 7.7 978 19 9.9 5.8 22.6 9.6 6.1 0. 4 7.7 0.2 17. 3 6.0 14.4 931 20 5.4 3.0 36.3 2.6 4.4 1. 1 22.6 0.4 15. 1 2.7 6.4 932 21 65.6 12.1 10.7 0. 7 0.5 0.1 0.1 0. 0 9.5 0.2 0.3 943

PAGE 267

250 Appendix H (Continued) Item # DAS SAC AF DC GPD GSS CTC PA ST HI NO n 22 51.4 18.5 12.0 1. 1 0.3 0.2 0.0 0. 5 9.4 1.3 5.3 928 23 5.9 1.8 11.6 12. 0 2.7 1.0 0.1 0. 2 5.4 13.1 46.3 903 24 26.1 17.6 21.9 1. 5 1.0 0.3 0.4 0. 6 11.5 4.2 14.8 924 25 3.8 1.3 23.6 2.5 2.4 1. 6 31.7 0.3 11. 7 5.6 15.4 923 26 13.6 9.8 16.3 6. 0 5.7 0.7 0.0 0. 1 9.0 9.2 29.7 900 27 51.1 10.8 11.0 4. 2 3.1 1.2 0.3 0. 5 7.5 5.0 5.3 929 28 32.7 3.3 6.4 6.1 1.1 2. 3 0.6 0.8 7. 2 10.5 29.0 904 29 12.6 2.7 14.4 3. 5 1.7 0.3 0.1 4. 5 12.4 6.7 41.0 902 30 2.6 1.0 10.5 3.0 1.0 0. 6 17.1 0.2 7. 2 8.6 48.3 899 31 11.1 4.2 17.1 24. 6 5.9 0.3 0.1 0. 2 8.1 10.3 18.1 902 32 30.7 3.6 21.1 9. 3 4.5 0.5 2.9 0. 0 10.2 7.1 10.0 910 33 30.4 5.3 15.6 3. 8 10.4 0.8 0.1 0. 0 8.3 6.8 18.5 895 34 8.0 1.9 26.5 24. 6 1.7 0.2 0.1 0. 2 8.9 9.1 18.9 903 35 4.3 1.2 10.1 14. 5 0.8 0.8 0.2 0. 7 3.9 13.6 49.8 881 36 6.4 2.9 35.2 5.3 6.3 0. 9 21.5 0.3 7. 5 5.3 8.2 901 37 62.2 13.0 12.8 0. 9 1.4 0.1 0.0 0. 7 8.1 0.3 0.5 915 38 49.0 9.4 13.7 0. 8 0.6 0.1 0.0 4. 3 9.7 1.0 11.4 904 39 5.5 1.5 15.3 13. 5 2.6 0.8 0.2 0. 2 9.6 12.0 38.8 887 40 40.6 11.2 31.0 0. 1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0. 2 15.2 0.1 1.3 913 41 4.6 1.8 28.2 15. 2 3.9 0.1 2.7 0. 1 6.8 8.5 28.1 894 42 4.5 0.8 11.4 7.4 1.4 0. 3 0.7 0.7 12. 2 7.7 52.9 874 Note. DSA = Doctoral student advisor, SAC = Student Advisory Committ ee, AF = All Faculty in the Department, DC = Department Chair, GPD = Graduate Program Director, GSS = Graduate School Staff, CTC = Campus Teaching Center, PA = Professional Associations, ST = Student, HI = Hiring Institutio n, NO = Nobody.

PAGE 268

251 Appendix I Descriptive Statistics by Discipline Table I-1 Descriptive Statistics for Biological Sciences – Importance to Faculty Scale Item # Item M SD Skewness Kurtosis n C 1 Appreciate the history and purposes of higher education 2.42 0.85 0.00 -0.63 358 C 2 Understand research processes 3.92 0.28 -3.45 11.50 358 C 3 Develop collegiality 3.32 0.66 -0.51 -0.43 358 C 4 Understand and appreciate institutional service and citizenship 2.73 0.74 0.05 -0.49 358 C 5 Understand types of higher educa tion institutions and missions 2.36 0.81 0.25 -0.37 358 C 6 Understand teaching and learning processes 3.41 0.63 -0.61 -0.59 358 C 7 Understand community engagement and service 2.17 0.73 0.24 -0.13 357 C 8 Become active in professional / disciplinary associations 2.87 0.86 -0.33 -0.61 359 C 9 Possess strong communication skills 3.80 0.42 -1.86 2.38 358 C 10 Model ethics and integrity 3.66 0.57 -1.55 1.87 356 C 11 Possess a motivation for lifelong learning 3.54 0.70 -1.59 2.44 354 C 12 Cultivate professional networks 3.37 0.64 -0.58 -0.31 356 C 13 Possess teamwork and collaboration skills 3.21 0.70 -0.41 -0.54 355 C 14 Participate in profession al development opportunities 2.67 0.79 0.04 -0.56 355 C 15 Appreciate student, faculty and disciplinary diversity 2.87 0.81 -0.23 -0.58 356 C 16 Possess a critical knowledge of the discipline 3.90 0.32 -3.16 9.79 356 C 17 Understand one's professional i dentity as professor and scholar 3.09 0.83 -0.75 0.15 350 C 18 Nurture professional passion while maintaining balance in life 3.23 0.81 -0.84 0.08 354 T 19 Prepare new courses 3.04 0.92 -0.66 -0.47 356 T 20 Encourage active learning in the classroom 2.97 0.79 -0.36 -0.37 356

PAGE 269

252 Appendix I (Continued) Table I-1 (Continued) Scale Item # Item M SD Skewness Kurtosis n R 21 Write articles for publication 3.94 0.25 -4.31 19.16 356 R 22 Design and implement scholarly projects in the discipline 3.75 0.55 -2.52 7.16 353 S 23 Engage in strategic planning at one or more institutional levels 1.82 0.79 0.61 -0.38 351 R 24 Participate in interdisciplinary research projects 2.49 0.81 0.04 -0.49 352 T 25 Integrate technology in teaching 2.34 0.83 0.08 -0.57 354 T 26 Serve on thesis or dissertation commi ttees (if in a graduate institution) 3.07 0.73 -0.46 -0.03 353 R 27 Write grants or other proposals 3.90 0.36 -4.25 21.03 354 R 28 Oversee grant management (e.g., budget, personnel) 3.20 0.80 -0.71 -0.20 355 S 29 Provide professional services to govt, businesses, and community groups 1.88 0.77 0.55 -0.20 354 T 30 Provide online instruction 1.39 0.61 1.57 2.36 352 S 31 Engage in department or institution committee work 2.53 0.81 0.17 -0.51 354 T 32 Mentor / advise undergraduate students 3.03 0.76 -0.47 -0.10 354 T 33 Mentor / advise graduate students (if in a graduate institution) 3.69 0.54 -1.62 2.35 353 S 34 Provide input on hiring decisions 2.94 0.80 -0.33 -0.47 353 S 35 Assist with fundraising activities for the program or institution 1.66 0.80 0.99 0.21 352 T 36 Assess student learning 2.93 0.82 -0.40 -0.40 351 R 37 Make conference presentations in the discipline 3.78 048 -2.29 5.48 354 R 38 Serve as a reviewer of articles, books, and conference proposals 3.22 0.73 -0.54 -0.34 354 S 39 Participate in university governance 1.69 0.78 0.86 -0.07 352 R 40 Read and analyze literature 3.88 0.35 -2.89 8.05 352 S 41 Develop / review departmental curriculum 2.15 0.81 0.30 -0.43 352 S 42 Advise a student organization 1.39 0.60 1.34 1.14 351 Note. C = Competency, T = Teaching / Learning, R = Research, S = Service. 1 = Not Important, 4 = Extremely Important.

PAGE 270

253 Appendix I (Continued) Table I-2 Descriptive Statistics for Biological Sciences – Doctoral Student Preparation Scale Item # Item M SD Skewness Kurtosis n C 1 Appreciate the history and purposes of higher education 2.27 0.90 0.26 -0.68 358 C 2 Understand research processes 3.94 0.25 -4.18 17.90 357 C 3 Develop collegiality 3.08 0.71 -0.21 -0.67 357 C 4 Understand and appreciate institutional service and citizenship 2.19 0.77 0.33 -0.14 357 C 5 Understand types of higher educa tion institutions and missions 2.31 0.83 0.30 -0.41 357 C 6 Understand teaching and learning processes 3.00 0.78 -0.22 -0.80 357 C 7 Understand community engagement and service 1.92 0.76 0.52 -0.10 356 C 8 Become active in professional / disciplinary associations 2.61 0.96 -0.11 -0.92 357 C 9 Possess strong communication skills 3.73 0.48 -1.44 0.97 357 C 10 Model ethics and integrity 3.67 0.55 -1.56 2.07 356 C 11 Possess a motivation for lifelong learning 3.52 0.67 -1.45 2.41 354 C 12 Cultivate professional networks 2.95 0.74 -0.22 -0.44 356 C 13 Possess teamwork and collaboration skills 3.06 0.74 -0.31 -0.53 355 C 14 Participate in profession al development opportunities 2.50 0.81 0.16 -0.48 355 C 15 Appreciate student, faculty and disciplinary diversity 2.69 0.83 -0.14 -0.56 356 C 16 Possess a critical knowledge of the discipline 3.84 0.39 -2.32 4.63 356 C 17 Understand one's professional i dentity as professor and scholar 2.75 0.85 -0.28 -0.49 350 C 18 Nurture professional passion while maintaining balance in life 2.99 0.87 -0.40 -0.72 355 T 19 Prepare new courses 1.62 0.82 1.22 0.77 354 T 20 Encourage active learning in the classroom 2.23 0.86 0.15 -0.72 354 R 21 Write articles for publication 3.81 0.49 -2.81 8.75 354

PAGE 271

254 Appendix I (Continued) Table I-2 (Continued) Scale Item # Item M SD Skewness Kurtosis n R 22 Design and implement scholarly projects in the discipline 3.45 0.81 -1.39 1.10 351 S 23 Engage in strategic planning at one or more institutional levels 1.23 0.55 2.78 8.33 350 R 24 Participate in interdisciplinary research projects 2.24 0.81 0.25 -0.39 351 T 25 Integrate technology in teaching 1.91 0.83 0.46 -0.70 352 T 26 Serve on thesis or dissertation commi ttees (if in a graduate institution) 1.37 0.74 1.94 2.85 347 R 27 Write grants or other proposals 3.22 0.77 -0.67 -0.18 353 R 28 Oversee grant management (e.g., budget, personnel) 1.84 0.85 0.79 -0.04 353 S 29 Provide professional services to government, businesses, and community groups 1.39 0.64 1.68 2.69 352 T 30 Provide online instruction 1.22 0.49 2.44 6.87 347 S 31 Engage in department or institution committee work 1.52 0.66 1.16 1.13 351 T 32 Mentor / advise undergraduate students 2.26 0.87 0.23 -0.65 350 T 33 Mentor / advise graduate students (if in a graduate institution) 1.95 0.96 0.62 -.071 345 S 34 Provide input on hiring decisions 1.72 0.82 1.03 0.56 349 S 35 Assist with fundraising activities for the program or institution 1.20 0.48 2.80 10.03 348 T 36 Assess student learning 2.18 0.87 0.28 -0.63 347 R 37 Make conference presentations in the discipline 3.67 0.58 -1.76 2.93 350 R 38 Serve as a reviewer of articles, books, and conference proposals 2.33 0.92 0.29 -0.71 350 S 39 Participate in university governance 1.28 0.52 1.76 2.99 349 R 40 Read and analyze literature 3.92 0.29 -3.40 11.14 350 S 41 Develop / review departmental curriculum 1.33 0.55 1.43 1.11 348 S 42 Advise a student organization 1.15 0.41 2.68 6.85 346 Note. C = Competency, T = Teaching / Learning, R = Research, S = Service. 1 = Not Important, 4 = Extremely Important.

PAGE 272

255 Appendix I (Continued) Table I-3 Descriptive Statistics for English – Importance to Faculty Scale Item # Item M SD Skewness Kurtosis n C 1 Appreciate the history and purposes of higher education 2.64 0.86 0.02 -0.72 241 C 2 Understand research processes 3.87 0.35 -2.47 5.12 242 C 3 Develop collegiality 3.29 0.69 -0.52 -0.51 242 C 4 Understand and appreciate institutional service and citizenship 2.90 0.70 -0.15 -0.28 242 C 5 Understand types of higher educa tion institutions and missions 2.55 0.83 0.15 -0.57 242 C 6 Understand teaching and learning processes 3.62 0.57 -1.20 0.45 242 C 7 Understand community engagement and service 2.14 0.79 0.25 -0.43 242 C 8 Become active in professional / disciplinary associations 3.15 0.79 -0.63 -0.11 242 C 9 Possess strong communication skills 3.79 0.45 -1.97 3.12 242 C 10 Model ethics and integrity 3.50 0.63 -0.98 0.37 240 C 11 Possess a motivation for lifelong learning 3.39 0.76 -1.13 0.84 242 C 12 Cultivate professional networks 3.24 0.70 -0.37 -0.93 241 C 13 Possess teamwork and collaboration skills 2.76 0.73 0.02 -0.48 241 C 14 Participate in profession al development opportunities 2.90 0.82 -0.24 -0.65 241 C 15 Appreciate student, faculty and disciplinary diversity 3.05 0.77 -0.42 -0.32 241 C 16 Possess a critical knowledge of the discipline 3.78 0.50 -2.32 4.55 241 C 17 Understand one's professional i dentity as professor and scholar 3.22 0.78 -0.78 0.15 239 C 18 Nurture professional passion while maintaining balance in life 3.30 0.83 -1.10 0.59 241 T 19 Prepare new courses 3.41 0.76 -1.15 0.65 239 T 20 Encourage active learning in the classroom 3.29 0.75 -0.83 0.26 238 R 21 Write articles for publication 3.87 0.37 -2.93 8.43 239

PAGE 273

256 Appendix I (Continued) Table I-3 (Continued) Scale Item # Item M SD Skewness Kurtosis n R 22 Design and implement scholarly projects in the discipline 3.15 0.91 -0.74 -0.45 238 S 23 Engage in strategic planning at one or more institutional levels 1.74 0.75 0.71 -0.06 237 R 24 Participate in interdisciplinary research projects 2.05 0.71 0.30 -0.03 239 T 25 Integrate technology in teaching 2.24 0.83 0.29 -0.39 239 T 26 Serve on thesis or dissertation commi ttees (if in a graduate institution) 2.62 0.89 -0.12 -0.70 239 R 27 Write grants or other proposals 2.55 0.80 0.12 -0.49 238 R 28 Oversee grant management (e.g., budget, personnel) 1.52 0.69 1.12 0.56 238 S 29 Provide professional services to govt, businesses, and community groups 1.41 0.59 1.28 1.25 238 T 30 Provide online instruction 1.35 0.65 1.89 3.32 237 S 31 Engage in department or institution committee work 2.90 0.78 -0.10 -0.78 238 T 32 Mentor / advise undergraduate students 3.04 0.79 -0.48 -0.27 238 T 33 Mentor / advise graduate students (if in a graduate institution) 2.97 0.80 -0.45 -0.23 237 S 34 Provide input on hiring decisions 2.80 0.84 -0.27 -0.51 235 S 35 Assist with fundraising activities for the program or institution 1.39 0.64 1.41 0.77 237 T 36 Assess student learning 3.08 0.88 -0.68 -0.30 236 R 37 Make conference presentations in the discipline 3.62 0.56 -1.15 0.33 237 R 38 Serve as a reviewer of articles, books, and conference proposals 2.61 0.86 -0.11 -0.62 236 S 39 Participate in university governance 1.93 0.79 0.59 -0.03 236 R 40 Read and analyze literature 3.76 0.56 -2.73 8.19 237 S 41 Develop / review departmental curriculum 2.36 0.77 0.18 -0.30 237 S 42 Advise a student organization 1.43 0.60 1.10 0.18 236 Note. C = Competency, T = Teaching / Learning, R = Research, S = Service. 1 = Not Important, 4 = Extremely Important.

PAGE 274

257 Appendix I (Continued) Table I-4 Descriptive Statistics for English – Doctoral Student Preparation Scale Item # Item M SD Skewness Kurtosis n C 1 Appreciate the history and purposes of higher education 2.53 0.84 0.09 -0.59 241 C 2 Understand research processes 3.88 0.33 -2.75 6.81 242 C 3 Develop collegiality 2.89 0.76 -0.23 -0.38 241 C 4 Understand and appreciate institutional service and citizenship 2.26 0.80 0.30 -0.27 242 C 5 Understand types of higher educa tion institutions and missions 2.59 0.83 0.03 -0.58 242 C 6 Understand teaching and learning processes 3.51 0.67 -1.10 0.38 242 C 7 Understand community engagement and service 1.88 0.77 .053 -0.21 242 C 8 Become active in professional / disciplinary associations 2.77 0.86 -0.25 -0.59 242 C 9 Possess strong communication skills 3.69 0.59 -2.00 3.98 242 C 10 Model ethics and integrity 3.39 0.75 -1.14 0.91 240 C 11 Possess a motivation for lifelong learning 3.31 0.82 -1.03 0.42 242 C 12 Cultivate professional networks 2.78 0.76 0.01 -0.60 241 C 13 Possess teamwork and collaboration skills 2.53 0.82 -0.02 -0.51 241 C 14 Participate in profession al development opportunities 2.73 0.90 -0.10 -0.84 241 C 15 Appreciate student, faculty and disciplinary diversity 2.93 0.85 -0.35 -0.59 241 C 16 Possess a critical knowledge of the discipline 3.68 0.56 -1.58 1.55 241 C 17 Understand one's professional i dentity as professor and scholar 2.91 0.83 -0.28 -0.60 239 C 18 Nurture professional passion while maintaining balance in life 2.98 0.91 -0.60 -0.40 241 T 19 Prepare new courses 2.52 0.95 -0.04 -0.91 239 T 20 Encourage active learning in the classroom 3.10 0.81 -0.68 00.5 238 R 21 Write articles for publication 3.09 0.80 -0.47 -0.48 238

PAGE 275

258 Appendix I (Continued) Table I-4 (Continued) Scale Item # Item M SD Skewness Kurtosis n R 22 Design and implement scholarly projects in the discipline 2.58 10.6 -0.06 -1.21 238 S 23 Engage in strategic planning at one or more institutional levels 1.28 0.53 1.92 3.82 236 R 24 Participate in interdisciplinary research projects 1.79 0.69 0.37 -0.56 239 T 25 Integrate technology in teaching 2.26 0.87 0.30 -0.54 239 T 26 Serve on thesis or dissertation commi ttees (if in a graduate institution) 1.32 0.72 2.31 4.50 227 R 27 Write grants or other proposals 2.03 0.88 0.42 -0.069 236 R 28 Oversee grant management (e.g., budget, personnel) 1.20 0.48 2.68 7.98 235 S 29 Provide professional services to government, businesses, and community groups 1.18 0.46 2.54 5.86 235 T 30 Provide online instruction 1.36 0.66 1.81 2.49 33 S 31 Engage in department or institution committee work 1.84 0.78 0.67 -0.03 235 T 32 Mentor / advise undergraduate students 1.98 0.89 0.52 -0.60 235 T 33 Mentor / advise graduate students (if in a graduate institution) 1.56 0.86 1.39 0.91 227 S 34 Provide input on hiring decisions 1.95 0.83 0.61 -0.11 228 S 35 Assist with fundraising activities for the program or institution 1.19 0.50 2.90 8.59 231 T 36 Assess student learning 2.74 0.99 -0.34 -0.90 232 R 37 Make conference presentations in the discipline 3.21 0.81 -0.51 -0.99 233 R 38 Serve as a reviewer of articles, books, and conference proposals 1.85 0.94 0.79 -0.45 230 S 39 Participate in university governance 1.38 0.61 1.49 1.70 230 R 40 Read and analyze literature 3.76 0.61 -2.99 9.41 234 S 41 Develop / review departmental curriculum 1.61 0.70 0.78 -0.30 232 S 42 Advise a student organization 1.16 0.47 3.16 10.71 231 Note. C = Competency, T = Teaching / Learning, R = Research, S = Service. 1 = Not Important, 4 = Extremely Important.

PAGE 276

259 Appendix I (Continued) Table I-5 Descriptive Statistics for Mathematics – Importance to Faculty Scale Item # Item M SD Skewness Kurtosis n C 1 Appreciate the history and purposes of higher education 2.36 0.94 0.20 -0.84 208 C 2 Understand research processes 3.77 0.44 -1.62 1.50 209 C 3 Develop collegiality 3.07 0.71 -0.60 0.65 209 C 4 Understand and appreciate institutional service and citizenship 2.57 0.76 -0.10 -0.30 209 C 5 Understand types of higher educa tion institutions and missions 2.35 0.80 0.13 -0.43 208 C 6 Understand teaching and learning processes 3.33 0.63 -0.40 -0.67 208 C 7 Understand community engagement and service 1.91 0.73 0.52 0.10 208 C 8 Become active in professional / disciplinary associations 2.51 0.87 -0.01 -0.67 208 C 9 Possess strong communication skills 3.40 0.61 -0.50 -0.63 209 C 10 Model ethics and integrity 3.40 0.66 -0.97 1.11 208 C 11 Possess a motivation for lifelong learning 3.40 0.70 -0.92 0.23 208 C 12 Cultivate professional networks 3.02 0.75 -0.18 -0.84 207 C 13 Possess teamwork and collaboration skills 2.75 0.81 0.00 -0.68 208 C 14 Participate in profession al development opportunities 2.50 0.84 0.00 -0.56 206 C 15 Appreciate student, faculty and disciplinary diversity 2.41 0.85 0.11 -0.59 207 C 16 Possess a critical knowledge of the discipline 3.67 0.56 -1.45 1.14 206 C 17 Understand one's professional i dentity as professor and scholar 2.88 0.86 -0.47 -0.36 204 C 18 Nurture professional passion while maintaining balance in life 3.03 0.86 -0.57 -0.38 206 T 19 Prepare new courses 2.27 0.96 0.20 -0.95 206 T 20 Encourage active learning in the classroom 2.74 0.84 -0.18 -0.58 206 R 21 Write articles for publication 3.89 0.34 -3.29 10.99 206

PAGE 277

260 Appendix I (Continued) Table I-5 (Continued) Scale Item # Item M SD Skewness Kurtosis n R 22 Design and implement scholarly projects in the discipline 2.94 1.01 -0.53 -0.86 204 S 23 Engage in strategic planning at one or more institutional levels 1.56 0.73 0.97 -0.18 203 R 24 Participate in interdisciplinary research projects 2.21 0.79 0.15 -0.49 206 T 25 Integrate technology in teaching 1.84 0.79 0.59 -0.30 206 T 26 Serve on thesis or dissertation commi ttees (if in a graduate institution) 2.26 0.84 0.13 -0.62 206 R 27 Write grants or other proposals 3.32 0.77 -0.89 0.10 207 R 28 Oversee grant management (e.g., budget, personnel) 1.90 0.89 0.71 -0.30 205 S 29 Provide professional services to government, businesses, and community groups 1.62 0.69 0.76 -0.21 204 T 30 Provide online instruction 1.26 0.50 1.76 2.26 205 S 31 Engage in department or institution committee work 2.28 0.83 0.10 -0.60 206 T 32 Mentor / advise undergraduate students 2.45 0.78 0.02 -0.39 206 T 33 Mentor / advise graduate students (if in a graduate institution) 2.64 0.86 -0.07 -0.65 206 S 34 Provide input on hiring decisions 2.35 0.89 0.16 -0.70 206 S 35 Assist with fundraising activities for the program or institution 1.47 0.67 1.29 1.23 205 T 36 Assess student learning 2.83 0.87 -0.45 -0.37 204 R 37 Make conference presentations in the discipline 3.56 0.67 -1.54 2.24 206 R 38 Serve as a reviewer of articles, books, and conference proposals 2.69 0.88 -0.26 -0.61 206 S 39 Participate in university governance 1.62 0.71 0.94 0.53 206 R 40 Read and analyze literature 3.47 0.67 -1.10 0.84 205 S 41 Develop / review departmental curriculum 2.05 0.81 0.29 -0.59 206 S 42 Advise a student organization 1.41 0.62 1.34 1.30 205 Note. C = Competency, T = Teaching / Learning, R = Research, S = Service. 1 = Not Important, 4 = Extremely Important.

PAGE 278

261 Appendix I (Continued) Table I-6 Descriptive Statistics for Mathematics – Doctoral Student Preparation Scale Item # Item M SD Skewness Kurtosis n C 1 Appreciate the history and purposes of higher education 2.14 0.89 0.30 -0.75 208 C 2 Understand research processes 3.73 0.48 -1.42 0.93 209 C 3 Develop collegiality 2.69 0.83 -0.23 -0.46 209 C 4 Understand and appreciate institutional service and citizenship 1.99 0.78 0.45 -0.21 209 C 5 Understand types of higher educa tion institutions and missions 2.22 0.90 0.41 -0.54 208 C 6 Understand teaching and learning processes 3.07 0.73 -0.33 -0.36 208 C 7 Understand community engagement and service 1.59 0.65 0.63 -0.58 208 C 8 Become active in professional / disciplinary associations 2.10 0.82 0.41 -0.29 208 C 9 Possess strong communication skills 3.29 0.67 -0.51 -.031 207 C 10 Model ethics and integrity 3.31 0.72 -0.85 0.55 208 C 11 Possess a motivation for lifelong learning 3.31 0.81 -1.06 0.57 207 C 12 Cultivate professional networks 2.58 0.84 -0.01 -0.60 207 C 13 Possess teamwork and collaboration skills 2.46 0.83 0.10 -0.51 208 C 14 Participate in profession al development opportunities 2.24 0.91 0.21 -0.78 205 C 15 Appreciate student, faculty and disciplinary diversity 2.22 0.85 0.14 -0.70 206 C 16 Possess a critical knowledge of the discipline 3.52 0.69 -1.21 0.49 205 C 17 Understand one's professional i dentity as professor and scholar 2.42 0.89 -0.01 -0.76 203 C 18 Nurture professional passion while maintaining balance in life 2.72 0.93 -0.21 -0.83 205 T 19 Prepare new courses 1.46 0.74 1.49 1.25 206 T 20 Encourage active learning in the classroom 2.42 0.93 0.20 -0.79 206 R 21 Write articles for publication 3.26 0.84 -0.91 0.06 206

PAGE 279

262 Appendix I (Continued) Table I-6 (Continued) Scale Item # Item M SD Skewness Kurtosis n R 22 Design and implement scholarly projects in the discipline 2.39 1.08 0.07 -1.27 204 S 23 Engage in strategic planning at one or more institutional levels 1.17 0.46 2.81 7.27 203 R 24 Participate in interdisciplinary research projects 1.89 0.82 0.52 -0.51 206 T 25 Integrate technology in teaching 1.68 0.76 0.81 -0.09 206 T 26 Serve on thesis or dissertation commi ttees (if in a graduate institution) 1.25 0.59 2.36 4.78 202 R 27 Write grants or other proposals 2.01 0.98 0.60 -0.70 206 R 28 Oversee grant management (e.g., budget, personnel) 1.22 0.54 2.77 8.27 203 S 29 Provide professional services to government, businesses, and community groups 1.28 0.52 1.72 2.12 202 T 30 Provide online instruction 1.15 0.40 2.70 6.99 203 S 31 Engage in department or institution committee work 1.25 0.53 2.00 3.14 205 T 32 Mentor / advise undergraduate students 1.58 0.75 1.16 0.75 205 T 33 Mentor / advise graduate students (if in a graduate institution) 1.45 0.78 1.76 2.33 203 S 34 Provide input on hiring decisions 1.31 0.64 2.19 4.64 201 S 35 Assist with fundraising activities for the program or institution 1.14 0.41 3.53 15.13 201 T 36 Assess student learning 2.40 0.94 -0.05 -0.93 201 R 37 Make conference presentations in the discipline 3.10 0.82 -0.57 -0.37 202 R 38 Serve as a reviewer of articles, books, and conference proposals 1.71 0.83 0.95 0.09 201 S 39 Participate in university governance 1.19 0.47 2.71 8.62 201 R 40 Read and analyze literature 0.70 -1.28 1.57 201 S 41 Develop / review departmental curriculum 3.46 0.58 1.92 3.39 201 S 42 Advise a student organization 1.30 0.40 2.59 6.32 199 Note. C = Competency, T = Teaching / Learning, R = Research, S = Service. 1 = Not Important, 4 = Extremely Important.

PAGE 280

263 Appendix I (Continued) Table I-7 Descriptive Statistics for Psychology – Importance to Faculty Scale Item # Item M SD Skewness Kurtosis n C 1 Appreciate the history and purposes of higher education 2.19 0.78 0.14 -0.50 158 C 2 Understand research processes 3.97 0.18 -5.40 27.53 158 C 3 Develop collegiality 3.30 0.62 -0.29 -0.63 158 C 4 Understand and appreciate institutional service and citizenship 2.58 0.68 0.03 -0.21 158 C 5 Understand types of higher educa tion institutions and missions 2.08 0.77 0.61 0.36 158 C 6 Understand teaching and learning processes 3.40 0.68 -0.81 0.06 158 C 7 Understand community engagement and service 1.93 0.65 0.35 0.41 158 C 8 Become active in professional / disciplinary associations 2.84 0.90 -0.25 -0.81 158 C 9 Possess strong communication skills 3.71 0.48 -1.26 0.38 157 C 10 Model ethics and integrity 3.72 0.54 -2.06 4.69 153 C 11 Possess a motivation for lifelong learning 3.39 0.73 -0.95 0.29 153 C 12 Cultivate professional networks 3.24 0.70 -0.37 -0.90 153 C 13 Possess teamwork and collaboration skills 3.09 0.70 -0.24 -.053 152 C 14 Participate in profession al development opportunities 2.63 0.75 -.20 -0.22 152 C 15 Appreciate student, faculty and disciplinary diversity 2.74 0.87 -0.29 -0.53 152 C 16 Possess a critical knowledge of the discipline 3.89 0.33 -3.15 9.85 152 C 17 Understand one's professional i dentity as professor and scholar 2.99 0.85 -0.51 -0.38 151 C 18 Nurture professional passion while maintaining balance in life 3.19 0.79 -0.68 -0.11 151 T 19 Prepare new courses 3.45 0.76 -1.43 1.83 148 T 20 Encourage active learning in the classroom 2.90 0.78 -0.18 -0.58 147 R 21 Write articles for publication 3.97 0.18 -5.21 25.53 148

PAGE 281

264 Appendix I (Continued) Table I-7 (Continued) Scale Item # Item M SD Skewness Kurtosis n R 22 Design and implement scholarly projects in the discipline 3.86 0.42 -3.64 16.57 147 S 23 Engage in strategic planning at one or more institutional levels 1.51 0.68 1.11 0.56 147 R 24 Participate in interdisciplinary research projects 2.26 0.84 0.25 -0.46 148 T 25 Integrate technology in teaching 2.26 0.84 0.16 -0.60 148 T 26 Serve on thesis or dissertation commi ttees (if in a graduate institution) 3.09 0.78 -0.52 -0.21 148 R 27 Write grants or other proposals 3.59 0.70 -1.68 2.18 148 R 28 Oversee grant management (e.g., budget, personnel) 2.63 0.95 -0.15 -0.89 147 S 29 Provide professional services to government, businesses, and community groups 1.59 0.64 0.76 0.35 148 T 30 Provide online instruction 1.22 0.53 2.69 7.58 147 S 31 Engage in department or institution committee work 2.47 0.81 0.11 -0.45 148 T 32 Mentor / advise undergraduate students 2.96 0.78 -0.38 -0.24 147 T 33 Mentor / advise graduate students (if in a graduate institution) 3.58 0.62 -1.37 1.63 148 S 34 Provide input on hiring decisions 2.66 0.89 -0.27 -0.62 148 S 35 Assist with fundraising activities for the program or institution 1.39 0.61 1.53 2.11 148 T 36 Assess student learning 3.01 0.85 -0.56 -0.25 148 R 37 Make conference presentations in the discipline 3.70 0.53 -1.53 1.47 148 R 38 Serve as a reviewer of articles, books, and conference proposals 3.01 0.80 -0.41 -0.42 148 S 39 Participate in university governance 1.59 0.74 1.01 0.33 148 R 40 Read and analyze literature 3.82 0.38 -1.72 0.98 148 S 41 Develop / review departmental curriculum 2.05 0.83 0.42 -0.39 148 S 42 Advise a student organization 1.34 0.54 1.33 0.83 148 Note. C = Competency, T = Teaching / Learning, R = Research, S = Service. 1 = Not Important, 4 = Extremely Important.

PAGE 282

265 Appendix I (Continued) Table I-8 Descriptive Statistics for Psychology – Doctoral Student Preparation Scale Item # Item M SD Skewness Kurtosis n C 1 Appreciate the history and purposes of higher education 2.03 0.77 0.39 -0.22 156 C 2 Understand research processes 3.98 0.14 -7.07 48.60 156 C 3 Develop collegiality 3.01 0.74 -0.41 -0.02 156 C 4 Understand and appreciate institutional service and citizenship 2.13 0.73 -0.11 -0.88 156 C 5 Understand types of higher educa tion institutions and missions 2.10 0.84 0.46 -0.31 156 C 6 Understand teaching and learning processes 3.19 0.73 -0.51 -0.26 156 C 7 Understand community engagement and service 1.71 0.67 0.68 0.46 156 C 8 Become active in professional / disciplinary associations 2.67 0.91 -0.17 -0.79 156 C 9 Possess strong communication skills 3.65 0.53 -1.18 0.37 156 C 10 Model ethics and integrity 3.69 0.68 -2.45 5.82 149 C 11 Possess a motivation for lifelong learning 3.39 0.75 -1.06 0.59 148 C 12 Cultivate professional networks 2.86 0.77 -0.31 -0.18 148 C 13 Possess teamwork and collaboration skills 3.04 0.74 -0.17 -0.83 148 C 14 Participate in profession al development opportunities 2.59 0.91 0.13 -0.87 148 C 15 Appreciate student, faculty and disciplinary diversity 2.66 0.86 -0.13 -.062 148 C 16 Possess a critical knowledge of the discipline 3.86 0.34 -2.16 2.69 148 C 17 Understand one's professional i dentity as professor and scholar 2.72 0.82 -0.26 -0.40 148 C 18 Nurture professional passion while maintaining balance in life 2.90 0.91 -0.31 -0.86 147 T 19 Prepare new courses 2.31 0.92 0.18 -0.79 144 T 20 Encourage active learning in the classroom 2.46 0.88 0.02 -0.68 143 R 21 Write articles for publication 3.90 0.31 -2.62 4.93 144

PAGE 283

266 Appendix I (Continued) Table I-8 (Continued) Scale Item # Item M SD Skewness Kurtosis n R 22 Design and implement scholarly projects in the discipline 3.73 0.59 -2.32 4.93 143 S 23 Engage in strategic planning at one or more institutional levels 1.17 0.42 2.31 4.76 143 R 24 Participate in interdisciplinary research projects 2.08 0.88 0.46 -0.49 144 T 25 Integrate technology in teaching 2.06 0.83 0.26 -0.76 144 T 26 Serve on thesis or dissertation commi ttees (if in a graduate institution) 1.55 0.87 1.41 0.89 139 R 27 Write grants or other proposals 2.99 0.89 -0.28 -1.04 144 R 28 Oversee grant management (e.g., budget, personnel) 1.68 0.82 0.98 0.09 142 S 29 Provide professional services to government, businesses, and community groups 1.27 0.50 1.72 2.16 143 T 30 Provide online instruction 1.14 0.42 3.17 9.74 144 S 31 Engage in department or institution committee work 1.58 0.61 0.55 -0.60 144 T 32 Mentor / advise undergraduate students 2.24 0.92 0.21 -0.82 143 T 33 Mentor / advise graduate students (if in a graduate institution) 2.01 1.07 0.57 -1.03 143 S 34 Provide input on hiring decisions 1.75 0.73 0.75 0.32 144 S 35 Assist with fundraising activities for the program or institution 1.13 0.34 2.20 2.87 144 T 36 Assess student learning 2.47 0.98 -0.01 -1.00 144 R 37 Make conference presentations in the discipline 3.65 0.54 -1.29 0.71 144 R 38 Serve as a reviewer of articles, books, and conference proposals 2.40 0.84 0.35 -0.42 144 S 39 Participate in university governance 1.19 0.43 20.8 3.60 144 R 40 Read and analyze literature 3.85 0.39 -2.71 7.08 144 S 41 Develop / review departmental curriculum 1.32 0.58 1.85 3.53 143 S 42 Advise a student organization 1.09 0.31 3.54 12.96 142 Note. C = Competency, T = Teaching / Learning, R = Research, S = Service. 1 = Not Important, 4 = Extremely Important.

PAGE 284

267 Appendix J Tables by Discipline Table J-1 Percentage of Responses to Each Item by Discipline – Importance to Faculty Not Important Somewhat Important Important Extremely Important Item # B E M P B E M P B E M P B E M P 1 14.5 7.9 19.2 19.0 38.5 37.8 38.9 46.8 37.7 36.9 28.4 30.4 9.2 17.4 13.5 3.8 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 1.0 0.0 7.5 12.4 21.1 3.2 92.2 87.2 78.0 96.8 3 0.3 0.4 2.9 0.0 9.8 12.4 12.9 8.2 47.5 45.5 58.4 53.2 42.5 41.7 25.8 38.6 4 2.8 1.7 7.2 3.8 35.8 25.2 37.8 41.8 47.2 55.0 45.9 47.5 14.2 18.2 9.1 7.0 5 12.3 7.9 13.5 20.3 48.0 43.0 45.2 57.0 31.0 35.5 34.1 17.1 8.7 13.6 7.2 5.7 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 7.8 4.5 8.7 8.9 43.0 29.3 49.5 40.5 49.2 66.1 41.8 50.0 7 16.0 21.1 29.3 23.4 54.1 47.9 52.9 61.4 26.6 26.9 15.4 13.9 3.4 4.1 2.4 1.3 8 6.1 2.9 12.5 7.0 25.9 15.7 37.0 29.1 42.3 45.0 37.5 37.3 25.6 36.4 13.0 26.6 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.7 6.7 1.3 18.2 17.8 46.4 26.8 81.0 80.6 46.9 72.0 10 0.3 0.4 1.4 0.7 4.2 6.3 5.3 2.6 25.0 36.7 44.7 20.9 70.5 56.7 48.6 75.8 11 2.3 2.5 1.0 1.3 5.1 9.1 9.6 10.5 29.4 35.5 37.5 36.6 63.3 52.9 51.9 51.6 12 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 8.1 15.4 24.2 15.0 46.1 45.2 46.4 45.8 45.5 39.4 28.5 39.2 13 0.6 2.5 4.3 0.7 14.6 34.0 35.6 18.4 48.5 48.5 41.3 52.6 36.3 14.9 18.8 28.3 14 5.1 3.7 11.2 6.6 37.7 27.4 38.8 34.2 42.0 43.6 38.8 49.3 15.2 25.3 11.2 9.9 15 4.2 2.5 14.0 8.6 27.8 19.5 41.5 27.6 44.9 48.5 34.3 44.7 23.0 29.5 10.1 19.1 16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 4.1 4.4 0.7 9.0 13.3 24.8 9.2 90.4 82.6 70.9 90.1 17 5.4 2.9 7.4 5.3 13.7 13.0 21.6 20.5 46.9 43.1 46.6 43.7 34.0 41.0 24.5 30.5 18 3.4 4.6 5.3 2.6 13.6 10.4 19.4 15.2 39.3 35.3 41.7 43.0 43.8 49.8 33.5 39.1 19 7.3 2.1 25.2 3.4 18.3 10.5 34.0 6.1 37.1 31.4 29.6 33.1 37.4 56.1 11.2 57.4 20 3.4 2.1 6.8 2.7 22.5 11.3 31.1 27.2 48.3 42.4 43.2 46.9 25.8 44.1 18.9 23.1

PAGE 285

268 Appendix J (Continued) Table J-1 (Continued) Not Important Somewhat Important Important Extremely Important Item # B E M P B E M P B E M P B E M P 21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.3 1.0 0.0 5.3 10.5 8.7 3.4 94.4 88.3 90.3 96.6 22 1.1 5.5 10.8 0.7 2.3 18.5 21.1 0.7 17.3 31.5 31.4 10.9 79.3 44.5 36.8 87.8 23 39.9 42.6 57.6 58.5 40.7 42.6 29.1 32.7 17.1 13.1 12.8 8.2 2.3 1.7 0.5 0.7 24 10.2 20.5 18.4 17.6 40.9 56.5 46.6 45.9 38.6 20.9 30.6 29.1 10.2 2.1 4.4 7.4 25 15.5 17.6 37.4 18.9 42.1 47.7 43.2 42.6 35.0 27.6 17.0 31.8 7.3 7.1 2.4 6.8 26 2.3 10.9 18.9 2.7 16.7 33.1 42.2 17.6 52.7 39.7 32.5 47.3 28.3 16.3 6.3 32.4 27 0.3 7.6 1.9 1.4 1.1 42.4 12.6 8.1 6.8 37.8 36.7 20.3 91.8 12.2 48.8 70.3 28 2.8 58.4 39.0 13.6 15.8 31.9 38.0 29.9 40.0 8.8 17.1 36.7 41.4 0.8 5.9 19.7 29 34.2 64.3 49.5 48.0 46.6 31.1 39.7 45.3 16.7 4.2 10.3 6.1 2.5 0.4 0.5 0.7 30 67.3 72.6 76.6 83.0 27.6 20.7 20.5 12.9 4.3 5.5 2.9 3.4 0.9 1.3 0.0 0.7 31 7.9 2.1 18.0 10.1 43.8 29.4 42.2 43.2 35.9 44.5 33.5 36.5 12.4 23.9 6.3 10.1 32 3.1 3.4 10.2 3.4 18.4 19.3 42.7 21.8 51.1 47.5 39.3 50.3 27.4 29.8 7.8 24.5 33 0.3 4.2 8.7 0.7 2.8 20.7 35.0 4.7 24.6 48.9 39.8 30.4 72.2 26.2 16.5 64.2 34 3.7 6.4 17.5 11.5 24.1 27.7 40.3 27.7 46.7 45.1 31.6 43.9 25.5 20.9 10.7 16.9 35 51.7 69.6 61.5 67.6 33.0 21.9 30.7 27.0 12.8 8.4 6.8 4.7 2.6 0.0 1.0 0.7 36 4.8 5.9 8.3 5.4 22.8 17.4 22.1 18.9 46.4 39.8 47.5 45.3 25.9 36.9 22.1 30.4 37 0.3 0.0 1.5 0.0 2.3 3.8 5.3 3.4 16.7 30.4 28.6 23.6 80.8 65.8 64.6 73.0 38 1.1 10.2 10.2 3.4 14.4 33.9 28.2 21.6 45.8 41.1 43.7 45.9 38.7 14.8 18.0 29.1 39 48.9 31.4 49.5 54.1 35.2 48.3 40.3 33.8 13.9 16.5 8.7 10.8 2.0 3.8 1.5 1.4 40 0.0 1.3 1.0 0.0 0.9 2.5 6.8 0.0 10.5 14.8 36.1 17.6 88.6 81.4 56.1 82.4 41 21.6 11.4 26.7 27.0 47.2 48.1 44.7 45.9 26.1 33.8 25.2 22.3 5.1 6.8 3.4 4.7 42 66.4 63.1 64.9 69.6 28.2 30.9 29.3 27.0 5.1 5.9 5.4 3.4 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.0 Note. B = Biological Sciences, E = Englis h, M = Mathematics, P = Psychology

PAGE 286

269 Appendix J (Continued) Table J-2 Percentage of Responses to Each Item by Discipline – Doctoral Student Preparation Not Important Somewhat Important Important Extremely Important Item # B E M P B E M P B E M P B E M P 1 20.7 9.5 26.9 25.0 41.6 41.1 38.9 50.6 28.2 36.1 27.4 21.2 9.5 13.3 6.7 3.2 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 1.4 0.0 5.6 10.7 24.4 1.9 94.1 88.8 74.2 98.1 3 0.6 2.9 8.1 2.6 19.6 25.7 30.1 18.6 51.3 50.6 45.9 53.8 28.6 20.7 15.8 25.0 4 16.5 15.3 27.8 19.9 52.7 50.0 49.3 47.4 25.8 28.1 19.6 21.8 5.0 6.6 3.3 6.4 5 14.8 8.3 21.6 24.4 47.9 38.8 45.2 47.4 28.3 38.8 23.1 21.8 9.0 14.0 10.1 6.4 6 1.7 0.4 1.4 1.3 25.2 8.3 18.8 14.7 44.3 31.4 51.4 48.1 28.9 59.9 28.4 35.9 7 30.9 33.5 49.5 39.7 49.4 47.1 40.8 50.6 16.9 16.9 8.7 8.3 2.8 2.5 0.0 1.3 8 13.7 7.4 23.6 10.3 31.4 28.5 48.6 32.1 35.0 43.4 22.6 37.8 19.9 20.7 5.3 19.9 9 0.0 0.8 0.5 0.0 1.4 4.1 10.6 2.6 24.1 20.2 48.3 29.5 74.5 74.8 40.6 67.9 10 0.3 2.5 1.9 2.7 3.1 8.8 9.1 4.0 25.6 35.8 45.2 14.8 71.1 52.9 43.8 78.5 11 2.0 3.7 3.9 2.0 3.7 11.6 10.6 10.1 35.0 35.1 36.2 35.1 59.3 49.6 49.3 52.7 12 2.0 2.9 9.2 4.1 23.9 34.0 37.7 25.0 51.1 45.6 39.1 52.0 23.0 17.4 14.0 18.9 13 1.4 10.0 11.1 0.7 20.3 38.6 42.3 23.0 49.0 40.2 36.1 48.0 29.3 11.2 10.6 28.4 14 8.7 7.9 22.9 9.5 44.2 33.6 38.5 41.2 35.5 36.1 29.8 29.7 11.5 22.4 8.8 19.6 15 7.3 5.0 21.4 8.8 32.9 24.9 40.8 33.1 43.3 42.7 32.0 41.2 16.6 27.4 5.8 16.9 16 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.8 4.6 9.8 0.0 14.0 22.4 26.8 13.5 85.1 73.0 62.9 86.5 17 7.7 4.2 16.7 7.4 28.0 26.4 35.5 29.1 45.7 43.9 36.9 47.3 18.6 25.5 10.8 16.2 18 4.5 7.9 10.7 6.1 24.5 18.3 29.3 27.9 38.6 41.9 37.6 35.4 32.4 32.0 22.4 30.6 19 56.2 15.9 68.0 20.8 29.7 32.6 19.9 38.2 10.5 34.7 10.7 30.6 3.7 16.7 1.5 10.4 20 21.8 4.2 16.0 14.0 40.1 15.1 40.8 37.8 31.6 47.1 28.6 36.4 6.5 33.6 14.6 11.9 21 0.6 2.5 3.9 0.0 2.3 19.7 14.1 0.0 13.3 43.7 34.5 10.4 83.9 34.0 47.6 89.6

PAGE 287

270 Appendix J (Continued) Table J-2 (Continued) Not Important Somewhat Important Important Extremely Important Item # B E M P B E M P B E M P B E M P 22 3.4 18.9 27.5 0.7 10.3 29.0 24.5 5.6 23.9 27.7 29.9 13.3 62.4 24.4 18.1 80.4 23 82.6 75.4 86.7 83.9 13.4 21.6 9.9 14.7 2.9 2.5 3.4 1.4 1.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 24 17.1 35.6 36.4 27.8 47.9 49.8 40.8 43.1 28.8 14.2 19.9 22.2 6.3 0.4 2.9 6.9 25 36.4 19.2 48.1 28.5 38.6 44.8 37.4 41.0 22.2 27.2 13.1 27.1 2.8 8.8 1.5 3.5 26 76.9 80.6 82.2 65.5 11.5 9.7 10.9 18.0 9.5 7.0 6.4 12.2 2.0 2.6 0.5 4.3 27 2.0 31.8 37.4 3.5 14.7 38.6 33.5 29.2 42.5 24.2 19.4 32.6 40.8 5.5 9.7 34.7 28 40.2 83.4 82.8 52.1 40.2 14.0 13.3 31.0 14.7 2.1 3.0 14.1 4.8 0.4 1.0 2.8 29 68.5 84.7 75.7 76.2 25.6 12.3 20.8 21.0 4.8 3.0 3.5 2.8 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 30 80.4 73.8 86.7 88.9 17.3 17.6 11.8 8.3 1.7 7.7 1.5 2.8 0.6 0.9 0.0 0.0 31 56.7 37.0 79.0 48.6 36.2 45.1 16.6 45.1 6.0 14.9 4.4 6.3 1.1 3.0 0.0 0.0 32 20.3 34.9 56.1 23.8 42.0 37.9 32.2 37.1 29.4 21.7 9.8 30.1 8.3 5.5 2.0 9.1 33 40.9 63.9 70.0 44.1 30.7 20.3 18.7 22.4 20.6 11.5 7.9 21.7 7.8 4.4 3.4 11.9 34 46.7 31.6 76.6 40.3 38.7 46.5 16.9 46.5 10.3 17.1 5.0 11.1 4.3 4.8 15. 2.1 35 81.9 85.7 88.1 86.8 16.7 10.4 10.4 13.2 0.6 3.5 1.0 0.0 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.0 36 23.1 14.2 20.4 19.4 42.4 22.8 30.3 30.6 27.7 37.9 37.8 34.0 6.9 25.0 11.4 16.0 37 0.6 0.9 3.5 0.0 4.0 21.5 18.8 3.5 23.1 33.0 42.1 27.8 72.3 44.6 35.6 68.8 38 18.6 46.1 49.8 11.1 42.9 29.6 32.8 49.3 26.0 17.8 13.9 27.8 12.6 6.5 3.5 11.8 39 74.5 68.3 83.1 81.9 22.9 26.1 14.9 16.7 2.3 5.2 1.5 1.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 40 0.0 2.6 2.0 0.0 0.3 1.7 6.0 1.4 7.7 13.2 35.8 11.8 92.0 82.5 56.2 86.8 41 71.0 50.9 75.1 72.7 25.0 37.5 19.9 23.1 4.0 11.2 4.5 3.5 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.7 42 86.4 87.0 85.9 91.5 11.8 10.0 12.6 7.7 1.7 2.6 1.5 0.7 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 Note B = Biological Sciences, E = Englis h, M = Mathematics, P = Psychology

PAGE 288

271 Appendix J (Continued) Table J-3 Mean Difference Scores Between Importance to Facul ty and Doctoral Student Preparation by Discipline Scale Item Biological Sciences English Mathematics Psychology Rank Mean Diff SD Rank Mean Diff SD Rank Mean Diff SD Rank Mean Diff SD T Mentor / advise graduate students 1 1.74 1.02 1 1.39 1.01 2 1.20 0. 94 1 1.57 1.08 T Serve on thesis or dissertation committees 2 1.71 0.92 2 1.29 1.04 5 1.00 0.88 2 1.55 1.05 T Prepare new courses 3 1.43 0.99 5 0.89 0.93 8 0.81 0.87 3 1.15 1.07 S Provide input on hiring decisions 5 1.21 0.89 6 0.85 0.83 3 1.05 0.97 5 0.94 0.91 S Engage in department or institution committee work 6 1.01 0.87 3 1.07 0.85 4 1.03 0.85 6 0.91 0.84 R Oversee grant management 4 1.36 0. 93 20 0.33 0.58 10 0. 68 0.84 4 0.94 0.79 T Mentor / advise undergradu ate students 9 0.77 0. 87 4 1.07 0.91 7 0. 87 0.81 8 0.73 0.89 R Serve as a reviewer of articles, books, and proposals 7 0.89 0.88 8 0.77 0.87 6 0.98 0.88 9 0.61 0.82 S Develop / review departmental curriculu m 8 0.82 0.78 9 0.75 0.77 9 0.77 0.74 7 0.73 0.76 R Write grants or other proposals 12 0. 68 0.79 13 0.51 0.80 1 1.31 1.02 10 0.60 0.78 T Assess student learning 10 0.75 0.78 19 0.34 0.65 16 0.45 0.64 11 0.56 0.83 C Understand institutional service and citizenship 14 0.54 0.71 10 0.64 0.72 12 0.58 0.72 12 0.45 0.45 S Engage in strategic planning at one or more levels 13 0.59 0.72 15 0.45 0.68 20 0.39 0.65 17 0.34 0.57

PAGE 289

272 Appendix J (Continued) Table J-3 (Continued) Scale Item Biological Sciences English Mathematics Psychology Rank Mean Diff SD Rank Mean Diff SD Rank Mean Diff SD Rank Mean Diff SD T Encourage active learning in the classr oom 11 0.74 0.82 29 0.18 0. 58 24 0.33 0.67 13 0.45 0.77 S Participate in university governance 19 0.41 0.73 12 0.56 0.78 18 0.44 0.68 14 0.42 0.61 C Cultivate professional networks 18 0. 42 0.71 14 0.46 0.71 17 0.44 0.71 15 0.37 0.57 R Design and implement scholarly projects 22 0.30 0.64 11 0.58 0.83 13 0.55 0.80 29 0.13 0.41 R Write articles for publication 34 0. 14 0.53 7 0.78 0.81 11 0.64 0.82 32 0.07 0.26 S Provide professional services to government, businesses, and community 15 0.49 0.68 27 0.23 0.51 22 0.35 0.55 16 0.34 0.57 C Understand one’s professional identity 21 0.34 0.61 22 0.31 0.56 15 0.46 0.71 22 0.26 0.61 S Assist with fundraising activities 16 0.45 0.71 28 0.20 0.57 23 0.34 0.62 21 0.26 0.55 C Develop collegiality 28 0.24 0.60 17 0.40 0.68 21 0.38 0.70 19 0.19 0.58 C Become active in professional associati ons 23 0.26 0.61 18 0.38 0. 70 19 0.41 0.67 28 0.15 0.53 C Nurture professional passion / maintain balance 26 0.25 0.60 21 0.32 0.59 25 0.32 0.65 18 0.30 0.62 C Understand teaching and learning processes 20 0.41 0.63 33 0.11 0.48 29 0.26 0.61 25 0.22 0.57 C Understand community engagement and service 24 0.26 0.73 24 0.26 0.60 26 0.32 0.65 24 0.22 0.49 S Advise a student organization 27 0. 25 0.55 23 0.27 0.59 30 0.26 0.53 20 0.26 0.55 R Participate in interdisciplinary research projects 25 0.25 0.63 25 0.25 0.57 27 0.32 0.58 26 0.19 0.58

PAGE 290

273 Appendix J (Continued) Table J-3 (Continued) Scale Item Biological Sciences English Mathematics Psychology Rank Mean Diff SD Rank Mean Diff SD Rank Mean Diff SD Rank Mean Diff SD R Make conference presentations in the discipline 35 0.11 0.51 16 0.40 0.68 14 0.48 0.72 33 0.05 0.40 T Integrate technology in teaching 17 0. 43 0.70 40 -0.01 0.55 34 0.17 0.52 23 0.23 0.58 C Possess teamwork and collaboration skills 33 0.14 0.53 26 0.23 0.52 28 0.28 0.60 35 0.03 0.31 C Participate in professional development opportunities 30 0.17 0.70 30 0.17 0.67 31 0.25 0.72 38 0.02 0.74 C Appreciate the history and purposes of higher education 32 0.15 0.61 32 0.11 0.65 32 0.22 0.66 27 0.03 0.31 C Appreciate student, faculty, and disciplinary diversity 29 0.18 0.51 31 0.12 0.38 33 0.18 0.53 30 0.08 0.39 T Provide online instruction 31 0.16 0.44 38 0.00 0.39 38 0. 12 0.39 31 0.08 0.44 C Possess a critical knowledge of the discipline 37 0.06 0.34 35 0.10 0.40 37 0.15 0.46 34 0.05 0.40 C Possess strong communication skills 36 0. 07 0.34 36 0.10 0.36 37 0.12 0.49 37 0.05 0.37 C Possess a motivation for lifelong learning 39 0.02 0.51 37 0.08 0.58 39 0.11 0.51 39 0.00 0.55 C Model ethics and integrity 40 -0.02 0.38 34 0.10 0.52 40 0. 10 0.44 36 0.03 0.36 C Understand types of institutions and missions 38 0.05 0.81 42 -0.04 0.77 36 0.13 0.83 42 -0.03 0.65 C Understand research processes 41 -0.02 0.29 41 -0.02 0.33 41 0. 04 0.44 40 -0.01 0.20 R Read and analyze literature 42 -0. 04 0.31 39 0.00 0.41 42 0. 03 0.42 41 -0.02 0.32 Note. Items are listed in order from greatest to least mean difference

PAGE 291

274 Appendix J (Continued) Table J-4a Percentage of Responses to First Three Options by Discipline – Who is Responsible Doctoral Student Advisor Student’s Advisory Committee All Faculty in the Department Item # B E M P B E M P B E M P 1 22.2 4.3 10.2 9.7 3.7 1.3 0.0 1.3 37.2 64.8 45.9 56.5 2 67.0 19.8 73.9 64.5 17.7 16.9 4.8 9.0 13.8 59.7 16.9 25.2 3 25.1 7.7 9.7 22.6 5.4 3.8 1.9 4.5 48.3 60.9 62.8 54.2 4 26.6 16.1 13.7 27.3 3.4 4.2 1.5 4.5 38.4 43.2 40.5 40.3 5 20.9 12.2 16.6 24.7 9.4 14.8 2.0 5.8 26.6 29.5 25.4 27.9 6 13.0 1.9 4.4 11.1 7.4 3.0 2.9 8.5 42.5 72.5 48.1 61.4 7 15.4 6.8 4.9 12.0 4.6 3.0 2.0 4.0 34.3 33.6 24.6 30.0 8 54.8 26.6 29.3 56.1 8.5 21.9 4.4 13.5 10.2 28.7 20.5 12.3 9 40.1 5.9 24.6 35.1 16.7 8.9 6.3 13.0 27.7 62.9 36.7 33.8 10 40.1 11.4 20.9 28.9 7.7 3.8 2.9 6.7 40.9 69.9 53.4 58.4 11 16.5 6.4 15.8 12.2 6.3 3.4 1.5 7.5 28.2 48.9 39.4 38.1 12 41.5 23.3 44.8 52.7 17.0 31.8 10.8 14.9 14.8 25.0 16.7 13.5 13 38.7 2.5 23.3 39.5 15.7 11.0 5.4 12.9 19.9 49.2 37.1 23.8 14 21.9 11.9 28.4 25.2 9.7 16.9 5.5 12.2 19.1 21.2 15.9 24.5 15 8.5 1.3 1.0 4.1 3.1 1.3 3.0 2.0 47.9 64.4 41.9 62.6 16 38.7 12.7 42.9 27.9 26.5 20.3 7.4 15.0 16.0 60.2 39.4 45.6 17 29.1 18.8 24.7 31.3 14.4 13.7 4.5 9.5 23.6 39.3 36.4 33.3 18 27.5 14.0 18.5 26.0 5.7 5.5 2.5 5.5 18.6 35.2 24.0 28.8 19 12.8 7.3 5.6 13.4 3.5 12.9 1.0 6.3 22.0 27.0 16.7 24.6 20 8.0 1.7 4.0 7.1 2.3 4.3 0.5 5.0 33.0 44.4 37.0 32.1 21 79.4 30.2 73.7 77.5 7.7 27.7 3.9 9.9 5.4 23.0 8.8 7.0

PAGE 292

275 Appendix J (Continued) Table J-4a (Continued) Doctoral Student Advisor Student’s Advisory Committee All Faculty in the Department Item # B E M P B E M P B E M P 22 63.2 19.8 53.8 70.2 21.1 30.2 6.0 11.3 7.2 23.3 9.5 9.2 23 7.4 3.6 4.6 7.2 2.1 3.6 9.7 0.7 10.6 12.7 11.3 14.5 24 33.0 8.8 32.4 27.7 25.4 12.4 8.8 19.1 15.8 28.8 20.1 27.0 25 7.6 0.9 1.5 2.1 1.8 0.9 1.0 0.7 25.5 20.4 24.4 25.0 26 17.1 9.1 10.4 16.8 10.9 10.0 4.1 13.9 18.3 14.5 14.5 17.5 27 67.9 19.7 43.3 71.8 13.0 14.9 3.0 8.5 8.4 17.1 10.4 9.2 28 52.5 11.0 11.3 47.4 2.0 5.0 3.1 4.4 6.4 6.4 6.7 6.6 29 20.8 3.6 6.7 15.3 3.8 2.3 1.6 1.5 14.9 10.9 15.5 17.5 30 4.4 0.9 2.1 1.4 2.1 0.5 1.5 0.7 11.8 12.7 8.2 7.2 31 18.0 4.9 4.1 14.2 4.4 5.3 2.1 4.3 15.7 16.4 14.9 24.1 32 54.7 4.8 9.2 44.6 3.5 4.8 2.0 4.3 14.6 28.8 23.5 20.9 33 46.5 9.4 17.3 44.6 6.6 6.3 3.1 2.9 13.2 19.3 15.3 15.8 34 12.9 3.1 4.1 9.3 1.2 2.2 0.0 5.0 30.3 24.1 20.5 30.0 35 8.7 2.3 0.5 2.2 0.9 1.8 1.0 1.5 10.8 9.2 8.9 11.9 36 11.3 2.2 1.5 8.7 2.7 3.1 2.5 3.6 28.3 40.1 42.1 34.8 37 77.7 24.3 68.8 77.3 7.9 28.7 6.5 8.5 6.2 27.4 10.6 8.5 38 69.1 20.2 33.8 68.3 4.7 18.8 7.1 8.6 7.6 24.7 12.6 12.2 39 8.7 3.6 3.1 4.3 0.6 2.3 1.6 2.2 16.0 15.8 13.5 15.2 40 50.9 7.4 60.1 42.3 15.6 8.3 7.6 10.6 18.2 57.6 19.2 35.2 41 6.0 2.7 2.1 7.9 1.2 4.0 0.5 1.4 30.3 31.1 22.8 25.9 42 6.7 3.7 1.1 5.1 0.3 0.9 1.1 1.5 12.2 12.0 8.4 13.1 Note. B = Biology, E = English, M = Mathematics, P = Psychology

PAGE 293

276 Appendix J (Continued) Table J-4b Percentage of Responses to Second Three Options by Discipline – Who is Responsible Department Chair Graduate Program Director Graduate School Staff Item # B E M P B E M P B E M P 1 1.7 0.4 1.0 1.3 4.0 5.6 3.9 3.2 1.7 1.7 2.0 1.3 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 3 1.1 3.0 1.4 0.0 0.3 5.1 2.4 1.9 0.0 1.3 0.5 0.0 4 7.9 6.4 10.7 5.8 5.1 9.3 3.4 8.4 0.8 0.4 2.0 0.0 5 2.3 0.8 2.9 1.9 4.3 15.2 9.3 7.1 2.6 3.8 1.5 3.2 6 0.0 0.4 1.5 0.7 3.7 4.2 16.5 3.9 1.4 0.8 1.0 0.0 7 2.9 4.7 3.9 4.0 2.3 3.0 4.4 4.7 1.1 3.0 3.4 0.7 8 0.6 0.8 3.9 0.0 0.6 6.8 3.4 1.3 0.3 0.8 1.0 0.0 9 0.0 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.3 0.4 2.4 0.0 10 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.7 1.1 1.7 2.9 0.7 1.1 0.0 1.0 0.0 11 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 0.9 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 2.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.7 13 0.6 1.7 1.0 0.0 0.3 3.8 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 14 3.4 4.7 6.5 1.4 6.6 15.3 7.5 6.1 2.3 1.7 0.5 3.4 15 3.1 3.4 3.4 2.7 2.0 2.5 3.4 0.7 0.9 2.1 2.0 2.7 16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 2.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.0 17 1.7 0.9 0.5 0.7 0.6 2.6 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.0 18 1.1 2.1 1.5 0.7 0.3 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.3 0.4 1.0 1.3 19 9.6 9.4 11.6 7.0 3.5 9.9 6.1 7.0 0.6 0.9 0.0 0.0 20 2.3 2.2 5.0 0.7 1.7 3.0 10.0 5.0 1.4 1.3 1.0 0.0 21 0.0 1.3 1.5 0.0 0.3 1.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0

PAGE 294

277 Appendix J (Continued) Table J-4b (Continued) Department Chair Graduate Program Director Graduate School Staff Item # B E M P B E M P B E M P 22 0.6 2.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.0 23 16.2 7.2 0.0 10.1 1.5 5.4 2.6 0.7 1.2 0.9 0.0 2.2 24 0.9 1.8 2.9 0.7 1.2 1.3 1.0 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 25 1.8 2.2 5.0 1.4 1.2 3.0 4.5 0.7 2.3 2.2 0.5 0.7 26 5.9 7.7 5.7 3.6 3.2 10.5 6.2 2.2 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.7 27 2.0 4.8 8.5 2.1 1.2 8.3 1.5 1.4 0.0 3.1 1.0 1.4 28 4.9 6.9 9.8 2.2 0.3 2.3 1.5 0.7 2.0 4.6 1.0 1.5 29 4.1 4.5 2.1 2.9 0.3 3.2 2.6 0.7 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 30 3.3 3.6 2.1 2.2 0.3 1.8 1.5 0.7 0.3 1.4 0.5 0.0 31 24.3 31.6 22.2 17.7 3.3 12.0 2.1 7.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.7 32 6.4 14.4 12.8 2.9 1.5 8.3 7.1 2.2 0.6 0.4 0.0 1.4 33 2.4 5.4 4.6 3.6 4.8 21.1 11.7 4.3 0.6 0.9 0.5 1.4 34 20.6 39.7 17.9 19.3 1.2 2.7 0.5 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.7 35 14.2 18.8 11.5 11.9 0.9 0.5 1.0 0.7 0.9 1.4 0.0 0.7 36 3.3 6.6 7.1 5.1 3.6 6.2 11.2 5.1 1.2 0.4 1.5 0.0 37 0.6 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.6 4.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 38 0.3 0.4 2.0 0.7 0.3 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 39 14.2 14.9 10.4 13.8 2.4 4.1 1.6 2.2 1.2 1.4 0.0 0.0 40 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 41 13.8 23.6 10.4 10.8 2.1 4.9 5.2 5.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 42 7.6 7.4 6.8 7.3 1.8 0.9 1.6 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.7 Note. B = Biology, E = English, M = Mathematics, P = Psychology

PAGE 295

278 Appendix J (Continued) Table J-4c Percentage of Responses to Third Three Options by Discipline – Who is Responsible Campus Teaching Center Prof essional Associations Student Item # B E M P B E M P B E M P 1 3.7 1.7 1.0 1.9 2.0 3.0 1.5 2.6 12.8 8.2 14.1 7.1 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.8 3.4 0.6 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.5 0.0 17.5 14.9 13.5 16.8 4 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.0 1.7 0.8 0.5 0.0 5.4 3.8 6.3 2.6 5 2.0 0.8 1.5 1.3 6.0 5.5 6.8 0.6 14.0 7.6 12.7 7.1 6 20.1 12.7 14.6 7.8 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.0 8.5 3.4 7.8 5.9 7 1.1 2.1 1.0 0.0 6.9 3.4 3.4 5.3 12.0 11.5 13.8 14.7 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 8.0 14.1 7.1 8.2 3.8 10.7 7.1 9 1.1 1.3 1.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.0 17.3 21.3 15.6 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 9.7 15.0 4.7 11 0.0 0.00 0.5 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.5 0.0 43.6 32.8 36.5 36.7 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 7.6 6.9 4.1 19.0 8.5 15.3 12.8 13 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.8 23.7 24.8 21.1 14 2.8 3.4 1.0 0.7 4.6 2.1 3.0 2.7 19.4 13.1 13.9 17.0 15 0.9 1.7 1.5 0.0 1.4 0.8 1.5 0.7 19.7 11.9 19.7 12.9 16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.0 4.2 8.9 11.6 17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.4 0.5 0.7 21.0 20.5 18.2 19.0 18 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.7 36.1 34.7 37.0 34.2 19 10.7 5.6 5.1 7.7 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.0 16.5 18.5 11.6 24.6 20 25.0 22.8 18.5 20.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.5 16.4 11.5 22.1 21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 7.2 15.3 10.2 5.6

PAGE 296

279 Appendix J (Continued) Table J-4c (Continued) Campus Teaching Center Prof essional Associations Student Item # B E M P B E M P B E M P 22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.3 0.5 0.0 6.4 13.4 10.6 9.2 23 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.7 6.8 7.2 3.6 2.2 24 0.6 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.9 1.0 0.7 10.5 17.7 8.3 8.5 25 29.0 43.5 16.4 38.6 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.0 11.7 9.1 13.9 13.6 26 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.3 8.2 8.3 8.0 27 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.3 0.5 0.0 5.8 10.1 10.9 3.5 28 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.7 0.6 2.3 0.0 0.0 10.1 6.0 5.2 3.6 29 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 6.7 5.0 1.6 2.9 12.9 11.8 11.4 13.9 30 17.2 20.0 11.9 18.8 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 9.2 8.6 5.2 3.6 31 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 12.0 4.6 9.2 32 0.9 6.6 2.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.6 10.9 10.2 10.1 33 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.4 7.6 10.2 6.5 34 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.0 8.8 10.7 6.7 9.3 35 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.9 1.0 0.0 3.6 4.6 4.2 3.0 36 24.1 25.1 13.2 21.7 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 8.6 7.0 7.1 6.5 37 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.3 0.0 0.0 5.9 11.3 10.1 5.0 38 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 6.7 3.5 3.6 7.6 13.9 12.6 3.6 39 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.9 11.3 8.3 8.0 40 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 14.1 21.8 11.6 12.0 41 2.4 3.6 1.0 4.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.6 7.1 8.3 5.0 42 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.9 1.1 0.0 13.5 12.0 12.6 8.8 Note. B = Biology, E = English, M = Mathematics, P = Psychology

PAGE 297

280 Appendix J (Continued) Table J-4d Percentage of Responses to Final Two Options by Discipline – Who is Responsible Hiring Institution Nobody n Item # B E M P B E M P B E M P 1 2.8 1.7 3.9 2.6 8.2 7.3 16.6 12.3 352 233 205 154 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 355 237 207 155 3 0.6 1.3 3.4 0.0 1.1 2.1 3.9 0.0 354 235 207 155 4 5.4 9.3 10.2 7.8 4.8 5.5 10.7 3.2 354 236 205 154 5 5.4 5.9 6.8 6.5 6.6 3.8 14.6 13.6 350 237 205 154 6 1.7 0.0 0.5 0.7 1.1 0.8 2.4 0.0 353 236 206 153 7 8.0 8.9 8.4 6.0 11.4 20.0 30.0 18.7 350 235 203 150 8 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.0 5.4 2.1 12.2 2.6 352 237 205 155 9 1.1 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 2.9 1.9 354 237 207 154 10 1.4 1.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.1 1.5 0.0 352 236 206 149 11 0.3 0.9 0.5 0.7 4.3 6.8 4.4 4.1 351 235 203 147 12 0.0 0.8 0.5 0.7 1.4 0.4 2.0 0.7 352 236 203 148 13 0.0 0.4 0.5 1.4 1.1 5.5 6.9 0.7 351 236 202 147 14 6.3 5.5 7.5 2.0 4.0 4.2 10.4 4.8 351 236 201 147 15 8.8 6.8 4.9 6.8 3.7 3.8 17.7 4.8 351 236 203 147 16 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 347 236 203 147 17 2.3 2.6 2.5 0.7 5.8 0.9 10.6 4.8 347 234 198 147 18 1.7 2.1 0.0 0.0 8.0 5.5 13.0 2.7 349 236 200 146 19 6.1 5.6 9.1 2.8 14.5 3.0 32.8 6.3 345 233 198 142 20 3.4 1.7 3.0 2.1 8.0 2.2 9.5 5.7 348 232 200 140 21 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.5 0.0 349 235 205 142

PAGE 298

281 Appendix J (Continued) Table J-4d (Continued) Hiring Institution Nobody n Item # B E M P B E M P B E M P 22 0.0 2.6 3.0 0.0 1.2 6.0 14.6 0.0 345 232 199 141 23 10.0 21.7 11.3 10.1 44.0 37.1 56.9 51.4 339 221 195 138 24 2.0 8.8 4.9 1.4 9.6 18.1 20.6 14.9 342 226 204 141 25 4.4 8.3 6.5 3.6 28.6 9.1 25.9 13.6 339 230 201 140 26 4.4 14.5 11.9 9.5 28.6 25.0 38.3 27.7 339 220 193 137 27 0.6 10.1 9.5 1.4 0.9 9.6 11.4 0.7 346 228 201 142 28 6.1 11.9 15.5 13.1 15.1 41.7 45.9 19.7 345 218 194 137 29 4.7 11.4 7.3 3.6 31.6 47.3 49.7 41.6 342 220 193 137 30 7.7 9.5 8.2 9.4 44.7 40.5 58.2 55.8 338 220 194 138 31 7.1 10.2 17.0 9.2 18.6 7.6 33.0 12.8 338 225 194 141 32 2.9 10.0 12.8 5.8 5.6 10.9 20.4 5.0 342 229 196 139 33 2.1 11.2 11.2 5.0 15.0 18.8 26.0 15.8 333 223 196 139 34 8.5 8.1 11.3 9.3 16.5 9.4 37.4 14.3 340 224 195 140 35 14.8 13.8 13.5 11.1 44.3 46.8 57.8 57.0 332 218 192 135 36 6.5 4.0 4.1 6.5 10.1 4.8 9.1 8.0 336 227 197 138 37 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.5 0.0 341 230 199 141 38 0.6 1.8 1.5 0.0 6.2 12.1 25.8 2.9 340 223 198 139 39 8.1 21.3 9.4 10.1 38.0 24.9 52.1 44.2 332 221 192 138 40 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 3.1 1.5 0.0 340 229 198 142 41 6.0 8.9 11.9 9.4 30.9 14.2 37.8 30.2 333 225 193 139 42 4.9 13.4 7.9 5.1 51.1 47.7 58.4 57.7 327 216 190 137 Note. B = Biology, E = English, M = Mathematics, P = Psychology

PAGE 299

282 Appendix J (Continued) Table J-5 Percentage of Responses for Biological Sciences – Who is Responsible Item # DAS SAC AF DC GPD GSS CTC PA ST HI NO n 1 22.2 3.7 37.2 1.7 4.0 1. 7 3.7 2.0 12.8 2.8 8.2 352 2 67.0 17.7 13.8 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 355 3 25.1 5.4 48.3 1.1 0.3 0. 0 0.0 0.6 17.5 0.6 1.1 354 4 26.6 3.4 38.4 7.9 5.1 0. 8 0.6 1.7 5.4 5.4 4.8 354 5 20.9 9.4 26.6 2.3 4.3 2. 6 2.0 6.0 14.0 5.4 6.6 350 6 13.0 7.4 42.5 0.0 3.7 1. 4 20.1 0.6 8.5 1.7 1.1 353 7 15.4 4.6 34.3 2.9 2.3 1. 1 1.1 6.9 12.0 8.0 11.4 350 8 54.8 8.5 10.2 0.6 0.6 0. 3 0.0 10.8 8.2 0.6 5.4 352 9 40.1 16.7 27.7 0.0 0.0 0. 3 1.1 0.0 13.0 1.1 0.0 354 10 40.1 7.7 40.9 0.0 1.1 1. 1 0.0 0.0 7.7 1.4 0.0 352 11 16.5 6.3 28.2 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 0.9 43.6 0.3 4.3 351 12 41.5 17.0 14.8 0.9 0.0 0. 3 0.0 5.1 19.0 0.0 1.4 352 13 38.7 15.7 19.9 0.6 0.3 0. 0 0.0 0.9 22.8 0.0 1.1 351 14 21.9 9.7 19.1 3.4 6.6 2. 3 2.8 4.6 19.4 6.3 4.0 351 15 8.5 3.1 47.9 3.1 2.0 0. 9 0.9 1.4 19.7 8.8 3.7 351 16 38.7 26.5 16.0 0.0 0.6 0. 0 0.0 1.4 21.0 2.3 5.8 347 17 29.1 14.4 23.6 1.7 0.6 0. 0 0.0 1.4 21.0 2.3 5.8 347 18 27.5 5.7 18.6 1.1 0.3 0. 3 0.0 0.6 36.1 1.7 8.0 349 19 12.8 3.5 22.0 9.6 3.5 0. 6 10.7 0.3 16.5 6.1 14.5 345 20 8.0 2.3 33.0 2.3 1.7 1. 4 25.0 1.1 13.5 3.4 8.0 348 21 79.4 7.7 5.4 0.0 0.3 0. 0 0.0 0.0 7.2 0.0 0.0 349

PAGE 300

283 Appendix J (Continued) Table J-5 (Continued) Item # DAS SAC AF DC GPD GSS CTC PA ST HI NO n 22 63.2 21.1 7.2 0.6 0.0 0. 0 0.0 0.3 6.4 0.0 1.2 345 23 7.4 2.1 10.6 16.2 1.5 1. 2 0.3 0.0 6.8 10.0 44.0 339 24 33.0 25.4 15.8 0.9 1.2 0. 6 0.6 0.3 10.5 2.0 9.6 342 25 7.6 1.8 25.5 1.8 1.2 2. 3 29.0 0.0 11.7 4.4 28.6 339 26 17.1 10.9 18.3 5.9 3.2 0. 9 0.0 0.3 10.3 4.4 28.6 339 27 67.9 13.0 8.4 2.0 1.2 0. 0 0.0 0.3 5.8 0.6 0.9 346 28 52.5 2.0 6.4 4.9 0.3 2. 0 0.0 0.6 10.1 6.1 15.1 345 29 20.8 3.8 14.9 4.1 0.3 0. 3 0.0 6.7 12.9 4.7 31.6 342 30 4.4 2.1 11.8 3.3 0.3 0. 3 17.2 0.0 9.2 7.7 44.7 338 31 18.0 4.4 15.7 24.3 3.3 0. 6 0.3 0.6 7.1 7.1 18.6 338 32 54.7 3.5 14.6 6.4 1.5 0. 6 0.9 0.0 9.6 2.9 5.6 342 33 46.5 6.6 13.2 2.4 4.8 0. 6 0.3 0.0 8.4 2.1 15.0 333 34 12.9 1.2 30.3 20.6 1.2 0. 0 0.0 0.3 8.8 8.5 16.5 340 35 8.7 0.9 10.8 14.2 0.9 0. 9 0.3 0.6 3.6 14.8 44.3 332 36 11.3 2.7 28.3 3.3 3.6 1. 2 24.1 0.3 8.6 6.5 10.1 336 37 77.7 7.9 6.2 0.6 0.6 0. 0 0.0 0.9 5.9 0.3 0.0 341 38 69.1 4.7 7.6 0.3 0.3 0. 0 0.3 3.5 7.6 0.6 6.2 340 39 8.7 0.6 16.0 14.2 2.4 1. 2 0.3 0.6 9.9 8.1 38.0 332 40 50.9 15.6 18.2 0.3 0.0 0. 0 0.0 0.3 14.1 0.0 0.6 340 41 6.0 1.2 30.3 13.8 2.1 0. 3 2.4 0.3 6.6 6.0 30.9 333 42 6.7 0.3 12.2 7.6 1.8 0. 3 0.9 0.6 13.5 4.9 51.1 327 Note. DSA = Doctoral student advisor, SAC = Student Advisory Committee, AF = All Faculty in the Department, DC = Department Chair, GPD = Graduate Program Director, GSS = Graduate School Staff, CT C = Campus Teaching Center, PA = Professional Associations, ST = Student, HI = Hiring Institution, NO = Nobody

PAGE 301

284 Appendix J (Continued) Table J-6 Percentage of Responses for English – Who is Responsible Item # DAS SAC AF DC GPD GSS CTC PA ST HI NO n 1 4.3 1.3 64.8 0.4 5.6 1. 7 1.7 3.0 8.2 1.7 7.3 233 2 19.8 16.9 59.7 0.0 0.8 0. 4 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 237 3 7.7 3.8 60.9 3.0 5.1 1. 3 0.0 0.0 14.9 1.3 2.1 235 4 16.1 4.2 43.2 6.4 9.3 0. 4 0.8 0.8 3.8 9.3 5.5 236 5 12.2 14.8 29.5 0.8 15.2 3. 8 0.8 5.5 7.6 5.9 3.8 237 6 1.9 3.0 72.5 0.4 4.2 0. 8 12.7 0.4 3.4 0.0 0.8 236 7 6.8 3.0 33.6 4.7 3.0 3. 0 2.1 3.4 11.5 8.9 20.0 235 8 26.6 21.9 28.7 0.8 6.8 0. 8 0.0 8.0 3.8 0.4 2.1 237 9 5.9 8.9 62.9 0.4 0.0 0. 4 1.3 0.0 17.3 0.0 3.0 237 10 11.4 3.8 69.9 0.0 1.7 0. 0 0.0 0.0 9.7 1.3 2.1 236 11 6.4 3.4 48.9 0.4 0.4 0. 0 0.00 0.0 32.8 0.9 6.8 235 12 23.3 31.8 25.0 0.4 1.7 0. 4 0.0 7.6 8.5 0.8 0.4 236 13 2.5 11.0 49.2 1.7 3.8 0. 8 1.3 0.0 23.7 0.4 5.5 236 14 11.9 16.9 21.2 4.7 15.3 1. 7 3.4 2.1 13.1 5.5 4.2 236 15 1.3 1.3 64.4 3.4 2.5 2. 1 1.7 0.8 11.9 6.8 3.8 236 16 12.7 20.3 60.2 0.0 2.1 0. 4 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 236 17 18.8 13.7 39.3 0.9 2.6 0. 4 0.0 0.4 20.5 2.6 0.9 234 18 14.0 5.5 35.2 2.1 0.0 0. 4 0.4 0.0 34.7 2.1 5.5 236 19 7.3 12.9 27.0 9.4 9.9 0. 9 5.6 0.0 18.5 5.6 3.0 233 20 1.7 4.3 44.4 2.2 3.0 1. 3 22.8 0.0 16.4 1.7 2.2 232 21 30.2 27.7 23.0 1.3 1.3 0. 4 0.0 0.4 15.3 0.0 0.9 235

PAGE 302

285 Appendix J (Continued) Table J-6 (Continued) Item # DAS SAC AF DC GPD GSS CTC PA ST HI NO n 22 19.8 30.2 23.3 2.6 0.4 0. 4 0.0 1.3 13.4 2.6 6.0 232 23 3.6 3.6 12.7 7.2 5.4 0. 9 0.0 0.5 7.2 21.7 37.1 221 24 8.8 12.4 28.8 1.8 1.3 0. 4 0.9 0.9 17.7 8.8 18.1 226 25 0.9 0.9 20.4 2.2 3.0 2. 2 43.5 0.4 9.1 8.3 9.1 230 26 9.1 10.0 14.5 7.7 10.5 0. 5 0.0 0.0 8.2 14.5 25.0 220 27 19.7 14.9 17.1 4.8 8.3 3. 1 0.9 1.3 10.1 10.1 9.6 228 28 11.0 5.0 6.4 6.9 2.3 4. 6 1.8 2.3 6.0 11.9 41.7 218 29 3.6 2.3 10.9 4.5 3.2 0. 0 0.0 5.0 11.8 11.4 47.3 220 30 0.9 0.5 12.7 3.6 1.8 1. 4 20.0 0.5 8.6 9.5 40.5 220 31 4.9 5.3 16.4 31.6 12.0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 12.0 10.2 7.6 225 32 4.8 4.8 28.8 14.4 8.3 0. 4 6.6 0.0 10.9 10.0 10.9 229 33 9.4 6.3 19.3 5.4 21.1 0. 9 0.0 0.0 7.6 11.2 18.8 223 34 3.1 2.2 24.1 39.7 2.7 0. 0 0.0 0.0 10.7 8.1 9.4 224 35 2.3 1.8 9.2 18.8 0.5 1. 4 0.0 0.9 4.6 13.8 46.8 218 36 2.2 3.1 40.1 6.6 6.2 0. 4 25.1 0.4 7.0 4.0 4.8 227 37 24.3 28.7 27.4 1.3 4.3 0. 4 0.0 1.3 11.3 0.0 0.9 230 38 20.2 18.8 24.7 0.4 0.9 0. 4 0.0 6.7 13.9 1.8 12.1 223 39 3.6 2.3 15.8 14.9 4.1 1. 4 0.5 0.0 11.3 21.3 24.9 221 40 7.4 8.3 57.6 0.0 0.0 0. 4 0.4 0.4 21.8 0.4 3.1 229 41 2.7 4.0 31.1 23.6 4.9 0. 0 3.6 0.0 7.1 8.9 14.2 225 42 3.7 0.9 12.0 7.4 0.9 0. 0 0.9 0.9 12.0 13.4 47.7 216 Note. DSA = Doctoral student advisor, SAC = Student Advisory Committee, AF = All Faculty in the Department, DC = Department Chair, GPD = Graduate Program Director, GSS = Graduate School Staff, CT C = Campus Teaching Center, PA = Professional Associations, ST = Student, HI = Hiring Institution, NO = Nobody

PAGE 303

286 Appendix J (Continued) Table J-7 Percentage of Responses for Mathematics – Who is Responsible Item # DAS SAC AF DC GPD GSS CTC PA ST HI NO n 1 10.2 0.0 45.9 1.0 3.9 2. 0 1.0 1.5 14.1 3.9 16.6 205 2 73.9 4.8 16.9 0.0 1.0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 207 3 9.7 1.9 62.8 1.4 2.4 0. 5 0.0 0.5 13.5 3.4 3.9 207 4 13.7 1.5 40.5 10.7 3.4 2. 0 0.5 0.5 6.3 10.2 10.7 205 5 16.6 2.0 25.4 2.9 9.3 1. 5 1.5 6.8 12.7 6.8 14.6 205 6 4.4 2.9 48.1 1.5 16.5 1. 0 14.6 0.5 7.8 0.5 2.4 206 7 4.9 2.0 24.6 3.9 4.4 3. 4 1.0 3.4 13.8 8.4 30.0 203 8 29.3 4.4 20.5 3.9 3.4 1. 0 0.0 14.1 10.7 0.5 12.2 205 9 24.6 6.3 36.7 1.0 2.4 2. 4 1.4 0.0 21.3 1.0 2.9 207 10 20.9 2.9 53.4 1.9 2.9 1. 0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.5 1.5 206 11 15.8 1.5 39.4 0.5 0.5 0. 0 0.5 0.5 36.5 0.5 4.4 203 12 44.8 10.8 16.7 1.0 2.0 0. 0 0.0 6.9 15.3 0.5 2.0 203 13 23.3 5.4 37.1 1.0 1.0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 24.8 0.5 6.9 202 14 28.4 5.5 15.9 6.5 7.5 0. 5 1.0 3.0 13.9 7.5 10.4 201 15 1.0 3.0 41.9 3.4 3.4 2. 0 1.5 1.5 19.7 4.9 17.7 203 16 42.9 7.4 39.4 0.0 1.0 0. 5 0.0 0.0 8.9 0.0 0.0 203 17 24.7 4.5 36.4 0.5 1.5 0. 5 0.0 0.5 18.2 2.5 10.6 198 18 18.5 2.5 24.0 1.5 2.5 1. 0 0.0 0.0 37.0 0.0 13.0 200 19 5.6 1.0 16.7 11.6 6.1 0. 0 5.1 0.5 11.6 9.1 32.8 198 20 4.0 0.5 37.0 5.0 10.0 1. 0 18.5 0.0 11.5 3.0 9.5 200 21 73.7 3.9 8.8 1.5 0.5 0. 0 0.0 0.0 10.2 1.0 0.5 205

PAGE 304

287 Appendix J (Continued) Table J-7 (Continued) Item # DAS SAC AF DC GPD GSS CTC PA ST HI NO n 22 53.8 6.0 9.5 0.5 1.0 0. 5 0.0 0.5 10.6 3.0 14.6 199 23 4.6 9.7 11.3 0.0 2.6 0. 0 0.0 0.0 3.6 11.3 56.9 195 24 32.4 8.8 20.1 2.9 1.0 0. 0 0.0 1.0 8.3 4.9 20.6 204 25 1.5 1.0 24.4 5.0 4.5 0. 5 16.4 0.5 13.9 6.5 25.9 201 26 10.4 4.1 14.5 5.7 6.2 0. 5 0.0 0.0 8.3 11.9 38.3 193 27 43.3 3.0 10.4 8.5 1.5 1. 0 0.0 0.5 10.9 9.5 11.4 201 28 11.3 3.1 6.7 9.8 1.5 1. 0 0.0 0.0 5.2 15.5 45.9 194 29 6.7 1.6 15.5 2.1 2.6 1. 0 0.5 1.6 11.4 7.3 49.7 193 30 2.1 1.5 8.2 2.1 1.5 0. 5 11.9 0.5 5.2 8.2 58.2 194 31 4.1 2.1 14.9 22.2 2.1 0. 0 0.0 0.0 4.6 17.0 33.0 194 32 9.2 2.0 23.5 12.8 7.1 0. 0 2.0 0.0 10.2 12.8 20.4 196 33 17.3 3.1 15.3 4.6 11.7 0. 5 0.0 0.0 10.2 11.2 26.0 196 34 4.1 0.0 20.5 17.9 0.5 0. 5 0.5 0.5 6.7 11.3 37.4 195 35 0.5 1.0 8.9 11.5 1.0 0. 0 0.5 1.0 4.2 13.5 57.8 192 36 1.5 2.5 42.1 7.1 11.2 1. 5 13.2 0.5 7.1 4.1 9.1 197 37 68.8 6.5 10.6 1.0 0.5 0. 0 0.0 0.0 10.1 1.0 1.5 199 38 33.8 7.1 12.6 2.0 1.0 0. 0 0.0 3.5 12.6 1.5 25.8 198 39 3.1 1.6 13.5 10.4 1.6 0. 0 0.0 0.0 8.3 9.4 52.1 192 40 60.1 7.6 19.2 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 11.6 0.0 1.5 198 41 2.1 0.5 22.8 10.4 5.2 0. 0 1.0 0.0 8.3 11.9 37.8 193 42 1.1 1.1 8.4 6.8 1.6 0. 5 0.5 1.1 12.6 7.9 58.4 190 Note. DSA = Doctoral student advisor, SAC = Student Advisory Committee, AF = All Faculty in the Department, DC = Department Chair, GPD = Graduate Program Director, GSS = Graduate School Staff, CT C = Campus Teaching Center, PA = Professional Associations, ST = Student, HI = Hiring Institution, NO = Nobody

PAGE 305

288 Appendix J (Continued) Table J-8 Percentage of Responses for Psychology – Who is Responsible Item # DAS SAC AF DC GPD GSS CTC PA ST HI NO n 1 9.7 1.3 56.5 1.3 3.2 1. 3 1.9 2.6 7.1 2.6 12.3 154 2 64.5 9.0 25.2 0.0 0.6 0. 0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 155 3 22.6 4.5 54.2 0.0 1.9 0. 0 0.0 0.0 16.8 0.0 0.0 155 4 27.3 4.5 40.3 5.8 8.4 0. 0 0.0 0.0 2.6 7.8 3.2 154 5 24.7 5.8 27.9 1.9 7.1 3. 2 1.3 0.6 7.1 6.5 13.6 154 6 11.1 8.5 61.4 0.7 3.9 0. 0 7.8 0.0 5.9 0.7 0.0 153 7 12.0 4.0 30.0 4.0 4.7 0. 7 0.0 5.3 14.7 6.0 18.7 150 8 56.1 13.5 12.3 0.0 1.3 0. 0 0.0 7.1 7.1 0.0 2.6 155 9 35.1 13.0 33.8 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0.6 0.0 15.6 0.0 1.9 154 10 28.9 6.7 58.4 0.7 0.7 0. 0 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 149 11 12.2 7.5 38.1 0.0 0.7 0. 0 0.0 0.0 36.7 0.7 4.1 147 12 52.7 14.9 13.5 0.0 0.0 0. 7 0.0 4.1 12.8 0.7 0.7 148 13 39.5 12.9 23.8 0.0 0.7 0. 0 0.0 0.0 21.1 1.4 0.7 147 14 25.2 12.2 24.5 1.4 6.1 3. 4 0.7 2.7 17.0 2.0 4.8 147 15 4.1 2.0 62.6 2.7 0.7 2. 7 0.0 0.7 12.9 6.8 4.8 147 16 27.9 15.0 45.6 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 11.6 0.0 0.0 147 17 31.3 9.5 33.3 0.7 0.0 0. 0 0.0 0.7 19.0 0.7 4.8 147 18 26.0 5.5 28.8 0.7 0.0 1. 3 0.0 0.7 34.2 0.0 2.7 146 19 13.4 6.3 24.6 7.0 7.0 0. 0 7.7 0.0 24.6 2.8 6.3 142 20 7.1 5.0 32.1 0.7 5.0 0. 0 20.0 0.0 22.1 2.1 5.7 140 21 77.5 9.9 7.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 142

PAGE 306

289 Appendix J (Continued) Table J-8 (Continued) Item # DAS SAC AF DC GPD GSS CTC PA ST HI NO n 22 70.2 11.3 9.2 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 9.2 0.0 0.0 141 23 7.2 0.7 14.5 10.1 0.7 2. 2 0.0 0.7 2.2 10.1 51.4 138 24 27.7 19.1 27.0 0.7 0.0 0. 0 0.0 0.7 8.5 1.4 14.9 141 25 2.1 0.7 25.0 1.4 0.7 0. 7 38.6 0.0 13.6 3.6 13.6 140 26 16.8 13.9 17.5 3.6 2.2 0. 7 0.0 0.0 8.0 9.5 27.7 137 27 71.8 8.5 9.2 2.1 1.4 1. 4 0.0 0.0 3.5 1.4 0.7 142 28 47.4 4.4 6.6 2.2 0.7 1. 5 0.7 0.0 3.6 13.1 19.7 137 29 15.3 1.5 17.5 2.9 0.7 0. 0 0.0 2.9 13.9 3.6 41.6 137 30 1.4 0.7 7.2 2.2 0.7 0. 0 18.8 0.0 3.6 9.4 55.8 138 31 14.2 4.3 24.1 17.7 7.8 0. 7 0.0 0.0 9.2 9.2 12.8 141 32 44.6 4.3 20.9 2.9 2.2 1. 4 2.9 0.0 10.1 5.8 5.0 139 33 44.6 2.9 15.8 3.6 4.3 1. 4 0.0 0.0 6.5 5.0 15.8 139 34 9.3 5.0 30.0 19.3 2.9 0. 7 0.0 0.0 9.3 9.3 14.3 140 35 2.2 1.5 11.9 11.9 0.7 0. 7 0.0 0.0 3.0 11.1 57.0 135 36 8.7 3.6 34.8 5.1 5.1 0. 0 21.7 0.0 6.5 6.5 8.0 138 37 77.3 8.5 8.5 0.7 0.0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 141 38 68.3 8.6 12.2 0.7 0.0 0. 0 0.0 3.6 3.6 0.0 2.9 139 39 4.3 2.2 15.2 13.8 2.2 0. 0 0.0 0.0 8.0 10.1 44.2 138 40 42.3 10.6 35.2 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 142 41 7.9 1.4 25.9 10.8 5.0 0. 0 4.3 0.0 5.0 9.4 30.2 139 42 5.1 1.5 13.1 7.3 0.7 0. 7 0.0 0.0 8.8 5.1 57.7 137 Note. DSA = Doctoral student advisor, SAC = Student Advisory Committee, AF = All Faculty in the Department, DC = Department Chair, GPD = Graduate Program Director, GSS = Graduate School Staff, CT C = Campus Teaching Center, PA = Professional Associations, ST = Student, HI = Hiring Institution, NO = Nobody

PAGE 307

290 Appendix K Pearson Correlation Coefficients for All Scales Table K-1 Pearson Correlation Coefficients of All Scales for Biological Sciences – Importance to Faculty Competency Teaching / Learning Research Service Competency 1.00 Teaching / Learning .52* 1.00 Research .42* .32* 1.00 Service .52* .63* .36* 1.00 Note. *Correlation is significant at the .01 level. Table K-2 Pearson Correlation Coefficients of All Scales for Biological Sciences – Doctoral Student Preparation” Competency Teaching / Learning Research Service Competency 1.00 Teaching / Learning .57* 1.00 Research .47* .53* 1.00 Service .50* .74* .44* 1.00 Note. *Correlation is significant at the .01 level.

PAGE 308

291 Appendix K (Continued) Table K-3 Pearson Correlation Coefficients of All Scales for English – Importance to Faculty Competency Teaching / Learning Research Service Competency 1.00 Teaching / Learning .49* 1.00 Research .45* .43* 1.00 Service .40* .53* .41* 1.00 Note. *Correlation is significant at the .01 level. Table K-4 Pearson Correlation Coefficients of All Scales for English – Doctoral Student Preparation Competency Teaching / Learning Research Service Competency 1.00 Teaching / Learning .62* 1.00 Research .49* .52* 1.00 Service .48* .70* .53* 1.00 Note. *Correlation is significant at the .01 level. Table K-5 Pearson Correlation Coefficients of All Scales for Mathematics – Importance to Faculty Competency Teaching / Learning Research Service Competency 1.00 Teaching / Learning .61* 1.00 Research .56* .57* 1.00 Service .54* .74* .48* 1.00 Note. *Correlation is significant at the .01 level.

PAGE 309

292 Appendix K (Continued) Table K-6 Pearson Correlation Coefficients of All Scales for Mathematics – Doctoral Student Preparation Competency Teaching / Learning Research Service Competency 1.00 Teaching / Learning .54* 1.00 Research .50* .54* 1.00 Service .47* .74* .49* 1.00 Note. *Correlation is significant at the .01 level. Table K-7 Pearson Correlation Coefficients of All Scales for Psychology – Importance to Faculty Competency Teaching / Learning Research Service Competency 1.00 Teaching / Learning .49* 1.00 Research .53* .40* 1.00 Service .47* .56* .39* 1.00 Note. *Correlation is significant at the .01 level. Table K-8 Pearson Correlation Coefficients of All Scales for Psychology Doctoral Student Preparation Competency Teaching / Learning Research Service Competency 1.00 Teaching / Learning .51* 1.00 Research .48* .45* 1.00 Service .44* .58* .31* 1.00 Note. *Correlation is significant at the .01 level.

PAGE 310

293 Appendix K (Continued) Table K-9 Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between Ratings for Importance to Faculty and Doctoral Student Preparation by Discipline Scale Biological Sciences English Mathematics Psychology Competency .83* .84* .78* .85* Teaching / Learning .56* .57* .62* .43* Research .54* .61* .58* .69* Service .55* .50* .46* .63* Note. *Correlation is significant at the .01 level.

PAGE 311

294 Appendix L ANOVA Tables Table L-1 Results of ANOVA for Competency Scale by Discipline – Importance to Faculty Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 2 Between Groups 9.54 33.1825.55.000 .07 Within Groups 118.12 949.12 Total 127.66 952 Table L-2 Scheffe Post-hoc Comparisons for Competency Scale by Discipline – Importance to Faculty 99% Confidence Interval Discipline (i) Discipline (j) Mean Difference (i-j) Sig. Cohen’s d Lower Bound Upper Bound Biological Sciences English Mathematics Psychology -0.03 0.23* 0.09 .773 .000 .080 0.64 -0.13 0.13 -0.03 0.07 0.34 0.20 English Bio Sciences Mathematics Psychology 0.03 0.26* 0.12 .773 .000 .013 0.71 -0.07 0.15 0.00 0.13 0.38 0.24 Mathematics Bio Sciences English Psychology -0.23* -0.26* -0.14* .000 .000 .002 -0.64 -0.71 -0.40 -0.34 -0.38 -0.27 -0.13 -0.15 -0.02 Psychology Bio Sciences English Mathematics -0.09 -0.12 0.14* .080 .013 .002 0.40 -0.20 -0.24 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.27

PAGE 312

295 Appendix L (Continued) Table L-3 Results of ANOVA for Teaching/Learning Scale by Discipline – Importance to Faculty Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 2 Between Groups 41.10313.7067.99.000 .18 Within Groups 188.89938.201 Total 230.08941 Table L-4 Scheffe Post-hoc Comparisons for Teaching/Learning Scale by Discipline – Importance to Faculty 99% Confidence Interval Discipline (i) Discipline (j) Mean Difference (i-j) Sig. Cohen’s d Lower Bound Upper Bound Biological Sciences English Mathematics Psychology 0.06 0.52* 0.00 .502 .000 1.000 1.10 -0.07 0.39 -0.15 0.19 0.65 0.14 English Bio Sciences Mathematics Psychology -0.06 0.46* -0.06 .502 .000 .631 0.99 -0.19 0.32 -0.22 0.07 0.61 0.10 Mathematics Bio Sciences English Psychology -0.52* -0.46* -0.52* .000 .000 .000 -1.10 -0.99 -1.13 -0.65 -0.61 -0.69 -0.39 -0.32 -0.36 Psychology Bio Sciences English Mathematics 0.00 0.06 0.52* 1.000 .631 .000 1.13 -0.14 -0.10 0.36 0.15 0.22 0.69

PAGE 313

296 Appendix L (Continued) Table L-5 Results of ANOVA for Research Scale by Discipline – Importance to Faculty Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square Welch Statistic Sig. 2 Between Groups 70.47323.41194.73.000 .37 Within Groups 120.85423.02.13 Total 191.33426.02 Table L-6 Games-Howell Post-hoc Comparisons for Research Scale by Discipline – Importance to Faculty 99% Confidence Interval Discipline (i) Discipline (j) Mean Difference (i-j) Sig. Cohen’s d Lower Bound Upper Bound Biological Sciences English Mathematics Psychology 0.63* 0.52* 0.17* .000 .000 .000 1.88 1.38 0.52 0.54 0.41 0.06 0.72 0.62 0.27 English Bio Sciences Mathematics Psychology -0.63* -0.11 -0.46* .000 .025 .000 -1.88 -1.30 -0.72 -0.23 -0.58 -0.54 0.01 -0.35 Mathematics Bio Sciences English Psychology -0.52* 0.11 -0.35* .000 .000 .025 -1.38 -0.90 -0.63 -0.01 -0.48 -0.41 0.23 -0.22 Psychology Bio Sciences English Mathematics -0.17* 0.46* 0.35* .000 .000 .000 -0.52 1.30 0.90 -0.27 0.35 0.22 -0.06 0.58 0.48

PAGE 314

297 Appendix L (Continued) Table L-7 Results of ANOVA for Service Scale by Discipline – Importance to Faculty Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 2 Between Groups 8.24 3 2.75 11.31 .000 .03 Within Groups 228.08 939 .24 Total 236.32 942 Table L-8 Scheffe Post-hoc Comparisons for Service Sc ale by Discipline – Importance to Faculty 99% Confidence Interval Discipline (i) Discipline (j) Mean Difference (i-j) Sig. Cohen’s d Lower Bound Upper Bound Biological Sciences English Mathematics Psychology 0.01 0.21* 0.18* .993 .000 .003 0.41 0.36 -0.13 0.06 0.02 0.15 0.35 0.35 English Bio Sciences Mathematics Psychology -0.01 0.20* 0.17 .993 .001 .013 0.41 -0.15 0.04 0.00 0.13 0.35 0.34 Mathematics Bio Sciences English Psychology -0.21* -0.20* -0.03 .000 .001 .970 -0.41 -0.41 -0.35 -0.35 -0.21 -0.06 -0.04 0.15 Psychology Bio Sciences English Mathematics -0.18* -0.17 0.03 .003 .013 .970 -0.36 -0.35 -0.34 -0.15 -0.02 0.00 0.21

PAGE 315

298 Appendix L (Continued) Table L-9 Results of ANOVA for Competency Scale by Discipline – Doctoral Student Preparation Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 2 Between Groups 14.25 3 4.75 30.72 .000 .09 Within Groups 145.76 943 .16 Total 160.01 946 Table L-10 Scheffe Post-hoc Comparisons for Competency Scale by Discipline – Doctoral Student Preparation 99% Confidence Interval Discipline (i) Discipline (j) Mean Difference (i-j) Sig. Cohen’s d Lower Bound Upper Bound Biological Sciences English Mathematics Psychology -0.01 0.30* 0.04 .979 .000 .763 0.76 -0.13 0.18 -0.09 0.10 0.41 0.17 English Bio Sciences Mathematics Psychology 0.01 0.31* 0.06 .979 .000 .605 0.75 -0.10 0.19 -0.08 0.13 0.44 0.19 Mathematics Bio Sciences English Psychology -0.30* -0.31* -0.26* .000 .000 .000 -0.76 -0.75 -0.65 -0.41 -0.44 -0.40 -0.18 -0.19 -0.11 Psychology Bio Sciences English Mathematics -0.04 -0.06 0.26* .763 .605 .000 0.65 -0.17 -0.19 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.40

PAGE 316

299 Appendix L (Continued) Table L-11 Results of ANOVA for Teaching/Learning Scale by Discipline – Doctoral Student Preparation Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 2 Between Groups 23.32 3 7.77 30.59 .000 .09 Within Groups 232.24 914 .25 Total 255.56 917 Table L-12 Scheffe Post-hoc Comparisons for Teaching/Learning Scale by Discipline – Doctoral Student Preparation 99% Confidence Interval Discipline (i) Discipline (j) Mean Difference (i-j) Sig. Cohen’s d Lower Bound Upper Bound Biological Sciences English Mathematics Psychology -0.26* 0.17* -0.19* .000 .003 .002 -0.51 0.35 -0.36 -0.44 0.02 -0.36 -0.11 0.32 -0.02 English Bio Sciences Mathematics Psychology 0.26* 0.43* 0.07 .000 .000 .669 0.51 0.90 0.11 0.26 -0.11 0.40 0.59 0.25 Mathematics Bio Sciences English Psychology -0.17* -0.43* -0.36* .003 .000 .000 -0.35 -0.90 -0.72 -0.32 -0.59 -0.55 -0.02 -0.26 -0.17 Psychology Bio Sciences English Mathematics 0.19* -0.07 0.36* .002 .669 .000 0.36 0.72 0.02 -0.25 0.17 0.36 0.11 0.55

PAGE 317

300 Appendix L (Continued) Table L-13 Results of ANOVA for Research Scale by Discipline – Doctoral Student Preparation Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square Welch Statistic Sig. 2 Between Groups 96.19 3 32.05 165.22 .000 .35 Within Groups 176.11 433.39 .19 Total 272.25 436.39 Table L-14 Games-Howell Post-hoc Comparisons for Research Scale by Discipline – Doctoral Student Preparation 99% Confidence Interval Discipline (i) Discipline (j) Mean Difference (i-j) Sig. Cohen’s d Lower Bound Upper Bound Biological Sciences English Mathematics Psychology 0.62* 0.67* 0.02 .000 .000 .956 1.45 1.49 0.51 0.55 -0.10 0.73 0.80 0.14 English Bio Sciences Mathematics Psychology -0.62* 0.05 -0.60* .000 .644 .000 -1.45 -1.44 -0.73 -0.09 -0.74 -0.51 0.20 -0.47 Mathematics Bio Sciences English Psychology -0.67* -0.05 -0.66* .000 .644 .000 -1.49 -1.48 -0.80 -0.20 -0.80 -0.55 0.09 -0.51 Psychology Bio Sciences English Mathematics -0.02 0.60* 0.66* .956 .000 .000 1.44 1.48 -0.14 0.47 0.51 0.10 0.74 0.80

PAGE 318

301 Appendix L (Continued) Table L-15 Results of ANOVA for Service Scale by Discipline – Doctoral Student Preparation Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 2 Between Groups 5.58 3 1.86 13.64 .000 .04 Within Groups 125.52 920 .14 Total 131.11 923 Table L-16 Scheffe Post-hoc Comparisons for Service Scale by Discipline – Doctoral Student Preparation 99% Confidence Interval Discipline (i) Discipline (j) Mean Difference (i-j) Sig. Cohen’s d Lower Bound Upper Bound Biological Sciences English Mathematics Psychology -0.10 0.13* 0.04 .023 .002 .758 0.34 -0.20 0.02 -0.08 0.01 0.24 0.16 English Bio Sciences Mathematics Psychology 0.10 0.22* 0.14* .023 .000 .007 0.59 0.38 -0.01 0.10 0.00 0.20 0.35 0.27 Mathematics Bio Sciences English Psychology -0.13* -0.22* -0.09 .002 .000 .190 -0.34 -0.59 -0.24 -0.35 -0.22 -0.02 -0.10 0.05 Psychology Bio Sciences English Mathematics -0.04 -0.14* 0.09 .758 .007 .190 -0.38 -0.16 -0.27 -0.05 0.08 0.00 0.22

PAGE 319

302 Appendix M Tables by Status as a Dissertation Advisor Table M-1 Results of ANOVA for All Scales by Status as a Dissertation Advisor Scale Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F / Welch** Sig. 2 Cohen’s d Comp – F Between Within Total 0.71 126.95 127.66 1 148.38 0.71 0.13 3.92**.049 .00 Comp – S Between Within Total 1.59 157.90 159.49 1 149.22 1.59 0.17 7.15**.008 .01 0.28 Teaching F Between Within Total 3.89 226.21 230.10 1 939 940 3.89 0.24 16.13.000 .02 0.37 Teaching S Between Within Total 0.30 255.02 255.32 1 915 916 0.30 0.28 1.08.299 .00 Research -F Between Within Total 4.78 185.81 190.58 1 944 945 4.78 0.20 24.27.000 .02 0.46 Research -S Between Within Total 5.53 266.47 272.00 1 935 936 5.53 0.29 19.41.000 .02 0.42 Service – F Between Within Total 0.29 235.45 235.74 1 940 941 0.29 0.25 1.16.283 .00 Service S Between Within Total 0.02 130.85 130.87 1 143.67 0.24 0.14 0.12**.730 .00 Note. F = Importance to Faculty, S = Doctoral St udent Preparation ** Welch statistic reported.

PAGE 320

303 Appendix M (Continued) Table M-2 Percentage of Responses to Each Competency by Status as a Dissertation Advisor – Importance to Faculty Item Dissertation Advisor Non-Dissertation Advisor NI SI I EI NI SI I EI 1 14.5 39.9 34.9 10.8 15.1 38.1 31.7 15.1 2 0.0 0.2 10.7 89.1 0.0 1.6 12.8 85.6 3 0.6 10.2 50.3 38.9 2.4 15.2 50.4 32.0 4 3.1 34.8 49.3 12.7 7.2 32.8 47.2 12.8 5 12.4 47.9 31.0 8.7 16.0 44.8 27.2 12.0 6 0.0 7.4 40.7 51.9 0.8 6.4 40.0 52.8 7 20.6 54.6 21.9 2.9 25.8 47.6 22.6 4.0 8 6.5 25.8 40.6 27.0 7.2 29.6 46.4 16.8 9 0.0 1.8 24.9 73.3 0.0 6.4 30.4 63.2 10 0.5 4.3 31.5 63.7 1.6 7.2 32.8 58.4 11 1.9 7.9 33.6 56.5 1.6 8.1 34.7 55.6 12 0.1 13.8 45.8 40.2 1.6 19.2 46.4 32.8 13 1.4 24.2 48.0 26.4 4.8 29.0 45.2 21.0 14 5.9 35.7 42.0 16.4 8.1 27.4 50.8 13.7 15 6.1 28.0 43.7 22.2 9.6 33.6 42.4 14.4 16 0.0 2.0 13.2 84.7 0.0 4.0 16.1 79.8 17 5.0 16.2 44.6 34.2 6.6 16.4 50.0 27.0 18 3.5 14.1 40.4 42.0 7.3 15.3 33.1 44.4 Note. NI = Not Important, SI = Somewhat Import ant, I = Important, EI = Extremely Important

PAGE 321

304 Appendix M (Continued) Table M-3 Percentage of Responses to Role by Status as a Dissertation Advisor – Importance to Faculty Item Dissertation Advisor Non-Dissertation Advisor NI SI I EI NI SI I EI 19 8.1 16.8 33.6 41.5 16.4 23.8 32.8 27.0 20 3.0 22.0 45.9 29.1 8.2 22.1 43.4 26.2 21 0.0 0.4 6.3 93.3 0.0 2.5 12.3 85.2 22 3.8 10.0 22.3 63.9 7.5 11.7 27.5 53.3 23 47.5 37.5 13.8 1.2 45.8 37.5 13.3 3.3 24 15.1 46.1 32.2 6.7 20.7 52.1 23.1 4.1 25 20.3 44.5 29.0 6.2 28.7 38.5 27.0 5.7 26 7.2 25.3 45.0 22.5 14.9 34.7 38.8 11.6 27 2.3 14.6 21.4 61.8 4.9 18.9 36.1 40.2 28 24.8 27.3 27.0 24.8 37.7 25.4 23.0 13.9 29 47.0 41.0 10.7 1.2 48.4 41.0 9.0 1.6 30 73.6 21.5 4.0 0.9 68.6 26.4 5.0 0.0 31 8.1 39.3 38.8 13.7 14.8 41.8 30.3 13.1 32 4.5 23.3 48.2 23.9 6.6 32.8 41.0 19.7 33 2.9 12.4 34.1 50.5 5.0 28.9 42.1 24.0 34 7.8 27.7 43.4 21.1 14.0 37.2 37.2 11.6 35 60.5 28.5 9.8 1.2 62.8 30.6 5.0 1.7 36 5.8 21.4 44.7 28.2 6.6 15.7 44.6 33.1 37 0.1 3.3 23.0 73.6 2.5 4.9 30.3 62.3 38 4.9 22.8 44.6 27.8 11.5 28.7 41.8 18.0 39 45.6 39.6 12.9 1.9 43.8 38.8 13.2 4.1 40 0.5 2.4 16.8 80.2 0.8 2.5 27.3 69.4 41 21.2 46.5 27.0 5.2 18.2 48.8 28.9 4.1 42 66.1 28.6 5.0 0.2 62.8 31.4 5.8 0.0 Note. NI = Not Important, SI = Somewhat Import ant, I = Important, EI = Extremely Important

PAGE 322

305 Appendix M (Continued) Table M-4 Percentage of Responses to Each Competency by Status as a Dissertation Advisor – Doctoral Student Preparation Item Dissertation Advisor Non-Dissertation Advisor NI SI I EI NI SI I EI 1 19.8 42.5 29.2 8.5 20.6 40.5 27.8 11.1 2 0.0 0.4 9.1 90.6 0.0 1.6 19.2 79.2 3 2.5 22.2 52.1 23.2 7.3 29.8 39.5 23.4 4 18.6 50.8 26.3 4.3 22.4 48.8 24.8 4.0 5 15.9 45.3 29.3 9.4 18.4 40.8 26.4 14.4 6 1.2 17.7 43.4 37.8 1.6 18.4 42.4 37.6 7 35.0 49.5 13.5 1.9 49.2 34.7 14.5 1.6 8 13.5 33.8 34.6 17.3 14.5 39.5 33.9 12.1 9 0.2 3.1 28.8 67.8 0.8 12.0 31.2 56.0 10 1.2 5.4 30.1 63.3 4.0 9.9 35.2 51.2 11 2.7 7.5 36.0 53.8 4.0 12.9 30.6 52.4 12 3.8 29.4 47.3 19.5 6.4 31.2 47.2 15.2 13 5.1 29.0 44.6 21.3 8.9 38.7 37.9 14.5 14 10.8 39.8 33.7 15.7 17.7 39.5 32.3 10.5 15 9.5 32.4 40.1 18.1 14.4 34.4 42.4 8.8 16 0.1 3.5 18.8 77.6 0.0 4.8 19.4 75.8 17 8.3 29.2 44.0 18.5 11.4 29.3 43.1 16.3 18 6.6 23.9 39.1 30.4 8.9 29.0 36.3 25.8 Note. NI = Not Important, SI = Somewhat Import ant, I = Important, EI = Extremely Important

PAGE 323

306 Appendix M (Continued) Table M-5 Percentage of Responses to Each Role by Status as a Dissertation Advisor – Doctoral Student Preparation Item Dissertation Advisor Non-Dissertation Advisor NI SI I EI NI SI I EI 19 42.0 30.3 19.8 7.9 49.6 26.4 19.0 5.0 20 14.0 33.7 36.3 16.0 19.0 33.1 32.2 15.7 21 1.7 8.2 23.9 66.2 1.7 14.9 33.9 49.6 22 11.6 17.4 23.5 47.4 16.0 17.6 31.9 34.5 23 81.6 15.8 2.1 0.5 83.3 9.2 6.7 0.8 24 26.0 46.0 23.8 4.2 38.0 47.9 10.7 3.3 25 32.8 40.3 22.7 4.2 36.4 40.5 19.0 4.1 26 77.2 11.6 8.8 2.4 75.8 15.0 7.5 1.7 27 15.9 26.6 32.6 24.9 27.0 29.5 24.6 18.9 28 62.0 26.8 9.0 2.2 62.0 24.0 9.1 5.0 29 75.8 20.0 3.8 0.4 72.7 23.1 3.3 0.8 30 81.5 14.8 3.3 0.4 80.0 15.8 3.3 0.8 31 54.9 35.9 8.0 1.2 57.4 34.4 7.4 0.8 32 31.9 37.6 24.1 6.4 36.4 41.3 16.5 5.8 33 52.6 24.3 16.2 6.9 59.5 23.1 12.4 5.0 34 47.2 38.6 10.7 3.5 55.8 28.3 12.5 3.3 35 84.9 13.5 1.2 0.4 84.3 12.4 1.7 1.7 36 20.3 32.8 33.3 13.6 14.9 33.9 33.9 17.4 37 0.6 10.4 29.5 59.4 4.9 19.7 36.9 38.5 38 28.8 39.2 22.4 9.6 46.3 32.2 16.5 5.0 39 76.0 21.1 2.6 0.2 76.9 19.0 3.3 0.8 40 1.0 1.7 15.0 82.3 1.6 4.1 20.5 73.8 41 67.7 26.7 5.2 0.4 62.0 28.1 9.9 0.0 42 87.2 11.3 1.4 0.1 87.6 8.3 4.1 0.0 Note. NI = Not Important, SI = Somewhat Import ant, I = Important, EI = Extremely Important

PAGE 324

307 Appendix M (Continued) Table M-6a Percentage of Responses for First Six Options by Status as a Dissertation Advisor – Who is Responsible Doctoral Student Advisor Student’s Advisory Committee All Faculty in Department Department Chair Graduate Program Director Graduate School Staff Item # DA Non-DA DA Non-DA DA Non-DA DA Non-DA DA Non-DA DA Non-DA 1 13.5 10.7 2.1 0.8 48.7 52.5 1.1 1.6 4.0 5.7 1.7 1.6 2 56.6 54.1 13.4 13.9 28.2 27.9 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.8 0.1 0.0 3 18.4 8.2 4.1 4.1 55.3 57.4 1.3 2.5 2.2 2.5 0.2 1.6 4 22.5 12.3 3.5 2.5 40.2 41.0 7.8 8.2 6.4 5.7 0.7 1.6 5 19.2 13.3 8.7 7.5 27.5 25.0 2.1 1.7 8.0 13.3 2.9 1.7 6 8.6 3.3 5.6 5.7 54.3 53.3 0.5 0.8 6.3 9.0 1.0 0.8 7 11.3 5.0 3.8 1.7 32.0 25.8 3.6 5.8 3.6 1.7 2.1 1.7 8 43.8 32.2 11.9 12.4 16.5 23.1 1.2 1.7 2.4 5.8 0.2 2.5 9 28.7 18.2 11.9 12.4 39.6 37.2 0.4 0.0 0.4 1.7 0.6 1.7 10 27.8 20.5 5.7 4.1 53.5 55.7 0.6 0.0 1.6 1.6 0.6 0.8 11 13.4 11.6 5.3 1.7 37.3 39.7 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 40.2 34.4 18.5 22.1 17.4 18.9 0.5 1.6 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.8 13 27.9 16.7 11.4 14.2 31.4 33.3 0.7 1.7 1.5 0.8 0.2 0.0 14 20.7 26.4 11.6 7.4 20.2 16.5 3.7 6.6 9.2 6.6 2.1 0.8 15 4.7 2.5 2.5 2.5 52.9 52.9 3.2 3.3 2.6 0.8 1.6 2.5 16 32.6 22.5 19.7 15.0 35.5 45.8 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.7 0.1 0.8 17 25.7 27.7 11.7 10.1 32.0 30.3 1.1 0.8 1.1 1.7 0.2 0.0 18 23.4 11.8 4.9 5.0 25.4 26.1 1.1 3.4 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.0 19 10.5 6.0 6.0 5.1 22.8 20.5 9.3 12.8 5.9 8.5 0.5 0.0 20 5.7 3.4 3.0 2.5 36.7 35.6 1.9 7.6 4.1 5.9 1.2 0.0 21 66.0 60.5 11.8 14.3 10.9 10.9 0.5 2.5 0.5 0.8 0.1 0.0

PAGE 325

308 Appendix M (Continued) Table M-6a (Continued) Doctoral Student Advisor Student’s Advisory Committee All Faculty in Department Department Chair Graduate Program Director Graduate School Staff Item # DA Non-DA DA Non-DA DA Non-DA DA Non-DA DA Non-DA DA Non-DA 22 51.5 48.3 18.4 20.7 12.1 12.1 1.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.7 23 6.1 4.3 1.5 3.4 11.7 10.3 12.1 11.2 2.4 4.3 1.2 0.0 24 26.8 19.5 17.4 18.6 21.8 22.0 1.3 3.4 1.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 25 4.3 0.0 1.3 1.7 24.3 21.4 2.1 5.1 2.3 2.6 1.5 2.6 26 14.0 10.3 10.1 7.8 16.8 13.8 5.3 9.5 5.4 6.9 0.8 0.0 27 52.1 43.7 11.0 7.6 11.4 9.2 3.5 9.2 2.9 4.2 1.0 2.5 28 34.4 22.2 3.2 4.3 6.3 7.7 5.9 6.0 0.9 2.6 2.6 0.9 29 12.7 12.0 2.6 3.4 14.6 13.7 3.7 2.6 1.4 2.6 0.4 0.0 30 2.8 0.9 1.0 0.9 11.0 7.7 3.2 1.7 1.0 0.9 0.5 0.9 31 11.4 9.4 4.1 5.1 17.9 11.1 23.5 32.5 6.0 5.1 0.4 0.0 32 31.8 22.7 3.8 2.5 21.1 21.0 8.8 13.4 4.3 5.9 0.6 0.0 33 32.0 19.1 5.5 3.5 15.6 15.7 3.4 7.0 9.5 16.5 0.6 1.7 34 8.3 6.0 2.0 0.9 27.3 22.2 24.5 25.6 1.8 0.9 0.1 0.9 35 4.7 1.7 1.2 1.7 10.5 7.8 14.7 13.0 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.0 36 6.9 3.4 3.0 2.5 35.3 34.7 5.1 6.8 6.2 6.8 0.6 2.5 37 64.3 54.2 12.5 15.3 13.0 11.9 0.8 1.7 1.4 1.7 0.1 0.0 38 50.9 35.0 6.9 8.5 13.2 17.1 0.6 1.7 0.5 0.9 0.1 0.0 39 5.6 4.3 1.6 0.9 16.3 8.6 12.8 19.0 2.5 3.4 0.7 1.7 40 41.6 34.5 11.0 12.6 31.1 29.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 41 4.5 5.1 1.7 2.6 28.5 26.5 14.6 19.7 3.6 6.0 0.1 0.0 42 4.5 4.3 0.8 0.9 12.1 7.8 7.2 9.6 1.5 0.9 0.4 0.0 Note. DA = Dissertation advisor, Non-DA = Non-Dissertation Advisor. A dissertation advisor is currently serving as an advisor or cha ired a successfully completed dissertation within the past four years.

PAGE 326

309 Appendix M (Continued) Table M-6b Percentage of Responses for Final Five Options by Status as a Dissertation Advisor – Who is Responsible Campus Teaching Center Professional Associations Student Hiring Institution Nobody n Item # DA Non-DA DA Non-DA DA Non-DA DA Non-DA DA Non-DA DA Non-DA 1 2.2 3.3 2.6 0.0 11.1 9. 8 2.7 3.3 10.4 10.7 820 122 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 3. 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 831 122 3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.8 15.7 17. 2 1.1 2.5 1.5 3.3 827 122 4 0.5 0.8 1.0 0.8 4.8 4. 1 6.9 13.9 5.6 9.0 825 122 5 1.5 1.7 4.9 7.5 10.4 14. 2 6.3 4.2 8.5 10.0 824 120 6 15.3 13.9 0.2 1.6 6.5 7. 4 0.6 2.5 1.1 1.6 825 122 7 1.2 0.8 5.3 3.3 12.7 12. 5 7.5 11.7 17.0 30.0 816 120 8 0.0 2.5 10.0 0.0 7.7 22. 5 0.5 0.8 5.7 1.7 826 121 9 1.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 15.2 24. 0 0.6 0.8 1.7 1.7 830 121 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 14. 8 1.0 0.8 0.7 1.6 821 122 11 0.0 0.8 0.5 0. 0 37.1 43.8 0.5 0. 8 5.4 1.7 815 121 12 0.0 0.0 6.0 5. 7 14.5 15.6 0.4 0. 8 1.3 0.0 816 122 13 0.4 0.0 0.2 0. 8 22.5 28.3 0.4 0. 8 3.4 3.3 815 120 14 1.8 4.1 3.6 1. 7 15.9 18.2 5.7 6. 6 5.7 5.0 813 121 15 1.0 1.7 1.2 0. 8 16.7 15.7 7.6 5. 0 6.1 12.4 815 121 16 0.0 0.0 0.2 0. 0 11.0 14.2 0.1 0. 0 0.1 0.0 817 120 17 0.0 0.0 0.7 1. 7 19.7 21.0 2.0 3. 4 5.7 3.4 806 119 18 0.0 0.8 0.4 0. 0 35.0 40.3 1.2 0. 8 7.2 10.9 811 119 19 7.6 8.5 0.1 0. 9 17.9 12.8 5.6 9. 4 13.9 15.4 800 117 20 21.7 26.3 0.5 0. 0 16.0 8.5 3.0 0. 8 6.0 9.3 801 118 21 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 9.5 10. 9 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 811 119

PAGE 327

310 Appendix M (Continued) Table M-6b (Continued) Campus Teaching Center Professional Associations Student Hiring Institution Nobody n Item # DA Non-DA DA Non-DA DA Non-DA DA Non-DA DA Non-DA DA Non-DA 22 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.9 9.4 10. 3 1.4 0.9 5.1 5.2 800 116 23 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 5.7 4. 3 13.0 14.7 45.9 47.4 776 116 24 0.4 0.8 0.6 0. 8 11.6 11.0 4.3 4. 2 14.4 19.5 794 118 25 31.4 31.6 0.1 0. 9 11.1 16.2 6.3 1. 7 15.4 16.2 794 117 26 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 8.9 9. 5 9.1 11.2 29.4 31.0 772 116 27 0.1 0.8 0.5 0.8 7.5 8. 4 4.9 5.9 5.0 7.6 797 119 28 0.5 0.9 0.6 1.7 7.2 6. 0 10.4 12.0 27.8 35.9 776 117 29 0.0 0.9 4.8 3.4 13.2 8. 5 5.6 14.5 41.1 38.5 774 117 30 16.5 20.5 0.0 1. 7 7.1 8.5 7.6 14. 5 49.1 41.9 772 117 31 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 8.6 4. 3 10.5 9.4 17.2 23.1 780 117 32 2.5 5.0 0.0 0.0 10.3 9. 2 7.4 5.9 9.3 14.3 786 119 33 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 8.0 9. 6 6.7 7.8 18.6 18.3 775 115 34 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.9 8.7 9. 4 9.5 6.8 17.5 26.5 781 117 35 0.3 0.0 0.5 1.7 3.8 4. 3 13.0 18.3 49.5 50.4 761 115 36 22.0 18.6 0.3 0. 8 7.3 9.3 5.4 5. 1 8.0 9.3 779 118 37 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.8 7.7 11. 0 0.4 0.0 0.1 3.4 792 118 38 0.0 0.0 4.3 4.3 9.3 12. 8 1.0 0.9 10.4 18.8 782 117 39 0.0 1.7 0.3 0.0 9.9 7. 8 12.0 12.1 38.4 40.5 766 116 40 0.0 0.8 0.1 0. 8 14.4 21.0 0.1 0. 0 1.4 0.8 789 119 41 2.7 2.6 0.1 0.0 7.0 6. 0 8.8 6.8 28.2 24.8 772 117 42 0.5 1.7 0.7 0. 9 12.6 10.4 7.7 7. 8 52.1 55.7 754 115 Note. DA = Dissertation advisor, Non-DA = Non-Dissertation Advisor. A dissertation advisor is currently serving as an advisor or cha ired a successfully completed dissertation within the past four years.

PAGE 328

About the Author Jennifer M. Purcell graduated from the University of South Florida in 1994 with a BA in psychology. She was a recipient of the Kosove Scholarship and received the Outstanding Senior Award from the USF Alumni Association. While employed in the USF Honors Program, Ms. Purcell completed her Master of Arts degree in Adult Education. Following ten years of professional experience in student and academic affairs, Ms. Purcell was awarded the USF Presidential Fellowship to pursue a Ph.D. in Higher Education Administration. Her research interests include the connections between student and academic affairs, teaching / learning strategies, faculty roles, and graduate student socialization. She has presented at national conferences, was an instructor in the leadership studies program, guest lectured in several graduate courses, and served as a reviewer for two academic journals while balancing employment and family responsibilities. After earning her doctorate, Ms. Purcell plans to continue her work in higher education at an institution in the northeast.