Views

of an Academic Advisor: Characteristics of Processes that Indicate Dissertation Research is Going Well
by Jane F. Gilgun University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, USA

Summary This article describes characteristics of processes that indicate dissertation research is going well. Based upon work I had done with about 60 PhD candidates, the article shows that a collaborative relationship between advisors and students, open and clear communication, engagement in problem-solving when difficulties arise, student commitment to excellence in scholarship, and students consequently becoming experts in their topic areas, the methods they use, and their own findings characterize dissertation research that goes well. These qualities also are associated with success in job talks when newly minted PhDs interview for faculty positions. Finally, the qualities also predict scholarly productivity once persons with PhDs have faculty positions. About the Author Jane F. Gilgun, Ph.D., LICSW, is a professor, School of Social Work, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, USA. She has been a professor for almost 28 years.

Views of an Academic Advisor: Characteristics of Processes that Indicate Dissertation Research is Going Well
I have worked with about 60 PhD students as either a member of their committees or as an advisor. I have observed that when dissertation research goes well, the students and the advisors have a collaborative relationship. They stay in touch, have clear and open communication, and, when difficulties arise, they engage in problem-solving. In addition, students choose topics that interest them, and they do the difficult scholarly work involved. They become experts on their topics, their methods, and their own findings. They do well in job talks when they present the results of their dissertation research because their research can stand up to the scrutiny that is routine in academic life. These qualities also are associated with scholarly productivity once persons with PhDs become faculty members. Student researchers also understand that advisors typically will ask them to revise drafts. Sometimes advisors ask for several revisions before they say the dissertation is ready to defend. Excellent institutions hold students to high academic standards. The following are characteristics associated with excellent dissertation research. Topic that Interest them Students who do well in the dissertation research process have many characteristics in common. A primary characteristic is to choose a topic that interests them. Dissertation research, and research of any kind, typically is difficult. Many researchers reach a point where they want to quit because it is just too hard. What keeps researchers going is the purpose of the research. If researchers believe that the outcome of the research is important, they persist. The best possible sign of future success is students belief that their research will make a difference in the lives of others. Economic considerations and hope for an academic position are important, but secondary to the belief in the significance of the work. Proposals PhD students develop proposals for their research. The proposal is a research plan that includes a literature review, purpose statement, often a reflexivity statement, research questions, often hypotheses, a methods section, a data analysis plan, ethical considerations, and dissemination plans. Students work with advisors to develop proposals. When advisors think the proposal is ready, students give the proposal to dissertation committee members.

The advisor and dissertation committee members make the decision about whether the research plan is ready to be implemented. Students often underestimate how difficult dissertation research is. Most students work well with advisors and craft a proposal for research that is doable within a reasonable period of time. What is reasonable varies by discipline. In social work, reasonable is work that students can complete in one years time from the beginning of data collection to the write-up of findings. Some students propose projects that are far too wide in scope for a dissertation. In these cases, advisors usually share their concerns with students. If students want to continue, advisors can do little to stop them. They hope students can do the work they propose or that students realize early in data collection that they have tried to do too much. In such situations, most advisors are willing to give students the go-ahead to change their research plans. Collaboration with Advisors When PhD students do their dissertation research, it is wise to stay in touch with advisors throughout the research process, from the writing of the proposal to handing in the final draft. Students do well when they check in with advisors periodically, let advisors know what they are doing, what they are learning, and what issues arise. Such students also are open to advisors suggestions and incorporate them into their work. Students can be assured that advisors want them to do well and to go on to successful careers. Advisors rarely pursue their students in terms of inquiring what is going on with the research. There are many reasons for this, but primarily advisors want to respect the autonomy of PhD students. Sometimes advisors may send a friendly e-mail to inquire about how things are going. It is the rare advisor who keeps in unilateral touch with students. I for one assume that PhD students are mature adults who know what they want and who pursue with they want to the best of their abilities. I assume also that they know that I will respond to requests they make of me. In my experience, this is typical of dissertation advisors. Clear and Open Communication An advisors job is to advise. To advise means to give counsel, to give opinions, and to provide information and recommendations that are worth following. When students work with advisors, they are engaged in mutual, reciprocal relationships. Overall, the advisors job is to educate and guide students about research processes and to help students abide by academic standards. Advisors offer advice on such matters as which research and theories might be important, what methods appear to be relevant, and procedures of analysis, interpretation, dissemination, and ethical conduct of research. Everything is negotiable except academic and ethical standards.

 Students immerse themselves in these standards throughout their academic careers. Some students are able to do excellent academic work with little guidance. I am amazed and delighted when students do excellent work, which is characterized by thoroughness, clarity, organizational ability, documentation of general statements, unity among parts of the research, trustworthiness in data collection, analysis, and interpretation, and originality (no plagiarism), among other qualities. Graduate schools should expel students who turn in work that is not their own. Many do. There is no excuse for plagiarism, which is theft of the work of others. Several years ago, a student turned in a first draft of a proposal that contained in its entirety a paper I had written. I had given the paper to him in draft form before it was published. When I told him I had written that paper, he said, I forgot. There is no excuse for such intellectual thievery. None. Sometimes advisors make suggestions that students do not want to follow. Students should tell their advisors right away or within a short period of time about their reservations. Students in these situations do well when they ask advisors for more information and clarification. Students then explain to advisors what their points of view are. With such open and reciprocal conversations, students and advisors come to agreement. If students believe that advisors are not understanding them, say that: I dont feel you are understanding what I am saying. Or, even better, students could reflect upon how they communicated and whether they communicated what they want clearly to advisors. If they have been unclear, this is understandable because students typically are not seasoned researchers. Students benefit from conversations with advisors who are willing to listen carefully to the students ideas and who seek as much clarity as possible about what students want. Sometimes advisors think they understand what students want to do, but they dont. Since advisors dont realize that they dont understand, its up to students to let the advisors know. It is the rare advisor who is irritated about this. On the contrary, because advisors want to be helpful, they want to understand students points of view. Most of the time, the entire research process is fairly smooth, even when students encounter difficulties. This is because students and advisors stay in close contact and have clear communication. When students and advisors dont stay in close contact and do not communicate well, students may still do an excellent job. Sometimes, however, not staying in contact and communicating about the research can cause serious problems. I have been part of committees where advisors have made suggestions about data analysis, and the students go along with the suggestions. At the end of data collection and even well into data analysis, the students tell the advisors they never wanted to do that kind of analysis. The advisors are shocked, having no idea that this was the case. Not seeking clarification from advisors can result in situations like these. Such situations are nightmares for students and for advisors.

Collaboration and Problem-Solving A way to head off such nightmares is for students to collaborate with advisors in data collection and data analysis. In both qualitative and quantitative research, students can assume that analysis is a collaborative process. Advisors want information on how data collection and analysis are going. They want this in order to be helpful and to head off any problems before the problems get difficult to solve. Even if everything is going smoothly, advisors want to know the good news. If students run into problems, it is to students advantage to let advisors know. Advisors may be able to help students work out alternative actions. When students have issues with any part of the dissertation process, advisors want to know. Advisors want to be helpful. They want to facilitate student work. They want students to succeed. Institutions of higher education typically invest a great deal of time, energy, and money into PhD students. Advisors advise because they want a part in bringing students along to the point where students become excellent scholars themselves. Most advisors do all they can to facilitate student work. Difficulty in recruitment is a common issue. There are many creative solutions to this. Advisors can provide emotional support when students are frustrated with recruitment. They may also know other possible referral sources. Over the years, I have been able to make suggestions to students about social service agencies who are willing to be helpful in recruitment of participants. So have my colleagues. Students who do well in the dissertation process see advisors as resources. It is common in qualitative work for student researchers to invite other people to collaborate with them in data analysis and interpretation. This is traditional in the Chicago School of Sociology, for example. Some advisors are willing to do some of this analysis with students. This is an opportunity for students to work alongside of seasoned researchers. Some long-term professors who teach qualitative research say this is the only way for students to learn. Leonard Schatzman, who co-developed grounded theory, had that view, as the interview cited below shows. Students Become Expertsor Should When students do dissertation research, advisors and committee members expect them to become experts on the research related to their topics, on the methods they use to research their topics, and on their own research findings. This means many hours of course work, independent study, and discussions with knowledgeable others on the topic and on methods. When students begin their research, the topic and the methods may be unfamiliar. When they complete their dissertations, they have read, grappled with, and understood not only the topic and their own research, but also the methods. They often know more than advisors and committee members about some of these issues.

 Advisors are unsympathetic when PhD candidates state as they hand in their dissertations for advisors evaluation that they were unfamiliar with the methods. Yes, at the beginning of dissertation research projects, students are unfamiliar with a lot of things, including the research methods they choose to use. At the end of the process, they should be experts. Regulate Rage Sometimes advisors tell students things they do not want to hear. I once had a PhD student whose proposal called for a sample of 600. After much effort and enlistment of the help of other referral sources, the student still was not able to recruit 600 participants. She ended up with a sample size of 140. She wanted to run a regression with 30 independent variables and one dependent variable. I told her that he can have one independent variable for every 20 cases. She had forgotten this. The student was furious at me. Certainly the student had reasons to be upset, but not at me. The issue was one related to the mathematics and assumptions of statistical procedures--and difficulties with recruitment. Ive had other students go into a rage when I tell them they have to come up with a theory when they do grounded theory analysis with case studies. These are students who did data analysis without consulting me and handed me a completed dissertation. These students did not understand grounded theory nor did they understand that single or multiple case study analysis require careful description of the case or cases, identification of core concepts and processes, and then comparison of these core concepts and processes with existing research and theory. This is part of transparency in research processes, a core part of academic standards. In their proposals, the students had discussed these procedures, but when it was time to apply them, the students did not know how to do this, nor did they realize that they did not understand. From my point of view, this is sad. Its sad because I want students to be good scholars and to understand that research involves collaboration. They did their entire analyses on their own, without consulting me. Doing Well in Job Talks Newly minded PhDs typically seek academic positions that involve job talks. Institutions who are looking for new faculty members typically want applicants to talk about their dissertation research. They are looking for excellence in scholarship. Doing excellent work involves mastery of a field of knowledge, mastery of research methods, and mastery of data collection, analysis, interpretation, presentation, and dissemination. In addition, students have to be able to articulate all of these processes and respond to questions in ways that show their mastery of the material. This kind of excellence is possible through collaboration with advisors and with other committee members. In fact, academic work that college and university researchers

do typically is collaborative, as, for example, in multiple authored articles and books. Even when academic work is sole-authored, the authors have asked knowledgeable others to review their work in order to ensure that they have not overlooked anything. A definition of wisdom is openness to the feedback of others. Students who do well in the processes of dissertation research also receive strong letters of recommendations from advisors. It is far more difficult for advisors to recommend students for academic positions when students work does not meet academic standards. Discussion The advising process is an apprenticeship. Students apprentice themselves to advisors whose work they admire and want to emulate. The job of advisors is guide student researchers throughout the many phases of research and to hold students to high academic standards. The job of students is to do excellent research. Staying in touch with advisors, seeking their counsel, seeking clarification of their consul, collaborating with them in data analysis and interpretation, and students setting high standards for themselves lead to success in dissertation research, success on the job market, and success as academics themselves. Students like these earn excellent recommendations. References Bryant, Anthony & Kathy Charmaz (2007). The Sage handbook of grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Charmaz, Kathy (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gilgun, Jane F. (1993). An interview with Leonard Schatzman. Qualitative Family Research, 7 (1 & 2). http://www.scribd.com/doc/25377402/An-Interview-with-Leonard- Schatzman. Gilgun, Jane F. (2004). Guidelines for evaluating dissertations based on qualitative methods. http://www.scribd.com/doc/20634867/Guidelines-for-Evaluating- Dissertations-Based-on-Qualitative-Methods. Gilgun, Jane F. (2011). Theory and case study research. http://www.scribd.com/doc/48231895/Theory-and-Case-Study-Research.