FACULTY INFLUENCE AND PROFESSSONAL
PARTICIPATIOR OF DOCTORAL STUDENTS

Yhosis for the Eton?» a? M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNSVERSIT’Y

Jam Pea“
3963

n mum; “L“!L‘W H1111 ['1‘ [will Illlllllilljflll w

 

? “My, gm wk-
-.’.f“;:, “‘qu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FACULTY INFLUENCE AND PROFESSIONAL

PARTICIPATION 0F DOCTORAL STUDENTS

By

John Pease

A THESIS

Submitted to the
College of Social Sciences
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Sociology and Anthr0pology

1963

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Professor David Gottlieb for serving as
my major professor. He has not only guided the writer, but his
writings have suggested the focus of the thesis.

I would also like to thank Professors Allan Beegle and-William
Faunce for serving as members of my thesis committee, and Dr. Allan
Tucker for his assistance in obtaining financial support for the study.

Leah (who treats all this as a harmless game) and Barbara (who
sometimes wishes that harmless games would have an end) have made the
task an easier one. To them and to Professor and Mrs. Limpus, I would
like to publicly express my sincere appreciation for their help and
encouragement. my debt to them will always be a source of pleasant

embarrassment.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . .

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION: THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . .
II PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS: DISCUSSION OF
PREVIOUS SMESO . . C . Q C C O C . O C
III THE SAMPLE, FIELD PROCEDURES AND DESIGN OF
‘ANALYSISoooo‘ooooooooooooo
IV FACULTY INFLUENCE AND PROFESSIONAL
PmTICHATION C . o . . . -. . C . C O O C
V rSUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS , ,,. , , , , ,
BIBLIOGRAPHY. ... . . . o .

APPENDICES. . ... ...

APPENDIX 1.».

APPENDIX II

0

APPENDIX III.

APPENDIX IV .

APPENDIX V.

iii

ii

16

39
63
7O
73

74

-92

.93

95

96

TABLE

10

11

12

l3

14

15

16

LIST OF TABLES

RETURNS OF THE MAILED QUESTIONNAIRE
FINAL RETURNS OF THE MAILED QUESTIONNAIRE

COMPARISON OF THE SAMPLE AND RESPONSE BY TERM
OFFICIALLY GRADUATED

COMPARISON OF THE SAMPLE AND RESPONSE BY YEAR
OFFICIALLY GRADUATED

COMPARISON OF THE SAMPLE AND RESPONSE BY SEX
COMPARISON OF THE SAMPLE AND RESPONSE BY DEGREE
COMPARISON OF THE SAMPLE AND RESPONSE BY COLLEGE

COMPARISON OF THE SAMPLE AND RESPONSE BY DIVISION
OF STUDY

DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE AND RESPONSE BY DEPARTMENT
AND DIVISION FOR THE TRADITIONAL ARTS AND SCIENCES

DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE AND RESPONSE BY DEPARTMENT
AND DIVISION FOR_THE PROFESSIONAL FIELDS

PARTICIPATION IN PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES DURING
THE PERIOD OF DOCTORAL TRAINING

PARTICIPATION IN PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES BY
AVERAGE NUMBER OF MEETINGS WITH MAJOR
PROFESSOR PER TERM

PARTICIPATION IN PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES BY NUMBER
OF MEETINGS WITH FULL GUIDANCE COMMITTEE

PARTICIPATION IN PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES BY
DISCUSSION OF PROGRAM WITH MEMBERS OF GUIDANCE
COMMITTEE ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS

PARTICIPATION IN PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES BY NUMBER
OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS MET WITH INDIVIDUALLY

PARTICIPATION IN PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES BY

OPPORTUNITY To DISCUSS CAREER PLANS WITH MEMBERS
OF THE FACULTY

iv

PAGE

19

20

22

23

24

25

25

26

29

3O

41

43

44

47

49

51

TABLE

17

18

'19

20

PARTICIPATION IN PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES BY
NUMBER OF FACULTY MEMBERS KNOWN ON'A.PERSONAL
BASIS

PARTICIPATION IN PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES BY
FACULTY ENCOURAGEMENT

INTERRELATIONSHIPS OF DOCTORAL STUDENT PARTICIPATION
IN PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES

INTERRELATIONSHIPS OF FACULTY ENCOURAGEMENT FOR
DOCTORAL STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN PROFESSIONAL
ACTIVITIES

PAGE

53

57

60

62

APPENDIX

II

III

IV

LIST OF APPENDICES

AN APPROXIMATION OF THE FIELD QUESTIONNAIRE

AN APPROXIMATION OF THE COVER LETTER USED IN
THE MAILING

AN APPROXIMATION OF THE COVER LETTER USED FOR
THE 1962 GRADUATING GROUP

AN APPROXIMATION OF THE COVER LETTER USED IN
THE FOLLOW-UP MAILING

A RESEARCH NOTE ON THE NO ANSWER

vi

PAGE

74

92

93

95

96

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION: THE PROBLEM

('A number of studies have recently appeared in the literature of
sociology concerning the socialization of the adult in the context of
the American graduate school.1 These studies have demonstrated that
students experience changes in their attitudes, values and behaviors,
and that these changes are related to the social system of the
graduate school.

Quite broadly, the concept of socialization refers to the
processes by which an individual learns the ways of a social group so
that he can function within that group. It includes the learning and
internalizing of apprOpriate norms and attitudes along with the neces-
sary knowledge and skills. In contradistinction to the psychiatric
and psychological conceptualizations, socialization in the perspective

of the sociologist does not end at the time of puberty.

 

1James A. Davis with David Gottlieb, Jan Hajda, Carolyn Huson
and Joe L. Spaeth, Stipends and Spouses: The Finances 2; American
Arts and Science Graduate Students. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press, 1962; David Gottlieb, "American Graduate Students:
Some Characteristics of A5piring Teachers and Researchers," Journal
2f Educational Psychology, 53 (1961), 236-40, and; David Gottlieb,
"Processes of Socialization in American Graduate Schools," Social
Forces, 40 (1961), 124-31.

2
Recent articles2 have pointed out how, under the banner of Freudian
doctrine, socialization has been restricted to the time of child deve10p-
ment--the time when "the individual is originally inducted into the social
organization".3
Emphasizing the time of childhood deve10pment in the socialization

process is, for Parsons, prOper for two reasons. First, the child
". . . has so far to go, . . ."4 and second,

There is reason to believe that, among the learned

elements of personality in certain respects the

stablest and most enduring are the major value-

orientation patterns and there is much evidence

that these are "laid down" in childhood and are

not on a large scale subject to drastic alteration

during adult life.5

Nonetheless, for most sociologists and especially those who work in
the areas of adult socialization, careers, and occupations a fundamental
assumption is that socialization occurs throughout life.
. . . the personality is a growing, changing,
plastic structure that is subject to modification

throughout life by the social influences that
surround the individual. .

 

2David Gottlieb, Processes pf Socialization in the American
Graduate School. An unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, 1960, and Howard S. Becker and Anselm L.
Strauss, "Careers, Personality, and Adult Socialization," The American
Journal g£_Sociology, LXII (1956), 253-63.

 

 

3Gottlieb, Processes g£_Socialization $3 the American Graduate
School, 22, cit., p. 2.

4Talcott Parsons, The Social System. Glencoe: The Free Press,
1951, p. 208.

51bid.

. 6Gottlieb, Processes g; Socialization in the American Graduate
School, 22. cit., p. 1.

3
Just as the new recruit is socialized into the army, the groom into
a life of marriage, and an employee into the job situation, the graduate
student is socialized into his professional field. Although the
socialization of the adult differs from that of the child, in that the
adult has already develOped a somewhat established character structure,
the processes are much the same. The socializer teaches, serves as a
model, and invites participation. Individuals being socialized learn
and internalize the new expectations and develop and modify their self-
conceptions by role-taking, observation, and participationu“I
. Perhaps, the most useful definition of adult socialization is that
made by Merton.
Socialization . . . refers to the learning of social
roles. In its application to the medical student,
socialization refers to the processes through which
he develops his professional self, with its character-
istic values, attitudes, knowledge, and skills, fusing
these into a more or less consistent set of diaposi-
tions which govern his behavior in a wide variety of
professional (and extra-professional) situations.
Socialization takes place primarily through social
interactions with people who are significant for the
individual--in the medical school, probably with the
faculty members above most others 7
Thus, the concept of adult socialization is seen as the process
whereby the individual deve10ps or modifies his concept of self through
the acquisition of personality characteristics vis-a-vis contacts with

"significant others". As Gottlieb has pointed out, Merton's conceptual-

ization of socialization is one which assumes that the

 

7Robert K. Merton, "Socialization: A Terminological Note," in
Robert K. Merton, George Reader and Patricia L. Kendall (editors),
The Student Physician: Introductory Studies in_the Sociology 2£_Medical
Education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957, p. 287.

 

4
. . professional self is an important aspect of

the total self, and that the professional school and

the personnel directly'and indirectly associated with

it are significant influences in the formation of the

professional self.8
Moreover, Merton assumes that in the context of the professional school
the most important "significant other" for the student is that of the
graduate faculty.

Merton's conceptualization also notes that the processes of
socialization occur both formally and informally.

. direct learning through didactic teaching of

one kind or another, and indirect learning, in which

attitudes, values and behavior patterns are acquired

as byproducts of contact with instructors and peers,

with patients, and with the members of the health

team.
It is the latter, the less conSpicuous learning process, with which
Merton is primarily concerned. Indirect learning is frequently and
more easily neglected and is viewed as being acquired as a byproduct
of contact with the faculty, among others.

Elkin, too, emphasizes the "informal" process of socialization and
further notes that the persistence of any on-going social group, in its
existing form, is continually dependent on socialization,

. on the learning by new recruits and participants
of both the necessary skills and appropriate attitudes

and sentiments. The infantry recruit should learn not
only the basic skills of fighting, he should also know

 

8Gottlieb, Processes g£_Socialization in the American Graduate
School, 92. cit., p. 3.

 

9Robert K. Merton, "Some Preliminaries to a Sociology of Medical
Education," in Merton, Reader and Kendall, 22. cit., p. 41.

5

the traditions and slang of his unit, and believe that
commands should come through military hierarchy.10

Q In learning to become a professional, the student formally learns
the skills of the field. He is both formally and informally introduced
to the "code of ethics", ideals, norms and protocols of the profession.
At much the same time, he is informally socialized through interaction
with the faculty. Through stories, observations, imitation, and inter-
action with these ”significant others", he deve10ps a conception of his

professional selfqt

The Problem

The task of this research is to explore one small part of the
graduate student socialization process-~that of the "professionaliza-
tion" of the doctoral student. Specifically, we shall explore the role
the faculty plays in accounting for the professional participation of
doctoral students. we shall investigate, describe, and analyze how
students of varying degrees of faculty encouragement and varying
degrees of faculty contact participate in the professional activities
of their reSpective fields. We shall describe how students who par—
ticipate and students who do not participate in these various activities
compare in terms of their relationships with the faculty.

It is the thesis of this research that in the social system of the
graduate school the faculty constitutes a "significant other" for the

graduate student and that much of the student's professional behavior is

 

10Frederick Elkin, The Child and~Society: The Process 2f_Socializa-
tion. New York: Random House, 1960, pp. 101-102.

 

6
a result of his interaction with the faculty. we will utilize the con-
ceptual framework described by Merton and Gottlieb. "That is, casting
the faculty in the role of the socializer and the student in the role of
the socializee, we want to see if the faculty constitutes a significant
influence for the student."11

We hypothesize that the participation in professional activities by
the graduate student during the period of his doctoral training is re-
lated to (a) the amount of contact he has had with the faculty and (b)
the amount of encouragement he received from the faculty. The more
contact a student has with the faculty and the more he is encouraged by
the faculty towards a professional activity, the more the student will
tend to participate in that activity.

The reader is asked to bear in mind that this is not a study of the
total graduate student socialization process, but an exploratory inves-
tigation of one part of the socialization process—-the graduate student
as a professional and the influence of the faculty in this part of his
socialization. We are not, of course, pr0posing that the faculty is the
sole influence in the life of the graduate student for previous studies
have shown that among other factors, peers, spouses, and finances have a'
direct influence on him.12 The focus of this research is the influence

of the faculty.

 

11Gottlieb, Processes gf Socialization in the American Graduate
School, 22, cit., p. 4.

12See, for example, William Erbe, "Gregariousness, Group Member-
ship, and the Flow of Information," The American Journal 2f Sociology,
LXVII (1962), 502-16 and, Davis, 2531;, 22. cit.

 

7

It.is also important that the reader keep in mind that our data
covers only the more structural and behavioral aspects of the student-
faculty relationship and does not directly deal with attitudes, values,
cognitions or beliefs. Moreover, we are asserting that the faculty
socialize, that they impart their values to the student and yet we know
that reciprocity is characteristic of all interaction. Most of all, we
should be cognizant of the fact that student conformity to various
'faculty influences does not guarantee that socialization has occurred.
It may simply be that the student recognizes the path of least re-
sistance to the degree and, not that he has internalized the attitudes
and values of the faculty.- Consequently, we shall necessarily be some-

what conservative concerning the inferences we make about socialization.

CHAPTER II

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS:
A DISCUSSION OF PREVIOUS STUDIES1

There have been relatively few studies that have been concerned with
the student-faculty relationship in the area of graduate student sociali-
zation. The few that have been done, however, have had direct influence
on this study. These studies come from two major sources: the study of
the medical student by Robert Merton and associates of the Bureau of
Applied Social Research,2 and the study of the arts and science student
by James Davis and associates of the National Opinion Research Center.3

“The first of these, the study of the medical student is only
partially reported. A collection of articles, edited by Merton, Reader
and Kendall, present initial findings of the research, along with a
description of the setting and theoretical orientation of the project.

Most of the articles focus on the process of occupational decision:

making. One of these, an article on "The Decision to Study Medicine,"

 

1For a complete review of the literature on adult socialization, see
Gottlieb, Processes 2£_Socialization ig_the American Graduate School, 22.
Cite, pp. 4'53.

 

2Merton, Reader and Kendall, 92, 215. For a methodological review,
see James A. Davis' review article in The American Journal of Sociology,
LXIII (1958), 445-46. A more substantive review is Howard Becker's in
the American Sociological Review, 23 (1958), 336-37.

3Davis, t al., 22. cit.

9

analyzes correlates of early and late decisions to enter medical school. 4

_ A..-
“...—mag...- WI» 3*“

-. Mn... ...—...... .,_ n.----

-1: MMmaM—M‘ , VIP-"‘5'."

”WWW '-

Rogoff finds that "the more contact with physicians (in the family),t

‘.-_— ......- nw-w— rooA~ 1.. .‘

earlier interest was aroused"5 and that an early decisionm to study medi-

-u--4.+~H-.-., M . ....—

 

 

w

cine is generally a more enthusiastic one. Those who decided early

--o— .-“ ‘n‘
._._....41
“"'-..‘ .1... 7

reported that their significant reference group was their family, whereas
students who decided on medicine after entering college reported more
social support from their peers.

Thielens' article6kcompares entrants to medical school with entrants

...-1 ...«u- “M

 

to law school and shows that the decision to study-medicine is made

__ ...-a
.n

. .uux

earlier than the decision to study law. The_author describes three

factors which he thinks contribute to the difference:

course requirements for admission to medical school
are more extensive than those for admission to law
school, medical entrants have had more contact with
representatives of their future profession, and

,‘ physicians have higher standing in the community

i and larger incomes than lawyers.7

..40"-‘\

'I‘lv- 0

One article in this collection that Specifically discusses the sig-
nificance of student-faculty relationships is Kendall and Selvin's
"Tendencies Toward Specialization in,Medica1 Training."8 -They-found that
students are increasingly likely to express a preference for specializa-

tion as they progress through their training. Among first year students,

 

4Natalie Rogoff, "The Decision to Study Medicine,” in Merton, Reader
and Kendall, 22, cit., pp. 109-29.

5Ibid., p. 128.

6Wagner Thielens, Jr., "Some Comparisons of Entrants to Medical and
Law School," in Merton, Reader and Kendall, 22, cit., p. 130-52.

71bid., p. 151.
8Patricia L. Kendall and Hanan C. Selvin, "Tendencies Toward

Specialization in Medical Training" in Merton, Reader and Kendall,
22. cit., pp. 153-78.

lO
35fipercent expect to go.into Speciality practice, 41 percent of the second
year students, 56 percent of the third year students and 74 percent of the
fourth year students.9 The authors suggest the reason that a high per-
centage of first year students choose general practice is because they
know so little about their own capacities and the requirements of the

"Preference” for general practice is their way Of

specialities. Their
avoiding a premature commitment.

The fourth-year students, on the other hand, show a marked prefer-
ence for speciality practice and Kendall and Selvin hypothesize that this
preference reflects the advanced students' awareness of the horizons of
their professions and their own limitations. Thus, they choose to narrow
the area in which they will commit themselves to competence. During the
fourth year the student actually applies for and receives his internship
assignment. During this time when final commitments are made, Kendall
and Selvin suggest that a selective process is set in motion.10 Many
students change their preferences by the time they formally make appli-
cation for internships. The authors present data which shows that there
is a tendency for the better students (as measured by cumulative grades)
to request and receive the Speciality internships.11 The authors sug-
gest that the better jobs await those students who have completed

Speciality internships and that most of the students know this but only

the better students can count on getting good recommendations from the

 

9Ibid., p. 156.
101bid., p. 166.

111bid., pp. 169-70.

11

faculty. The poorer students recognize this, and alter their expec-
tations to be more consistent with what they think their chances are.12

The-students are assisted in their evaluations of their pro-
fessional self-image by discussions with the faculty. "During the
course of these disCussionS, students may be discouraged from some of
the plans which they have developed and encouraged in others."13
Although Kendall and Selvin's suggestions of faculty influence are
largely Speculation, they do hypothesize the kinds of relationships
in which we are interested and will be investigating.

‘ Another article in The Student Physician which is relevant to
the prOposed research is "The DeveIOpment of a Professional Self—
Image."14 In this article, Huntington presents data which shows
how the medical student develops an image of himself asa doctor,
rather than student, as he goes through his professional training.
She finds that the student alters his professional image as he

interacts with persons in his role-set who have varying expecta-

tions of him.

 

121bid., p. 170.
13Ibid., p. 171.

14Mary Jean Huntington, "The Deve10pment of a Professional
Self-Image," in Merton, Reader and Kendall, 22. cit., pp. 179-87.

12

 

SELF-IMAGES AND ATTRIBUTED IMAGES OF FIRST-YEAR STUDENTS

IN DIVERSE ROLE RELATIONSHIP315

 

Percentage Percentage who
who thought of thought others defined
In their themselves as themselves as

dealings with: doctors doctors
Faculty 2 2
Classmates 3 0
Nurses 12 8
Patients 31 75

(N-162) (N-162)

 

Although these data are not conclusive, they do suggest that in the
environment of the professional (graduate) school, the faculty becomes
an important reference group for individuals in training. It is here
that the student, to a large extent, deve10ps his professional self-image
and obtains a definition of his profession.

The other major study which has produced data relivant to the re-
search prOposed here, is the National Opinion Research Center's national
J survey of arts and science graduate students. This study has reported
a relationship between faculty encouragement and the faculty rating of

the students'ability.16

 

15Adapted from Huntington, ibid., p. 182.

16Adapted from table 9.16 in Davis, §£_al., 22, cit., p. 274.

l3

 

 

Faculty

Ability Encouraged

Rating (percent) (N)
High and middle 77 (1491)
Low 55 ( 731)

 

They also found a relationship between faculty encouragement and

the type of jobs that students eventually obtain.

Students who are high on our faculty encourage-
ment index are more likely to get academic jobs, even
controlling for the major predictor variables. Whether
such students are more highly motivated or whether the
professors who encouraged them hustled around to get
them jobs, we do not know.17

It would seem that students who are defined as the better students
ability-wise are not only encouraged by the faculty during the time of
their training, but are also Sponsored in the job market.

The writings from the Chicago study whigh have most relevance for

'._

this study are those on the Processes gf_Socialization in the American

 

 

Graduate School.18

 

Gottlieb focused on faculty influence in the changes of student
preferences for teaching and research. His purpose was to ascertain
whether the faculty had any influence in student changes in values, and

to investigate this influence from the standpoint of adult socialization.

"We want to see if the faculty constitutes a significant reference

 

17Ibid., p. 118.

18Gottlieb, Processes gf_Socialization in_the American Graduate
School, gp. cit.

 

 

1

\\

14

group for the student in deciding his career."19 The major hypotheses

~....——- ..—._...-. .—.._

of the research were:20

1. When the orientation of the student and faculty
are in Substantial agreement, the student orien—
tation will be reinforced and will be less amenable
to change than the student whose orientation is
similar to that of the faculty.

2. The student whose orientation is different from

the faculty will tend to change in the direction
of the faculty.

The highest rates of career preferences change will
take place among those students with the highest
degree of interpersonal contact with the faculty.

Data are

Run—....“ .

presented which support each of the above hypotheses. He shows

that changes in career preference are related to (a) the passing of time,

\

(b) departmental climate, and (c) integration with the faculty.21 He
\

ézjound that "The pe0p1e who are integrated with the faculty change more
j

{than those who are not, and this effect accelerates with the passage of
l
atime up to the fourth year of graduate study.”22 He also found that

Students reapond quite markedly to faculty encouragement.23

,u-
I

I In an article entitled "The Development of Identification with an

I

iOccupation,”24 Becker and Carper discuss how student-faculty relationships

 

19Ibid., p. 6.

201bid., p. 7.

21Gottlieb, "Processes of Socialization in American Graduate
Schools," 22, cit., p. 131.

221bid., p. 127.
23Ibid., pp. 130-31.

24Howard S. Becker and James W. Carper, "The Development of

Identification with an Occupation," The American Journal of Sociology,
LXI (1956), 289-98.

15
play a major part in the acquisition and/or maintenance of Specific kinds
of occupational identities among graduate students in physiology, philoso-
phy and mechanical engineering. In their discussion of the physiologists,
Becker and Carper observed that

He (the student) is often able to model his behavior
after that of a professor or of an ideal constructed
of the characteristics of several professors, learning
through observation of them thI kind of tasks which
physiologists in fact perform. 5

Another way in which the faculty's relationship to the student
affects the latter's occupational identity is through the pattern of
sponsorship, "a means by which persons low in an occupational hierarchy
5 are recommended by more highly placed persons for better positions."26
As such, the sponsorship pattern involves reciprocal obligations
between the parties, for if the Student fails he will have embarrassed

his sponsor.

When a person is Sponsored into a first position in the
work world after leaving graduate-school, he feel obli-
gated to act as a true member of the occupation and to
remain within it, because of the trust placed in him by
his Sponsor. The creation of this obligation solidifies
occupational attitudes and loyaltieS--the individual .
feels that he must remain what he has become in order
not to let down his sponsor--and thus Strengthens
identification with occupational title and ideology.27

 

25Ibid., p. 292.
26Ibid., p. 297.

27Ibid., p. 298.

CHAPTER III

THE SAMPLE, FIELD PROCEDURES AND DESIGN OF ANALYSIS

The sample for this study consists of 358 individuals who of-
ficially received a doctorate (Ph.D. or Ed.D.)1 from Hypothetical
University during the calendar years of 1960, 1961 and for the period
January 1 to March 13 (winter quarter), 1962. It should be emphasized
that this is a very select group.2 The title of this thesis, "Faculty
Influence and Professional Participation Among Doctoral Students," is
somewhat misleading. A more accurate title would be "Faculty Influence
and Professional Participation Among Successful Doctoral Students at
Hypothetical U.”

Hypothetical U. is a large midmwestern university located in the
town of Lazarsville, four miles from the city of Stoufferton.
Lazarsville, a town of roughly 25,000, is almost entirely a college
and residential community. Stoufferton, the state capital, is a
relatively large industrial city of approximately 100,000. Employment
in Stoufferton is mainly with the automobile industry and with the

state civil service.

 

1During the period of January 1, 1960 to March 13, 1962 the
University did not grant any D.V.M. or D.B.A. degrees.

2Preliminary analysis of data from a national survey reveals that
attrition for students enrolled at the post-master level is upward of
25 percent. The Graduate Student Attrition Project, directed by
David Gottlieb, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

16

l7

Hypothetical U. was founded in the mid-nineteenth century, and it
ranks as one of the nation's ten largest educational institutions with
about 4,000 of its 24,000 students enrolled in the graduate school.

The graduate school at Hypothetical U. has eight colleges and 66
departments offering degree programs in 275 different fields. Degrees
that may be earned on the doctoral level are the Doctor of Philosophy
(Ph.D.), Doctor of Education (Ed.D.), Doctor of Business Administration
(D.B.A.), and Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (D.V.M.). The enrollment for
the fall term of 1961—62 for the total graduate school was 3,596. Of
this total, 63 percent were studying on the master's level and the
remaining 37 percent were doctoral candidates. The University grants
approximately 200 doctoral degrees each year.

The listing and procurement of the sample was completed in two
stages because the study began before the (March) 1962 group had
graduated. Consequently, stage one will refer to those persons who
graduated in the calendar years 1960 and 1961 and stage two will refer
to those who graduated in 1962.

The list of the sample for stage one was obtained from the records
of the Office of the Registrar. A total of 417 persons had officially
received the doctorate during the calendar years of 1960 and 1961. Of
this number 50 had foreign addresses and 367 had American addresses.

On January 24, 1962, a COpy of the field questionnaire,3 a cover

letter,4 and a self-addressed envelOpe were mailed first—class to each

 

3An approximation of the field questionnaire used in this study
appears in the appendix.

4An approximation of the cover letter used in the mailing appears
in the appendix.

18
person with a foreign address (50) who had officially received a doctor's
degree from Hypothetical U. during the calendar years 1960 and 1961.

On January 25 and 26, 1962, a COpy of the field questionnaire, a
cover letter, and a Stamped, self-addressed envelOpe were mailed first-
class to each person with an American address (367) who had officially
received a doctor's degree from Hypothetical U. during the calendar
years 1960 and 1961.

Consistent with the best dictates on maximizing returns from a
mailed questionnaire,5 each questionnaire was hand processed;6 each
cover letter was individually typewritten and personally signed on
letterhead stationary of the Office of Research DevelOpment, Hypothetical
U.7 Addresses were individually typewritten on each envelope and each
envelOpe was then hand stamped with small denomination stamps.8

Thirty days after the original mailing, a "follow-up" mailing

was sent. The returns, as of that day, were 56 percent for the total

sample-~62 percent for American addresses.

 

5Mildred Parten, Surveys, Polls and Samples: Practical Procedures.
New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950, pp. 383-402.

 

 

6D. S. Longworth, ”Use of a Mail Questionnaire,” American
Sociological Review, 18 (1953), pp. 310-13.

 

7William J. Goode and Paul K. Hatt, Methods in_Social Research.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1952, p. 179.

8Longworth, gp. cit.

19
TABLE-I
RETURNS OF THE MAILED QUESTIONNAIRE

(One Month After Original Mailing)

 

Address Returns .
Group (percent) (N)

American

Addresses 62 (367)

Foreign

Addresses 12 ( 50)

Totals 56 (417)

 

The follow~up.included a brief cover letter,9 another COpy of the
questionnaire, and a stamped, self~addressed envelOpe. It was sent only
to those persons who had American addresses and, as of February 26, 1962,
had not returned the first questionnaire. A follow-up was not sent to
persons with a foreign address because it usually takes thirty days or
more just for first-class mail to reach respondents in foreign countries.
A total of 138 of the original reSpondents were included in the follow~up.

On May 1, 1962, approximately three months after the first
mailing, coding began and returns for the mailing at that time were
80 percent of the total sample; 88 percent for American addresses and

30 percent for foreign addresses.

 

9An approximation of the cover letter used in the follow-up
mailing appears in the appendix.

 

I‘l'..ll{{[[tl1

20
TABLE 2

FINAL RETURNS OF THE MAILED QUESTIONNAIRE

 

Address Returns 10
Group (percent) (N)

American

addresses 88 (363)

Foreign

addresses 31 ( 54)

Totals 80 (417)

 

During the course of the mailing, it was learned that eight persons
included in the original listing of this part of the sample did not re-
ceive a doctorate, but a Diploma of Advanced Graduate Study. The
Diploma of Advanced Graduate Study is usually referred to by the ab~
breviation "D.A.G.” and is sometimes referred to as the "six year
degree" (estimating four years for the bachelor's, one year for the
mater's and one year for the D.A.G.). The only requirement for this
degree is successful completion of 45 hours of class work beyond the
master's degree, It requires no language, no research and no thesis.

By definition, persons with a Diploma of Advanced Graduate Study were
not part of the sample and were eliminated from further analysis.

The total number of individuals in this part of the sample, 1960
and 1961, is 409. The number of individuals for whom we have completed
questionnaires is 327--80 percent.

The list of the sample for stage two was obtained from the Office

of the Registrar during the first week of March. Persons graduating in

 

10Address changes that occurred since the first mailing necessitated
adjustments in these figures.

21
1962 were given a questionnaire and a cover letter11 along with the
usual official forms which must be completed in order to formally
qualify for graduation.

On March 20, 1962, one week after graduation and three weeks after
the official deadline to complete application for graduation, 65 percent
of the 37 persons graduating had returned their questionnaires. On that
same day, March 20, 1962, a copy of the questionnaire, a cover letter
and a Stamped self-addressed envelOpe were sent to each of the remaining
13 persons who had graduated but, as of that day, had not returned their
completed questionnaire.

On May 1, 1962, coding began and the reSponse from this part of the
sample was 84 percent.

In summary, the selected sample N for this study is 446; the

reSponse is 358-~80.2 percent of the sample.

A_Comparative Description of the Sample and the Response

 

In an attempt to ascertain the representativeness of the sample,
this section compares the-original sample with the reSponse by term
officially graduated, by year officially graduated, by sex, by degree
earned, by college, and by department and division.

Table 3 shows the proportion of the sample and the reSponse for

each of the nine different graduating groups included in this survey.

 

11An approximation of the cover letter given to individuals in this
group appears in the appendix.

22

TABLE 3

COMPARISON OF THE SAMPLE AND RESPONSE BY TERM
OFFICIALLY GRADUATED

 

 

Term Sample Reaponse

Graduated (percent) (percent)
Winter, 1960 6 6
Spring, 1960 14 13
Summer, 1960 11 12
Fall, 1960 12 10
Winter, 1961 10 11
Spring, 1961 13 14
Summer, 1961 ll 12
Fall, 1961 l4 14
Winter, 1962 8 9
Totals 99 101

(N : 446) (N 3 358)

 

For two of the graduating groups-~Winter, 1960 and Fall, l96l--the
proportion of the sample and proportion of the reSponse are the same.
In five of the nine groups (Summer, 1960; Winter, Spring and Summer,
1961; and Winter, 1962), the reSponse is over-represented by one per“
cent. The only group where the reSponse representation varies more than
one percent from that of the sample is in the Fall, 1960 group where the
response is under-represented by two percent.

Generally, the more recent graduates are somewhat over-represented.

In Table 4 the data are categorized by year graduated rather than term

23
graduated. The 1960 graduates constitute 43 percent of the sample and 40
percent of the reSponse, a difference of three percent. The 1961 graduates,
on the other hand, constitute 48 percent of the sample and 51 percent of
the reSponse, an over-representation of three percent. The 1962 gradu-
ates (only one graduating group) constitute one percent less in the

sample than in the reSponse.

TABLE 4

COMPARISON OF THE SAMPLE AND RESPONSE BY
YEAR OFFICIALLY GRADUATED

 

 

Year Sample Response
Graduated (percent) (percent)
1960 43 40
1961 48 51
1962 8 9
Totals 99 100

(N : 446) (N : 358)

 

Why do the more recent graduates return better than graduates of
some time ago? Part of the answer may be found in previous researches

which have shown that higher returns are realized from those for whom

12

the organization is a significant reference group and from those who

 

12Carl F. Reuss, "Differences Between Persons Responding and Not
Reaponding to a Mailed Questionnaire," American Sociological Review, 8
(1943), pp. 433—38. Also, Richard F. Larson and William R. Catton, Jr.,
"Can the Mail-back Bias Contribute to a Study's Validity?," American
Sociological Review, 24 (1959), pp. 243~45.

 

24
are characterized as having the more ”extreme" Opinions on the subject
under investigation.13 Taken in aggregate, one might expect the above
characteristics to be more predominant among the recent graduates, and
thus expect the recent graduates (1961 and 1962) to have a higher per-

centage of returns.

TABLE 5

COMPARISON OF THE SAMPLE AND RESPONSE BY SEX

 

 

Sex Sample ReSponse
(percent) (percent)
Male 94 94
Female 6 6
Totals 100 .100
(N : 446) (N 2 358)

 

When we compare the reSponse and the original sample in terms
of sex, we see that there is no difference in terms of representa-

tiveness.

 

l3Daniel Katz and Hadley Cantril, ”Public Opinion Polls,"
Sociometry, 1, (1937), pp. 155—79. Also, Parten, op, cit., p. 391.

25

TABLE 6

COMPARISON OF THE SAMPLE AND RESPONSE BY DEGREE

 

 

Degree Sample ReSponse
(percent) (percent)
Ph.D. 89 89
Ed.D. 10 11
Totals 99 100
(N = 446) (N : 358)

 

Table 6 shows that by degree earned the Ph.D.‘s constitute the same

prOportion of the response as they do the sample and the Ed.D.‘s are

slightly overmrepresented in the reSponsew-a difference of one percent.

TABLE 7

COMPARISON OF THE SAMPLE AND RESPONSE BY COLLEGE

 

 

College Sample ReSponse

(percent) (percent)
Agriculture 27 26
Business and Public Service 6 6
Communication Arts 3 3
Education 24 26
Engineering 5 4
Home Economics - -
Science and Arts 33 32
Veterinary Medicine 2 2
Totals 100 99

(N : 446) (N = 358)

 

26
Table 7 shows the percent of the sample and percent of the reSponse
for each of the eight colleges. Four of the colleges, Business and Public
Service, Communication Arts, Home Economics and Veterinary Medicine, are
equally well represented. Three colleges, Agriculture, Science and Arts
and Engineering, are slightly under-represented--a difference of one
percent--whereas the college of Education constitutes 24 percent of the

sample and 26 percent of the reSponse.

TABLE 8

COMPARISON OF THE SAMPLE AND RESPONSE BY DIVISION OF STUDY

 

Division of Study Sample ReSponse
(percent) (percent)
Humanities 6 7
Social Science 11 9
Biological Science 10 10
Physical Science 13 12
Traditional Arts and Sciences,

All Divisions 39 38
Agriculture 27 26
Education 24 26
"Other Professional” 10 9

Professional Fields,
All Divisions 61 62

Totals 100 100

 

1“

N : 446) (N : 358)

 

27

Table 8 shows that the traditional arts and sciences comprise 39
percent of the sample and slightly less, 38 percent, of the response.

By division, the Biological Sciences constitute the same prOportion in
each category. The division of Humanities is slightly over-represented,
a difference of one percent, whereas the division of Physical Sciences
is under-represented by the same margin. The division of Social
Sciences constitutes 11 percent of the sample but nine percent of the
reSponse, a difference here of two percent.

For the professional fields which constitute 61 percent of the
sample and 62 percent of the reSponse, both the divisions of Agriculture
and "other professional” are under-represented by one percent. The
division of Education is over-represented by two percent.

We have now presented a descriptive comparison of the sample and
the reSponse for each of the known sample values. We have seen that
most of the variables under scrutiny were proportionately the same for
the reSponse as they were for the initial sample. The largest
discrepancy between the sample and the reSponse was for "year graduated”
where we observed that the recent graduates constitute three percent
more of the reSponse than they do of the sample.

As most of the differences are quite small, no correction will be
made for the sample—response discrepancies. However, the reader is
asked to keep these differences in mind as we proceed with the analysis.

Table 9 shows the distribution of departments in each of the
divisions of the traditional arts and sciences and Table 10 does the

same for the professional fields. Using the traditional categoriesl4

 

14Bernard Berelson, Graduate Education in the United States. New
York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960.

 

 

28
of classification, the divisions of the traditional arts and sciences
are Humanities, Social Science, Biological Science and Physical Science.
The divisions of the professional fields are Agriculture, Education and
"other professional". The division of "other professional" includes
the reSpondents of Business Administration, Home Economics, Veterinary
Medicine and Engineering. As these latter four areas are all profes-
sional and since the combined N is relatively small, we have grouped
them together under the division heading of "other professional".
Since the number of cases in each department is quite small, the data

are reported in raw numbers, rather than percentages.

29

TABLE 9

DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE AND RESPONSE BY DEPARTMENT AND

DIVISION FOR THE TRADITIONAL ARTS AND SCIENCES

 

Department Sample Response
and Division (N) (N)
Humanities:
English 5 5
General Communication Arts 2 2
History 2 2
Music 3 3
Philosophy 3 3
Speech 10 10
Totals 25 25
Social Science:
Economics 6 3
Political Science 7 6
Psychology 21 15
Social Science Divisional Major 2 l
Sociology and AnthrOpology l3 9
Totals 49 34
Biological Sciences:
Anatomy 2 1
Botany and Plant Pathology 11 8
Entomology 5 3
Microbiology and Public Health l4 l4
Physiology and Pharmacology 3 3
Zoology 9 7
Totals 44 36
Physical Sciences:
Chemistry 34 27
Geography 4 3
Geology 2 2
Mathematics 5 4
Physics and Astronomy 9 5
Statistics 3 1
Totals 57 42

 

30
TABLE 10

DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE AND RESPONSE BY DEPARTMENT AND
DIVISION FOR THE PROFESSIONAL FIELDS

 

Department Universe Sample
and Division (N) (N)
Agriculture:
Agricultural Chemistry 6 5
Agricultural Economics l7 16
Agricultural Engineering 7 5
Animal Husbandry 15 12
Dairy 5 4
Farm CrOps 5 3
Fisheries and Wildlife ll 8
Food Technology 10 10
Forest Products 2 1
Forestry ll 9
Horticulture 12 8
Poultry Science 5 5
Soil Science 15 8
Totals 121 94
Education:
Adult and Continuing Education 27 24
Agricultural Education 1 1
Business and Distributive
Education 1 1
General School Administration 54 45
Guidance and Counseling 15 15
Industrial Education 1 1
Physical Education 4 4
Social-PhiloSOphic Foundations
of Education 4 4
Totals 107 95

"Other Professional:”
Business-Administration 15 13
Engineering:
Applied Mechanics
Chemical Engineering
Civil and Sanitary Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Mechanical Engineering

Home Economics

Veterinary Medicine

\I

UINNCDi—‘Nm
I

U1D-‘IC\I

Totals 43 32

 

31
The data—gathering instrument for this study was a 20-page
questionnaire consisting of approximately 90 questions, many with sub-
parts. Although most procedural statements on the use of the mailed
questionnaire advise that " . . . it is usually unwise to expect returns
from a questionnaire which requires much more than ten to 25 minutes to
complete . . . ",15 Sletto's study has shown that with some groups the
"shorter the questionnaire the higher the returns" axiom does not
hold.16 Using three groups of university alumni of 100 persons each, he
mailed questionnaires of ten pages, 25 pages and 35 pages in length and
found no significant difference in returns from the three groups. This
does not, however, necessarily mean that there is no threshold (high or
low) for length.
LThe questions were designed to elicit information on items
including:
A. The Independent Variable -
1. Faculty encouragement

How much encouragement did you receive from faculty
members of your department to attend professional meetings?

How much encouragement did you receive from faculty
members of your department to present papers at profes-
sional meetings?

How much encouragement did you receive from faculty
members of your department to make professional contacts
with important scholars or researchers of your field
within the university, but outside-of your department?

 

15Goode and Hatt, 22, cit., p. 170.

16R. F. Sletto, "Pretesting a Questionnaire," American Sociological
Review, 5 (1940), pp. 193-200.

The

32

How much encouragement did you receive from faculty
members of your department to make professional contacts
with important scholars or researchers of your field, in
other universities?

How much encouragement did you receive from faculty
members of your department to publish in professional
journals or magazines?

Contact and ”integration” with the faculty

Do you feel you had sufficient opportunity to discuss
career plans with members of the faculty?

How many faculty members of your department did you know
well enough during your doctoral training with whom you
felt you could discuss personal problems?

How many times did you meet with your full guidance
committee during your graduate training?

Did you discuss your thesis or program with members of
your committee on an individual basis?

How many times in a quarter did you meet with your major
professor, on the average?

Dependent Variable -
Professional behaviors

During the period of your doctoral training did you attend
one or more professional meetings?

During the period of your doctoral training did you deve10p
professional contacts with important scholars or researchers
of your field within the university, but outside of your
department?

During the period of your doctoral training did you present
one or more papers at professional meetings?

During the period of your doctoral training did you deve10p
professional contacts with important scholars or researchers
of your field, from other universities?

During the period of your doctoral training did you have
any papers, articles, etc., published in professional
journals or magazines?

33

The analysis of the data was facilitated by the use of the
Hollerith punch card system.17 This system was deve10ped by Dr.

Herman Hollerith during the late 1880's and was first used on a
large scale basis in the United States Census of 1890.

Following the collection of data, it was then coded into numerical
form suitable for the Hollerith punch card. In order to afford some
degree of confidence in the accuracy of the coding, it was decided to
completely re-code a random sample of ten percent of all questionnaires.
Questionnaires to be re-coded were selected by the use of random
numbers.18 .All numbers smaller than our parameter (001-358) were
rejected as were all numbers larger and all ties. On a column basis,
the re-coding showed a coding error of four-tenths percent.

The data were punched into two decks of cards which were then
verified for accuracy of original punching. After the card-punching

and verification the cards were "deck cleaned".

The Design gj_Analysis
The study will utilize the method of analysis variously referred to

as "cross-tabulation analysis",19 "multi-variate analysis",20 and "survey

 

17Goode and Hatt, 92. cit., pp. 317-20.

18Hubert M. Blalock, Social Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Company, Inc., 1960, p. 438.

 

‘19Hans Zeisel, Say I£_With Figures. New York: Harper and
Brothers, 1957, pp. l3l-34.

 

20Paul F. Lazarsfeld, "Introduction: Multivariate Analysis," in
Paul F. Lazarsfeld and Morris Rosenberg (editors), The Language 2f
Social Research: A Reader in the Methodology 2£_Socia1 Research.
Glencoe: The Free Press, 1955, pp. 111-12.

 

 

 

34
design analysis".21 As defined by Lazarsfeld, multimvariate analysis
refers to " . . . the study and interpretation of complex interrelations
among a multiplicity of characteristics".22 This method of analysis is
an approximation of the controlled experiment which is so characteristic
of the natural sciences.

In the controlled experiment, the experimental group and the control
group are, by definition, exactly comparable in all but one-reSpect-nthe
experimental variable.

As a result, experimental findings will be limited
only by two elements: the statistical sampling
error and the Special conditions which accompanied
the particular experiment, that is, its particular
time, place, surroundings, etc.23

The first limitation can be omitted by repetition of the experiment.
The second, a more serious limitation, can be reduced by repeating the
experiment under different conditions.

Survey analysis retains the limitations of the controlled experiment
and adds a few of its own. In survey analysis the "control group" and
the "experimental group” are, just as in the controlled experiment,

different in terms of the experimental variable. However, unlike the

controlled experiment, the groups are not exactly alike in all other

 

21Paul F. Lazarsfeld and Patricia L. Kendall, "Problems in Survey
Analysis," in Robert King Merton and Paul F. Lazarsfeld (editors),
Continuities in Social Research: Studies in the Sc0pe and Method of
"The American Soldier". Glencoe: The Free Press, 1950, pp. 133-96.

 

22Paul F. Lazarsfeld, The Language Qf_Social Research, op. cit.,
p. 111.

 

23Zeisel, op. cit., p. 132.

35

respects. Consequently, it is necessary to determine if the difference
presumed to be caused by the experimental variable is, in fact, the
result of a spurious factor. Thus, through a series of cross-tabula-
tions, the investigator must control or "hold constant" possible
spurious factors in the groups and observe the original relationship
when these factors are ”controlled."

This points to another limitation of the design of survey analysis;
that is, usually the investigator is able to ”control” only four or
five variables at a time because of the number of cases in his sample.

Still another limitation of the survey analysis design is that of
prOperly establishing the time sequence of variables. If the researcher
asserts that "a" causes ”b", then he must demonstrate that "a" precedes
"b" in time. As many researchers gather their data from one point in
time, such demonstration becomes, at best, arduous.

To combat this difficulty, the "panel study" design24 is used.
The procedure here is to obtain data from two different points in time,
the "before-and-after" technique.

The third and most serious limitation of survey analysis is that it

is usually post factum (and sometimes ad_hoc) and as such can never, at

 

least theoretically, equal the degree of proof that the controlled

experiment can. The implications of EQSt factum research have been

 

clearly described by Merton.25

 

24Ibid., pp. 215-54.

25Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe:
The Free Press, 1957.

 

36

Post factum explanations remain at the level of
plausibility (low evidential value) rather than leading
to "compelling evidence" (a high degree of confirmation).
Plausibility, in distinction to compelling evidence, is
found when an interpretation is consistent with one set
of data (which typically has, indeed, given rise to the
decision to utilize one, rather than another, interpreta-
tion). It also implies that alternative interpretations
equally consistent with these data have not been system-
atically explored and that inferences drawn from the
interpretations have not been tested by new observations.

 

The logical fallacy underlying the post factum
explanation rests in the fact that there is available
a variety of crude hypotheses, each with some measure
of confirmation but designed to account for quite con-
tradictory sets of affairs. The method of post factum
explanation does not lend itself to nullifiability, if
only because it is so completely flexible.26

Our findings will be reported in percentage form and the traditional
tests of significance will not be used. The judgment not to use sig-
nificance tests rests mainly on three points. First, "traditional
tests of significance have been developed to study the probable cor-

H27

rectness or incorrectness of single, isolated statements, such as,

 

a is more likely than ”b" to cause x . Since the hypotheses of this
research are interrelated so that no hypothesis can be viewed inde-
pendently of other hypotheses, the use of significance tests would not
be appropriate. What should be tested is not a relationship observed in
a particular table, but the relationships between a whole series of
related tables.

A second basis for not using significance tests in this research is that

"these tests presuppose that the units being studied were sampled randomly

 

26Ibid., pp. 93-94.

27Merton, Reader and Kendall, QB. cit. p. 301.

3

37
.from the p0pulations to which they belong."28 We have data from only one
university, and in no way can this be considered a random sample.

Third, the X2 test is designed to show whether a relationship
between two measurements could have been due to chance. Since our
indicators are simply crude measures of the variables to be tested, it
would seem irrelevant to test for independence.

For example, to show that ideologically sensitive men
are more active politically, we use as an indicator
the amount of talk about politics reported by the men.
This is only a crude indicator of political activity
and might easily fail to show the relationship if one
actually exists. Thus, because the variables being
related hypothetically are seldom the-same as the
measures being related empirically, a test of inde-
pendence appears irrelevant.29

Selvin has argued quite effectively that in nondescriptive and non-
experimental research, tests of statistical significance are always
inapplicable.3O

The basic difficulty in design is that sociologists are
unable to randomize their uncontrolled variables, so

that the differences between ”experimental" and ”con-

trol" groups are a mixture of the effects of the variable
being studied and the uncontrolled variables or cor-
related biases. Since there is no way of knowing, in
general, the sizes of these correlated biases and their
directions, there is no point in asking for the Probability
that the observed differences could have been produced

by random errors. The place for significance tests is
after all relevant correlated biases have been controlled.31

 

281bid., p. 303.

29Seymour Martin Lipset, Martin Trow and James Coleman, Union
Democracy. Garden City: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1962, p. 484.

30Hanan C. Selvin, "A Critique of Tests of Significance in Survey
Research," American Sociological Review, 22 (1957), pp. 519-27.

 

311bid., p. 227.

38

As we begin the analysis of the data, it should be kept in mind
that several procedural limitations will restrict the impact of the
findings. First, we do not have a panel study, the data has been
collected from only one point in time. Secondly, we are asking
individuals to recall their experiences and, as a result, the data
will be somewhat distorted since peOple frequently tend to forget
things over a period of time. Also, the reader should keep in mind
that we have a very select sample--individuals who are recent re-

cipients of the doctorate from one university.

CHAPTER IV
FACULTY INFLUENCE AND PROFESSIONAL PARTICIPATION

We noted at the end of Chapter I that the purpose of this research
is to ascertain the role of the faculty in accounting for professional
participation among doctoral students. We hypothesized that a rela-
tionship will be found to exist between faculty contact, faculty
encouragement, and student participation in professional activities.

To provide a test for our hypothesis, we asked each respondent to
recall his graduate school experiences and to report whether he had
participated in the various professional activities. Furthermore, we
asked each to characterize his relationship with the faculty in six
different situations and to report whether he had received Specific
encouragement from the faculty to participate in the professional
activities and, if so, how much.

The data is presented in terms of the independent variables--
faculty contact and faculty encouragement. Tables are presented that
compare the percent of participation for each of the five activities at
the same time by each of the independent variables. By cross-tabulating
on these dimensions, we will be able to see whether our hypothesis is
borne out.

Table 11 shows the percent of students who participated in each of
the five activities. The activity in which the highest proportion (93
percent) of students report to have participated is that of attendance

at meetings. That such a high prOportion attended these meetings is not

39

40

at all surprising, for many of the professional associations actively
solicit student membership. Many have student honoraries and offer the
student both membership and the official journal of the organization at
a reduced price. The meetings provide the student with an opportunity
to meet friends from other universities, to visit with former teachers,
and to meet "important" personalities in his field. 0f no less
importance is the fact that the meetings provide the student with
information concerning his role as a member of a professional society.
Forty percent reported that they presented papers at these meetings.
During the initial stages of the student's graduate training, the
meetings serve as a vehicle of socialization. The closer the student
gets to obtaining the degree, the more the meetings serve him as a
,marketplace to seek and inquire about prospective employment 0p-
portunities.

Sixty-seven percent reported to have made contacts with important
scholars and researchers of their field from Hypothetical U. (but not in
the student's own department), 61 percent with professionals from other
universities and 40 percent presented papers at professional meetings

of their field.

41

TABLE 11

PARTICIPATION IN PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES DURING THE PERIOD OF
DOCTORAL TRAINING

Activity Participators (N)
(percent)

 

Attended professional
meetings 93 (356)

Developed contacts with

important scholars and

researchers of the field

from Hypothetical U. 67 (357)

DevelOped contacts with

important scholars and

researchers of the field

from other universities 61 (357)

Published in a scholarly
or professional journal
or magazine 48 (353)

Presented one or more
papers at professional
meetings 40 (356)

 

A little less than one-half, 48 percent, published during the
period of their doctoral training. There are, to be sure, journals of
varying degrees of quality, but our data does not distinguish the quality
of the source of publication. In addition, we know only if the re-
Spondent published one or more, and not how many. Consequently, we are
not able to Speak of the quality or the quantity of publication for any
,of the respondents.
When we cross-tabulate professional participation by the number of

meetings the students have with their major professors, we find (Table 12),

42

contrary to our hypothesis, very little relationship. 0f the group
that had the fewest number of meetings with their major professor

and the group that had the highest number of meetings with their
major professor, the same proportion attended professional meetings.
Although participation in the other four activities is more charac-
teristic of the group that had most meetings, the data is not con-
sistent for any of them. For example, 48 percent of the students

who met with their major professors five times or less, but only

44 percent of the students that met six to ten times published.

0f the students who had 11 to 20 meetings 55 percent published where—
as only 52 percent of the students who had more than 20 meetings
published. This same type of inconsistency appears with involvement
in presenting papers and in meeting professionals of the field. It
should be noted, however, that presenting papers at professional
meetings appears to be related at the "extremes.” The group that

had fewest meetings, had the smallest prOportion and the group that
had most meetings had the largest proportion of students who presented

papers. For the two middle groups, however, the trend doesn't hold.

43

 

 

Ammuamv mm an mm mm «m mmeflu om cmnu muo:
Aom-asv mm 03 N3 om ca amass oN on as
AmoHv as me mm o“ Ha mosau emu ou xam
AmNH-m~HV as an as no so mama no amass p>am
sz ponmwansm museum moguwmum>flca Hmzuo .D Hmoflumnuomhm mwawuooz mwcwuooz wo Hosanz
noncommum muomucoo muomuaoo popcmuu<
Hmcowmmomoum Hmzofimmomonm

Acmumaaofiuumm umcu unmouomv

EMMH mum mommmmomm MOH<Z mHHS
mUZHHmMZ ho mMQZDz mu<mm>< Mm mmHHH>HHQ< A¢ZOHmmmhomm ZH ZOHH<MHUHHm<m

44

 

Acme as mm an mm ooH

6908 Ho m>flm

 

Aosv om me as me so upon
AooH-amv on as me we ma apnea
Aooa-mav as em as am as 03a

Aee-mev as Na we Hm em use
sz woSmensm mummmm mowuwmuo>wsb Honuo .D Hmofluonuomhm mwcfiuomz mwawuooz
woucmmoum .muomunoo .muomuaoo omcnouu< mo HonEDZ
Hmcofimmowonm Hmnowmmmmoum

Awmummwowuumm umnu unmowmav

MMHHHZZOU MUZ<QHDU AADh SHHZ
mUZHHmmz mo ammZDz Mm mMHHH>HHu<.A<ZOHmwmmOmm ZH ZOHH<mHUHHm<m

mH m4m<H

45

When we compare professional participation by the number of
meetings the student has with his (full) guidance committee (Table 13),
the data again is very inconsistent showing little or no relationship
for four of the five activities. Contact with important scholars and
researchers of the field from other universities, is the one exception.
Here, the more meetings one has with his guidance committee the more
likely one is to have made contacts with important professionals of
the field from other universities.

In terms of publication, those students that had three and four
meetings with their guidance committee published proportionately more
than the other three groups. However, attendance at meetings and
contact with important professionals from Hypothetical U. is most
characteristic among those students who had five or more meetings
with their committees. One-third of the students that had more than
five meetings presented papers, 42 percent of those that had one and
43 percent of those that had four meetings presented papers.

In summary, there is little or no relationship between professional
participation and (1) average number of meetings per term with one's
major professor and (2) the number of meetings a student has with his
full guidance committee. It should be noted that meeting with one's
major professor and with one's guidance committee are formal require-
ments of the system. Both are required of the student and of the
department by the bureaucratic organization of the university and both
cause us to reject our hypothesis, or to change it. We originally
hypothesized that the more interaction the student has with the faculty,
the more he would participate in professional activities. At this point,

we must either reject the hypothesis or change it in such a way as to

46

exclude the formal required meetings between student and faculty.
Although it is required that a student meet with his full guidance
committee, it is not formally required that he meet with members of
his committee on an individual basis. We asked each of the reSpondents
to report whether he had met with members of this committee on an
individual basis and cross-tabulated their reSponses with their
reports of professional participation. Table 14 shows that partici-
pation in professional activities is higher for the group that
discussed individually with committee members than those that did not,
although the differences are not great. There is only a two-percent
difference between those who do and those who do not read papers at
professional meetings. The difference.is four percent for both at-
tendance and publication. When we compare those who made contacts
with important professionals with those who did not, the difference

ranges from five to eight percent.

47

 

 

$3 .3 an em 8 mm oz
$3.88 as 3 S we 3 map
sz wonmwansm museum mowuwmuo>fics Hoauo .D Hmowuwsuomhm mwnwummz nowmmsomfin
wmucmmwum .muomucoo .muomuaoo popcmuu<
Hmaowmmmmoum Honoflmmomoum

AwoummHUfluHmm uMSu unmoummv

mHm<m A<DQH>HQZH z< zo NMHHHZZOU moz<dHDU mo mmwmzmz
mHHS Z<MGOMm ho ZOHmmDomHm Mm mmHHH>HHu< A¢ZOHmmmmomm ZH ZOHH<MHUHHM<M

#a mqm<H

48

We also asked the respondents to indicate how many.of the committee
members they met with individually to discuss their program, and Table
15 shows their reSponses. Except for one instance, the higher the
number of members the student met with, the higher was the percentage
of students involved in the various professional activities. The only
inconsistency in the data is for the activity of presenting papers.
Here, 43 percent of the students that met with three committee members
presented papers and only 41 percent of the students that met with
four members did: instead of rising, the proportion dropped two
percent. 0f the students who reported that they met individually with
one committee member, 89 percent attended meetings whereas 100 per-
cent of those that met individually with five or more did. Fifty-six
percent of those that met individually with one member made contacts
with important scholars and researchers of Hypothetical U. and 48
percent did so with professionals from other universities. However,
of the students that met individually with five or more committee
members, the percentages are 88 and 100 reSpectively. For the
activity of presenting papers at professional meetings, the percent
of students involved rises from 33 percent for those that met
individually with one to 53 percent for those that met with five.
Forty-three percent of the group that met with one member and 59
percent of those that met with five or more members reported that

they had published.

49

Anne mm mm ooH ww own spas no spam

 

Awwv mm as we ww ww spew
Awaa-ssav we we aw on ma apnea
Aaw-owv we ww ww ww ow can
Awn-0ev we ww we ww ww «so
sz ponmwfinnm museum mowuwmno>fis3 Hmnuo .D Hmoflumfiuomhm mwnwumoz xaamswfl>flvcH
cmucmmmum .muomucoo .mquucoo cmvcmuu< Suez umz
Amsowmmmmoum HmaowmmmHOHm mumnEmz mo amnesz

Avmummwowuuma umau unmouomv

MAA<DQH>HQZH mHHz HMS mmmmzmz MMHHHZZOU ho mmmZDz Wm mMHHH>HHQ< A¢ZOHmmmmOMm zH ZOHfldeUHHm<m

ma,MAm<H

50

Table 16 shows how participation is related to the students 0p-
portunity to discuss career plans with members of the faculty. For each
professional activity, participation was higher for the group that
reported that they had sufficient Opportunity for such discussion than
for the group that did not. Of the former group, three percent more
attended meetings, 13 percent more made contacts with professionals of
other universities, five percent more presented papers and 25 percent
more published. With the exception of publication, the percentage
differences are not great, but they do run in the hypothesized
direction. Publication, it would seem is an activity that the
student does not do alone, or at least does not do without consulta-
tion from the faculty. It also suggests that publication, more than

the other activities, is directly related to careers.

51

 

Awwv

 

om mm an em mm 02

Awaw-eowv an as ww ww mw may

sz ponmwansm muonmm mowuwmuo>wcp Honuo .D HmowuwSuomzm mwcflumoz mamam Homumo
vmuswmmnm .muomusou .muomucoo wovaouu<. mmsomfin 0H

Hmconmmonm Hmaoammmwoum muwasuuoamo

Acmumawofiuuma umnu unmonmmv

NHADU<M NIH mo mmmmzmz mHHS mz<Am mmmm<o
mmDUmHQ OE MHHZDHmommO Mm mmHHH>HHQ< A<ZOHmmmmOMm ZH ZOHH<MHOHHm<m

0H mama

52

The next measure of student-faculty interaction that we-consider is
the most informal, least required and most personal of all that we have
considered. We asked each reSpondent "How many faculty members of your
department did you know well enough during your doctoral training with
whom you felt you could discuss personal problems?" The respondents
were then classified into three groups, those that reported "all of them",
those that reported "some, but not all", and those that reported "none
of them".

As Table 17 shows, professional participation is most characteris-
tic of students who reported to have-known personally all of the
departmental faculty, and is least characteristic-of those who knew
"none at all", with the group knowing ”some-of them" falling in the
middle. The differences between the "some of them” group and the "all
of them" group are less than the differences between the "some of them"
group and the "none of them" group. This is somewhat expected, since
departmental size varies greatly throughout the university.

Of the group that knew all of the faculty members in the department
well enough to discuss personal problems with them, 95 percent attended
meetings, 71 percent made contacts with professionals, 50 percent
presented papers and 67 percent published. Of the group that reported
"none of them", the percentage-of attenders was ten percent less, the
percentage that made professional contacts with men from Hypothetical U.
was 40 percent less, the percentage for those making contacts with
professionals from other universities was 32 percent less, the per—
centage that presented papers was 37 percent less, and the percentage

that published was 36 percent less.

53

 

 

$7va aw 2 ww aw ww swap we 82
62.33 3 3 am ww ww amfi mo mve8
SS S cm 2 : ww apfi we :<
sz umSmHHnsm muommm mmHuHmHo>wGD Hmsuo .D Hmowuonuommm mwawumoz nSOqM mumnaoz
vmuammoum .muomuaou .muomuaoo wowaouu< muasomm
Hmcoflmmmmowm ammowmmmmoum mo.umna=z

Annamawowuumm umsu unmoummv
mHm<m A<20mmmm < 20 2302M mammzmz.waqbu<m mo MHQZDZ Mm mMHHH>HHQ< A<ZOHmmmmomm 2H ZOHH<MHUHHm<m

NH m4m<H

54

On the basis of these data, we would suggest that one result of
frequent contact with the faculty is the establishment of a personal
relationship.

One of the more serious limitations of this research is that, al-
though we are able to discern the number of contacts the student has with
various members of the faculty, we are not able to discern the relative
prestige of the faculty members. In every department, faculty members
are evaluated by the students and a cue from Professor X may have an
entirely different meaning than the same cue from Professor Y. Not
only are we unable to distinguish from whome the cue comes, but also the
cue itself, that is, the content of the interaction. It is not altogether
unlikely that a student might receive a negative or discouraging cue from
the faculty. However, it would seem that a student who has an unpleasant
or negative experience with a faculty member would tend to limit his
contacts with that faculty member.

We did obtain one measure of the kind of interaction the student
had with the faculty--that of whether he was specifically encouraged to
participate in the various activities.

As we have suggested, one of the most salient variables in ac-
counting for participation by the doctoral student in professional
activities is faculty encouragement. Table 18 shows the relationship
of faculty encouragement to participation in each of the five activities.
For each of these activities, the group that receives the most encourage-
ment is the group that participates the most and group that is next in
encouragement is the group that is next highest in the proportion of

participators, the group that ranks third in encouragement is also third

55

in participation and the group which receives no encouragement is
lowest in participation.

Of those students who reported that they received "a great deal of
encouragement" from the faculty to attend professional meetings, 98 per-
cent of them did so. Ninety-six percent of the students who reported
”a moderate amount of encouragement" also attended. As we hypothesized,
those students who received no encouragement attended least of all,
only 72 percent. Here, the big difference occurs between those that
received encouragement and those that did not, rather than how much.

There does not appear to be much difference in the proportion of
persons who reported to have made contacts with the important men in
their field in terms of whether or not the contacts were made with men
from Hypothetical U. or from other universities--at least by the amount
of encouragement they received from the faculty. Of the students who
reported to have received a "great deal" of encouragement to make
contacts, 89 percent did so with professionals of Hypothetical U. and
88 percent with men from other universities. For the group that received
"a moderate amount” the percentages are 78 and 72 reapectively. For
the "some encouragement" group the percentages are 56 and 60 and for
the "no encouragement" group the percentages are 23 and 25. Again,
the biggest difference is between those reSpondents who received some
encouragement and those who received none at all, and not the "degree
of encouragement".

Presenting papers at professional meetings has a.somewhat higher
encouragement threshold than do the three previous activities. The big

break here occurs between "a moderate amount of encouragement" and "some

56
encouragement”. It may well be that the reason only forty percent of
the doctoral students present papers at the professional meetings is
that the faculty (the accomplished professionals) reserve this activity,
more or less, for themselves. Such a speculation would receive support
from Table 18 where it can be seen that only two percent of the students
who do not receive any encouragement from the faculty present papers.
Sixty-one percent of the group that reported to have received a ”great
deal of encouragement", 35 percent of those who received a ”moderate
amount" and eight percent of those who received "some encouragement"
also presented papers at professional meetings.

Publication is the only activity where the largest difference
occurs between the group that received "a great deal" of encouragement
and those that received a "moderate amount". Seventy-four percent of
those that received ”a great deal” of encouragement to publish did so
whereas of the group that received a ”moderate amount” 46 percent
published. Of the group that received "some" encouragement 31 percent
published and of the group that received no encOuragement, only 18

percent published.

57

.> chconn< mom “cowumoav mafia Ho3m=m and can mucmpaonmou mnu mo unwouma oawz~

.> xwvsmmm< mom mmcowummsv manna Hm3mam uoa twp muamvsommmu.m£u mo unmouoe maunuuhuamsfia

 

 

 

Aewv wa Awwv w Awav mm Awsv ww Amwv we paoz
Aamv Hm Adqv w Aowv om Anmv on Asqv mm mfiom
Aonv we Awwv ww Awaav we Awoav we Awwv ww “spasm
oumuovoe <
Aaaav «a Amwav aw Ashe ww Awwv ww Amwav ww amps uppuw a
sz unmoumm AAZV unmouom sz unmoumm Nsz unmoumm Hsz udooumm
vmzmwansm muoemm mowuwmum>flcn Hague .D HmoquSuommm mwcwummz unmsowmwsoocm
vmuaommum .muomucou .muomuaoo pwvcmuu< huasumm
Hmcowmmmmoum HmGOHmmmmon

Awmumaaowuuwe umnu unmoummv

HZMZMQ<MDOUZM WHADQ<h Mm mMHHH>HHu<.A¢ZOHmmmmomm 2H ZOHH<MHUHHM<N

‘ 58

When we cross-tabulate participation in one-of the activities with
participation in each of the other activities (Table 19), we see that
persons who have published are most likely to have presented papers at
professional meetings. Although, persons who presented papers at
meetings are least likely to have published. This would seem to suggest
that presenting papers at professional meetings occurs before publica-
tions. It may be that individuals use meetings of their professional
societies to "test" their writings. If, in fact, these speculations
are true it would tend to explain why respondents who have-published
present more papers than reSpondents who have participated in the other
professional activities, but who have.not published. It would not,
however, explain why persons presenting papers are less likely to have
-published than persons who have participated in the-other activities.
Going out on the speculative limb, we would suggest that one-reason
persons who have presented papers are lowest in publication is the
very fact that they presented their papers. It is quite possible that
presenting one's paper at a public meeting of his professional colleagues
serves as a screening device, discouraging some of the persons who have
presented them from publishing it. Attendance at meetings is, excluding
the group that presented papers, most characteristic of the group that
published. Meeting professionals of the field from other universities
is most characteristic of persons who presented papers at professional
meetings. Since one function of these meetings is to bring professionals
of many universities together and since persons who present papers have
»to attend meetings, the relationship is not unexpected. Moreover, the
person who presents a paper is in a situation in which personal contact

with other professionals is structured into the situation. First, it is

59
necessary that he meets the chairman of the section in which he is
presenting his paper, and at the time of the meeting he is also intro-
duced to other persons who are presenting papers. Furthermore, his
paper may frequently serve as a tapic of discussion, bringing him into
contact with other professionals of his field during the more informal
meetings that are usually a part of these "conventions”.

It is also interesting to note the percentage differences that
occur for participation in each activity by participators in each of
the four other activities. That is, there is a six percent difference
in attendance at meetings by the participators in each of the other
activities-~ranging from 94 to 100 percent. For meeting professionals
of the field, the difference is 12 percent. The difference rises to
17 percent for presenting papers and to 28 percent for publishing

papers.

60

 

 

Amwav -- ow we we ww emamwaapm
Aeqav mm u: on we ooH mummmm
pmusommum
AmHNV mm om nu om om mofiuwmum>fiab Hmnuo
nmuons—coo
Hmsowmmmmoum
Aoemv mm me me nu «m .D Hmowuonuommm
.muomucoo
Hmaowmmmmoum
Awwwv we we ew we -- wwcaupez
wovsmuu<

sz vmamwansm mumamm mmfiufimum>wcs Henuo .3 Hmowumnuomzm mwcwuomz

vmuammmum .muUMuaou .muomusoo pepsmuu¢

amsowmmowoum Hmnowmmmmoum

Awoumawowuuma umzu udmoummv

mMHHH>HHu< A<ZOHmthomm zH ZOHH<mHUHHM<m HZMDDHm A<MOHUOD mo mmHmmZOHH<AMMMHHZH

ma MAQ¢H

61

Table 20 shows the interrelationships between faculty encourage-
ment for each of the five different activities. Here we see that the
activity the student received least encouragement to participate in is
the one in which he does participate least, presenting papers at
professional meetings. Similarly, the activity in which he participated
the most is also the one which he received most encouragement to par-
ticipate in--attendance at meetings.

There is a tendency for persons who are encouraged to publish or
present papers to be encouraged to participate more in the other three
activities, but the differences are always less than ten percent.

Table 20 also shows that if you received encouragement from the
faculty to participate in one activity, the chances are that you also
received encouragement from them to participate in each of the other

activities.

62

.> xwpsmam< mom “sowummsv «Han Museum uos was «unaccommmu mnu mo unmoume maflze

.> xfivsmme< mam mmsowummsv «asap Hmsmsm so: was musmvsonmmu ecu mo unmonom centunhusmsam

1r

 

 

-- Aawwv ow Aawwv mw Awawv ow Awwwv ww pmamaappm
Aawwv aw -- Aawwv ww Aoawv ww Awwav OOH masses
vmucmmoum
Amomv Na Ammmv um I: Amemv em AOHNV mm mowuwmum>wsp Hmsuo
.muomusoo
Hmsowmmmmoum
Awewv ow Awwwv we Awewv ww -- Aewwv ww .: Hmuwuwauoawm
.muomunoo
Hmsoammomoum
Aomwv ww Aewwv He Aeewv ww Awewv ow -- wwaauomz
vowsouu<
sz advance msz usouuoa sz unmoume «sz unmouoa msz usouumm
voSmHHnsm muommm mofiuwmuo>wsb Hosuo .D Hmowumauommm mwswummz
vmuammosm .muomusoo .muomusoo pmvswuu<

Hmsowmmmmoum Hm:0Hmmumonm
Avmwmusoosm unmoumnv

mMHHH>HHu< A¢ZOHmmmhomm ZH ZOHH<MHUHHM<M
HZMQDHm A<MOHUOQ Mom Hzmzmu<MDoozm MHADQ<M mo mmHmmZOHH¢AMMMMHZH

ON mqm<H

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

V The purpose of this study was to determine the role of the faculty
>in accounting for the professional participation of doctoral students.
we hypothesized that participation in professional activities would be
related to the amount of encouragement the student received from the
faculty and the amount of contact he had with the faculty.

As an indication of the student's professional participation, each
student was asked whether he attended professional meetings of his
field, presented papers at these meetings, made contacts with important
scholars and researchers of his field (both from the university where
he did his graduate training and from other universities), and if he
published one or more papers in professional journals of his field.

As an indication of the students' contact with the faculty, each
student was asked to report the number of meetings he had with his
major professor, the number of meetings he had with his full guidance
committee, the number of guidance committee members he met with on an
individual basis, if he felt he had sufficient Opportunity to discuss
career plans with the faculty and the prOportion of faculty members in
his department that he knew well enough with whom he could discuss
personal problems.

In Chapter IV we compared participation in professional activities

by each of the six different measures of student-faculty interaction.

63

64

We have seen that no relationship exists between the number of meetings
a. student has with his major professor and his participation in pro-
fessional activities. Also, there is no relationship between his par-
ticipation and the number of meetings he has with his full guidance
-committee. We have pointed out that student-faculty interaction in
these situations is required for both the-student and the faculty.

The remaining five measures of student-faculty interaction were
related to professional participation. None of these are required.
The difference in participation by whether the student met with
members of his guidance committee on an individual basis is quite
-small--ranging from two percent for the activity of presenting papers
to eight percent for establishing contacts with important professionals
of "other" universities. When we compared participation by the
number of committee.members the student met with individually, we
found a greater difference. For attendance at meetings, the dif—
ference was 11 percent. The difference between these groups for
publication was 16 percent and for presenting papers it was 20 percent.
The number of committee members a student meets with on an individual
basis distinguished participators from non-participators best for the
activity of meeting professionals of the field. Whereas 56 percent of
those who met with one committee member made contacts with professionals
from Hypothetical U., 88 percent did of those that met with five or
more committee members. These percentages were 48 and 100 for those
who made contacts with professionals from other universities. This
would seem to suggest that making contacts with important scholars and
researchers of one's field is perhaps more related to the number of

faculty members that a student has contact with, than how well the

65
student knows the faculty member.

When we cross-tabulated participation by_whether the student
reported to have had sufficient Opportunity to discuss career plans with
members of the faculty, we found that participation was more characteris-
tic-of the students that reported that they had. The difference in
participation varied, however, from three percent for attendance-at
professional meetings to 25 percent for publication.

Of the six measures of student-faculty contact, the one which
best predicts participation in professional activities is the one which
reports the proportion of departmental faculty that the-student knows
on a personal basis. The difference between the group that knew all
of the faculty members and the group that knew no faculty members of
their department on a personal basis was ten percent for attendance,

40 percent for making contacts with professionals from Hypothetical U.,
33 percent for making contacts with professionals from other universi-
ties, 37 percent for presenting papers, and 36 percent for publication.

Of all the variables that we have dealt with, the one which best
predicts student participation in professional activities is that of
encouragement from the faculty. In every case, we have seen that par-
ticipation was more characteristic among those students who were
encouraged to participate by the faculty than those who were not
encouraged. Moreover, reSpondents who reported that they were
encouraged were sub-grouped in terms of the amount of encouragement and
here again we have seen that the group with the highest percentage Of
participators was that which reported the most faculty encouragement.

The group with the second highest percentage of participators was the

66
group characterized as receiving a "moderate amount" of encouragement
and the group with the fewest participators was the group that re-
ceived the least amount of encouragement.

We then presented cross-tabulations which showed the interrelation-
ships for participation in each of the activities by participation in
each of the other activities. Similarly, we presented cross-tabulations
which showed the interrelationships of faculty encouragement for each Of the
activities. We pointed out that if a reSpondent received encouragement
for one activity, the chances were that he received encouragement for
each of the other activities. Additionally, we found that encouragement
to attend meetings was received by the highest prOportion of students
and encouragement to present papers was received by the lowest
proportion.

In summary, it appears that the faculty do influence the participa-
tion of doctoral students in their respective fields. Not only do the
faculty influence the amount of participation, but also the kind of
participation. This influence is discerned in both the amount of contact
the student has with the faculty and the encouragement he received from
the faculty. Moreover, it appears that the processes of socialization
in the graduate school are informal. The student's contact with the
faculty in the formal and structured situation is not related to his
professional particpation. However, participation is related to
student-faculty contact where the interaction is informal and face-to-
face. The strongest relationship observed between student participation
and faculty influence occurs between participation in a particular

activity and faculty encouragement to participate in that activity.

67

Here, we Observed that the more the encouragement, the more the parti-
cipation for each of the five different indicators of professional
participation.

There are, to be sure, many limitations of this research. Without
a doubt, the most serious of these limitations is that it attempts to
speak of changes in behavior with data that is from just one point in
time. Ideally, Of course, we should have had a panel study. Through-
out this study we have assumed that faculty encouragement and faculty
interaction determined the extent to which a doctoral student would
participate in the professional affairs of his field. 'Although we have
shown a relationship between encouragement and participation, we have
not demonstrated that encouragement occurred before participation.
However, we would argue, with Merton,1 that the consistency of the
data not only makes such a relationship plausible, but, also reasonable-

Another limitation of this study is that the data is not sufficient
in scape. We do not, for example, have data on peer group influences.
More important, we do not have sufficient data about the faculty. It
is almost certain that an encouraging cue from some faculty members has
a different impact on the students than the same cue from other faculty
members. Although we were able to obtain data on the number of student-
faculty relationships and, in some cases, the circumstances under which
the relationship took place, we did not have data concerning the content
of the interaction. Although we know that a particular student had an

opportunity to discuss his career plans with a member of the faculty,

 

1Merton, Reader and Kendall, 22. cit., pp. 303—05.

68

we were not able to know the dialogue of the discussion. However, we
found that the more contact the student had with the faculty the more

he participated,and, it would seem that if a student had an unpleasant
or discouraging experience with a member of the faculty he would tend to
have few contacts with that faculty member. Moreover, we found that
encouragement from the faculty was the variable most associated with
participation; since we also found that contact was positively associated
with participation, it seems reasonable that the contacts the student
had with the.faculty were positive and encouraging for him, especially
in the high contact group. Also, we were not able to know whether the
student or the faculty member initiated the interaction.

It should also be pointed out that no deviant case analysis has
been done. We have, as purposed, described student participation in
professional activities by their relationships with the faculty. Yet,
although we have seen that the hypothesized relationship between parti-
cipation and faculty encouragement and contact does exist, we also
found that some students of high encouragement did not participate and
some students of low encouragement did participate.

Also, as we have noted, our data comes only from those doctoral
students who earned the degree. We do not have data from persons who
attended at the doctoral level but did not earn the degree. Furthermore,
we only have data from one university. It may be that student—faculty
relationships vary by the size of the school, control of the school,
school policy, etc.

Another limitation of this study is that no multi-variate analysis

has been completed. The reason for this is that the working N for this

69

study was only 358 and many times we reported on groups that had an
N of less than 25. Were we to introduce test variables, the size of
the cells would be too small to be reliable. However, we do not mean
to suggest by this that other variables would not affect the data.

Finally, the reader should again be reminded that the student's
conformity to the cues of the faculty does not necessarily mean that
the student has internalized the values which have prescribed the

behavior.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Howard 3. Becker and James W. Carper, "The DevelOpment of Identification
with an Occupation,” The American Journal 2f Sociology, LXI (1956),
289-98.

 

Howard S. Becker and Anselm L. Strauss, "Careers, Personality, and
Adult Socialization," The American Journal of Sociology, LXII
(1956), 253-63.

Bernard Berelson, Graduate Education in the United States. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960.

 

 

Bernard Berelson, "Graduate Education Today," The Doctorate in
Education, 3 (1961), 113~133.

 

Hubert M. Blalock, Social Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc., 1960.

 

W. B. Brookover, "Sociology of Education: A Definition,” American
Sociological Review, 14 (1949), 407-15.

 

Irvin L. Child, ”Socialization," in Gardner Lindzey (editor), Handbook
9f_Social Psychology. Cambridge: Addision~Wesley Publishing
Company, Inc., 1954, 655~92.

 

James A. Davis with David Gottlieb, Jan Hajda, Carolyn Huson and Joe L.
Spaeth, Stipends and Spouses: The Finances of American Arts and
Science Graduate Students. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1962.

 

 

 

H. A. Edgerton, S. H. Britt and R. D. Norman, "Objective Differences
Among Various Types of Respondents to a Mailed Questionnaire,"
American Sociological Review, 12 (1947), 435-44.

 

Frederick Elkin, The Child and Society: The Process of Socialization.
New York: Random House, 1960.

 

 

William Erbe, ”Gregariousness, Group Membership, and the Flow of
Information,” The American Journal of Sociology, LXVII (1962),
502-16.

 

Abbott L. Ferriss, "A Note on Stimulating Responses to Questionnaires,"
American Sociological Review, 16 (1951), 247-49.

 

William J. Goode and Paul K. Hatt, Methods in Social Research. New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1952.

 

70

71

David Gottlieb, ”American Graduate Students: Some Characteristics of
Aspiring Teachers and Researchers,” Journal of Educational Psyw
chology, 53 (1961), 236w40.

 

David Gottlieb, "Processes of Socialization in American Graduate
Schools,” Social Forces, 40 (1961), 124~3l.

 

David Gottlieb, Processes gj_Socialization in American Graduate Schools.
An unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago,
Illinois, 1960.

 

Neal Gross, "Sociology of Education,” in Robert K. Merton, Leonard Broom
and Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr., (editors), Sociology Today: Problems
and Prospects. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1959.

 

Mary Jean Huntington, ”The DevelOpment of a Professional Selfwlmage," in
Robert Merton, George Reader and Patricia Kendall (editors), Th3
Student Physician: Introductory Studies_ig the Sociology 9f Medical
Educgtion, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957, 179-88.

 

 

 

Herbert H. Hyman, Survey Design and Analysis. Glencoe: The Free
Press, 1955.

Daniel Katz and Hadley Cantril, "Public Opinion Polls,” Sociometry, l
(1937), 155~79.

Patricia Kendall and Hanan C. Selvin, ”Tendencies Toward Specialization
in Medical Training,” in Robert Merton, George Reader and Patricia
Kendall (editors), The Student Physician: Introductory Studies in
the Sociology of Medical Education. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1957, pp. 153w87.

 

 

 

Richard F. Larson and William R. Catton, Jr., "Can the Mail—back Bias
Contribute to a Study‘s Validity?,” American Sociological Review,
24 (1959), 243~45.

 

Paul F. Lazarsfeld, ”Introduction: Multivariate Analysis,” in Paul F.
Lazarsfeld and Morris Rosenberg (editors), The Language gf Social
Research: A Reader in the Methodology of Social Research. Glencoe:
The Free Press, 1955, lllu12.

 

 

 

Paul F. Lazarsfeld and Patricia Kendall, "Problems of Survey Analysis,”
in Robert K. Merton and Paul F. Lazarsfeld (editors), Continuities
ifl Social Research: Studies ig the Scepe and Method of ”The American
Soldier." Glencoe: The Free Press, 1950, pp. 133~96.

 

 

 

Seymour Martin Lipset, Martin Trow and James Coleman, Union Democracy.
Garden City: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1962.

 

D. S. Longworth, ”Use of a Mail Questionnaire,” American Sociological
Review, 18 (1953), 310~l3.

 

Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe: The
Free Press, 1957.

 

72

Robert K. Merton, "Socialization: A Terminological Note," in Robert K.
Merton, George Reader and Patricia L. Kendall (editors), Thg
Student Physician: Introductory Studies la the Sociology_2£
Medical Education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957,
287-93.

 

 

Robert K. Merton, ”Some Preliminaries to a Sociology Of Medical Educa»
tion,” in Robert Merton, George Reader and Patricia Kendall (editors),
The Student Physician: Introductory Studies 33 the Sociology 9f
Medical Education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957,
3-80.

 

 

 

Robert K. Merton, Samuel Bloom and Natalie Rogoff, "Studies in the
Sociology of Medical Education,” Journal g£_Medica1 Education, 31
(1956), 552-65.

 

Theodore M. Newcomb, ”Attitude DevelOpment as a Function of Reference
Groups: The Bennington Study,” in Eleanor E. Maccoby, Theodore M°
Newcomb and Eugene L. Hartley (editors), Readings in Social Psyu
chology. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1958, 265~75.

 

Talcott Parsons, The Social System. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1951.

 

Mildred Parten, Surveys, Polls and_§3mple§: Practical Procedures. New
York: Harper and Brothers, 1950, 383w402.

 

 

Carl F. Reuss, ”Differences between Persons ReSponding and Not ReSpond-
ing to a Mailed Questionnaire," American Sociological Review, 8
(1943), 433-38.

 

Natalie Rogoff, ”The Decision to Study Medicine," in Robert Merton,

George Reader and Patricia Kendall (editors), The Student Physician:
Introductogy Studies ifl_the Sociology 2: Medical Education.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957, pp. 109~29.

 

 

 

 

Hanan C. Selvin, "A Critique of Tests of Significance in Survey Re-
search," American Sociolggical Review, 22 (1957), 519-27,

 

R. F. Sletto, ”Pretesting a Questionnaire," American Sociological
Review, 5 (1940), 193~200..

 

Wagner Thielens, Jr., "Some Comparisons of Entrants to Medical and
Law School,” in Robert Merton, George Reader and Patricia Kendall
(editors), The Student Physician: Introductory Studies in Ehg
Sociology gf_Medical Education. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1957, pp. 131-52.

 

 

Hans Zeisel, Say I; With Figures. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957.

 

APPENDICES

To provide that the individuals and the university which actually
participated in this study remain anonymous, we have not included
actual COpies of the instruments which were used. We have, however,
included an approximation of the instruments.

The questionnaire, presented as Appendix I, differs from the one
actually used in only two major ways: First, the university name has
been changed and second, the original questionnaire was mimeographed.

The cover letter used in the mailing, Appendix II, was individually
typed on letterhead paper. The cover letter used for the 1962 graduat-
ing group, Appendix III, appeared as a single page letter and was
mimeographed. The cover letter used for the follOWJUP, Appendix IV,
was also mimeographed. All cover letters used in the study carried

the name of the university which actually participated.

73

74
APPENDIX I
OFFICE OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

HYPOTHETICAL UNIVERSITY
Lazarsville, U.S.A.

 

 

 

For office use only Male
Sex:

Name Female

Department

 

1. Please list below the colleges and universities you have
attended, beginning with your first undergraduate school
and including your present school.

Dates of Major field Degree
College or University Attendance of Study Received

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. If you have interrupted your studies (except for summer
periods) since you first began as a freshman in college,
please indicate what you were doing "in between" (e.g.,
military service, physical illness, full-time employment).
If you were working full time, indicate what sort of
job you held. Please indicate by an X in the right hand
column if at that time you would have preferred to stay
in school.

Reasons for Interruption of Study Would Have
Dates Job (SPECIFY) Other (SPECIFY) Preferred School

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

75

When did you first seriously consider going into your current
field of study? (Circle one number).

Before entering high school. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
During high school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
During the first two years of college. . . . . . . . 3
During the junior year of college. . . . . . . . . . 4
During the senior year of college. . . . . . . . . . 5
After being out of college . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Have you seriously considered any other field or career since
you entered graduate school?

Yes . . . . . . . . . 1
NO. . . . . . . . . . 2

If "yes” what field or fields?

 

 

 

Please think back to the time when you first definitely de-
cided to go to graduate school. Circle the number of the
statement which comes closest to describing your career plans
at that time.

Definitely committed to the field and a preference
for a Specific type of job in that field . . . . . . l

Definitely committed to the field, but no preference
for a Specific type of job in that field . . . . . . 2

Trying out the field of see if it might lead to a
desirable career . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Other (SPECIFY). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Please write the number of the statement in Question 5 which
comes closest to describing your situation right now.

76

7. Listed below are some of the things you might have considered
when you weighed the advantages and disadvantages of different
graduate schools. Please circle the appropriate number in
each row in terms of the importance of each factor to you at
the time you decided to go to Hypothetical University.

 

One of the
Most Impor- Quite Fairly Not
Reason tant Reasons Important Important Important

Reputation of
institution . . . . 1 2 3 4
Particular man I
wanted to study
with. . . . . . . . 6 7 8 9
Reputation of
Department. . . . . 1 2 3 4
Ease and Speed in
getting degree. . . 6 7 8 9
Opportunities for
teaching experience 1 2 3 4
Opportunities for
research experience 6 7 8 9
Chance of getting
a better job in the
long run. . . . . . l 2 3 4
Housing . . . . . . 6 7 8 9
Scholarship or
Assistantship . . . l 2 3 4
Not wanting to cut
home ties . . . . . 6 7 8 9

Other important reasons (SPECIFY)

 

 

8. Which single factor in question 7 do you consider most important
to your choice of Hypothetical University?

 

9.

10.

11.

77

Looking back, do you think you made the best decision by
choosing Hypothetical University for your graduate training?

I definitely made the best decision by coming here . l

I am pretty sure I made the best decision in

coming here. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
I am pretty sure I should have gone elsewhere. . . . 3
I definitely made a poor decision in coming here . . 4

Given your current knowledge about Hypothetical University and
your department would you still select this school for your
doctoral training if you had to make the choice once again?
(Circle one number.)

Yes. . . . . . . . . . . . 1

No . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

If ”no" to Question 10, what graduate school would you attend?

 

Why would you choose this school?

 

 

 

If a close relative or friend was interested in entering your
field and wanted to attend Hypothetical University, what advice
would you give him?

 

 

 

 

 

78

12. In terms of general reputation among experts in the field, how
would you rate your department?

Among the five best in the country . . . . . . . . . . 1

Among the top 20 departments, but not

among the 5 best . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Not among the top 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
I have no idea at all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

13. How would you rate the training opportunities in your depart-
ment for a student who is interested in.
(Circle one number in each row.)

TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES

Excellent gppg j§i£_ .2923
Teaching only . . . . 1 2 3 4
Teaching and research 6 7 8 9
Research. . . . l 2 3 4
Applied areas of the
field . . ... . . . . 6 7 8 9

14. DO you feel you have had sufficient Opportunity to discuss
your career plans with members of the faculty?
(Circle one.)

Yes. . . . . . . . . . . . 1
No . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
15. How many faculty members of your department did you know well

enough, during your doctoral training, with whom you felt you
could discuss personal problems? (Circle one.)

All of them. . . . . . . . 1
Many of them . . . . . . . 2
About half of them . . . . 3
Very few of them . . . . . 4

None of them . . . . . . . 5

79

16. As far as graduate training, all in all how would you rate your
department's faculty in respect to the following .
(Circle one in each row.)

Excellent ,Eplp 222p
Sensitivity to student needs. . . 1 2 3
Knowledge of their field. . . . . 5 6 7
Teaching ability. . . . . . . . . 1 2 3
Awareness of current trends
in the field. . . . . . . . . . . 5 6 7
Publishing productivity . . . . . l 2 3
Research skills . . . . . . . . . 5 6 7
Helpfulness in obtaining jobs for
the doctorate recipients. . . . . l 2 3

17. From your own experiences and from what you have heard, how
would you say Hypothetical University compares to other
universities in respect to the following .

Excellent Good Fair Poor

 

Housing for graduate students . . 1 2 3 4

Concerts, foreign films, art

fairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7 8 9
Stipends for graduate

assistantships. . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4
Study facilities. . . . . . . . . 6 7 8 9
Research facilities . . . . . . . l 2 3 4

Library (Journals, references,
etc.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7 8 9

General academic climate. . . . . l 2 3 4

18. As you think back, what kind of course do you believe was
most valuable?

Lecture.

Seminars . . . .
Individual reading .
Can't decide .

wav—I

80

19. From what you know, how important are the following criteria
as the basis for assistantships, fellowships or scholarships

awarded to graduate students in your department.
order of importance 1, 2, 3.)

Grades. . . . . . .
Faculty personal impressions
Financial need. . . .

(Rank in

 

20. American graduate schools have been criticized and defended on
a number of accounts. Listed below are some of the criticisms
which have been made. For each, indicate whether you consider
it valid or not for the department in which you completed your

degree work. (Circle the apprOpriate number in each row.)

It encourages over-specialization.
It stifles student creativity.

Training not really related to jobs
students will get. . . . . . . . .

Too many formal hurdles and iniw
tiation rites which are not genuine
training . . . . . . .

Does not help students get
desirable jobs . . . . . . .

It accepts more students than it
should .

Admission standards are too low.

It exploits its students by using
them for cheap labor . . . .

It rewards conformity, punishes
individuality.

Faculty members are more
interested in research than they
are in students. .

Other (SPECIFY). . . . . . . . .

Valid
1

6

Somewhat

Valid

2

7

Not
Valid

3

8

Dead
Wrong

4

9

 

 

81

21. To what extent did any of the following factors affect the
length of time it took you to get a doctor's degree?

 

Length- Actually
ened Time Length- Did Not Short- Not
Consider- ened Time Lengthen ened Appli-
ably A Bit Time Time cable

Inadequate preparation
before coming to Hypo-
thetical University. . . . 1 2 3 4 5
Repeating work here
you had already done . . . l 2 3 4 5
Passing foreign language
requirements . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5
Being teaching assistant . l 2 3 4 5
Being research assistant . l 2 3 4 5
Having to work Off—
campus while studying
on campus. . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5
Lack of financial pressure
to get doctorate speedily,
owing to continued GI
benefits . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5
Being financially obliged
to leave here in mid-course
and work to earn money . . 1 2 3 4 5
Family obligations . . . . l 2 3 4 5
Preparation Of preliminary
(or general) examinations. 1 2 3 4 5
Research for and writing
of thesis. . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5

22. Of all the above factors, encircle the one which probably was
most important in lengthening the time it took you to get a
doctorate.

23. If some other factor was more important than any Of the above,
please note it here.

 

24.

25.

26.

27.

82

Which of the following comes closest to describing your career
plans now that your studies are completed?
(Circle one.)

Position with academic institution . . . . . . . . . 1
Position with industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Position with federal or state government. . . . . . 3
Private practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Other (SPECIFY) 5

 

Which of the following comes closest to describing your present
job Situation?

Definitely have a job. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l
Negotiating, looks good. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Negotiating, looks doubtful. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Have not really Started serious job hunting. . . . . 4

If you answered "1" (have job), how satisfied are you with the
position?

Very satisfied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Satisfied. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Not satisfied. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Very dissatisfied. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

There are many factors which might lead a graduate student to
consider or actually drOp out of school. For example, some
students have mentioned finances, poor grades, failure of
graduate school to measure up to expectations, illness, faculty,
marriage, military service, children and so forth.

In as much detail as necessary, discuss the occasions when you
seriously considered drOpping out or actually did drOp out of
graduate school. What were the reasons, how did they come
about, what did you do, with whom did you Speak?

83
28. If you actually did drOp out of school once you began your

post-master’s work, discuss the factors which led to your
returning for the completion of your doctorate.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
29. What is your age?

30. What is your marital status?

Single, never married. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Married, no previous marriage. . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Married, a previous marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Separated or divorced. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

31. Number of children
IF MARRIED

32. During your doctoral work, did your Spouse:

Work full time. . . . . . . Work part time .
Study for Bacheloris Degree Master's . .

Doctor's. . . . . Non degree
Housewife only. . . . . .

Other (SPECIFY)

 

 

33.

34.

84
Which of the following would you say comes closest to describ-
ing your Spouseas attitude during the time you worked on your

doctorate? (Circle one.)

She thought I Spent:

Much too much time on my studies . . . . . . . . 1
Somewhat too much time on my studies . . . . . . 2
About the right amount of time on my studies . . 3
Somewhat too little time on my studies . . . . . 4
Much too little time on my studies . . . . . . . 5

Please discuss in as much detail as necessary the procedures
by which you were assigned a major professor and a guidance
committee. Discuss whether the choice was yours, the extent
to which you were involved in the selection, and your general
evaluation of the procedures which were followed.

35.

36.

37.

38.

85
From the date of your admission as a doctoral student, how
long a period was it before you had a major professor?
(Circle one.)
During my first quarter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

During my second quarter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

During my third quarter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

-After my first year but before my second . . . . . . 4

After the start of my second year. . . . . . . . . . 5

How long a period was it before you had a guidance committee?
(Circle one.)

During my first quarter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
During my second quarter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
During my third quarter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
After my first year but before my second . . . . .4. 4
After the start of my second year. . . . . . . . . . 5
How soon after the selection of your major professor and your

guidance committee did your committee hold its first meeting
with you? (Circle the answer which comes closest.)

About one month later. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l
About two months later . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
'About three months later . . . . . . . . . . . .‘. . 3
About four months later. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
About five months later. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
About Six months later . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Between six months and a year later. . . . . . . . . 7
After a year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Please discuss your feeling about how your guidance committee

[operated. Were you satisfied with their attendance and co-

Operation? Was it difficult to get them together? Did they
meet a sufficient number of times?

86

39. Please discuss your thesis tOpic and how it was selected.
Was it something you were interested in and wanted to do
or was it a ”practical choice”, i.e., something that came
from a faculty member's research project? To what extent
was your major professor involved in this decision? Were
other faculty members involved?

40. How many times did you meet with your full guidance committee
during your graduate training? (Circle one.)

Once . . . . . . . . . . . l
Twice. . . . . . . . . . . 2
Three times. . . . . . . . 3
Four times . . . . . . . . 4
Five times . . . . . . . . 5
Six times. . . . . . . . . 6
Seven times. . . . . . . . 7
Eight times. . . . . . . . 8
Nine or more . . . . . . . 9

41. How many members were there in your guidance committee?

87

42. Did you discuss your thesis or program with members of your
committee on an individual basis? (Circle one.)

Yes. . . . . . . . . . . . 1

IF YES

43. How many members of your guidance committee (excluding your
major professor) did you meet with on an individual basis?

 

(enter number here)
IF YES

44. Of those you did meet with on an individual basis, how frequent
were these meetings? (Circle one in each row for each guidance
committee member included in question 43 above.)

NUMBER 9].: TIMES

First member . . . . . l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 or more
Second member. . . . . l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 or more
Third member . . . . . l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 or more
Fourth member. . . . . l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 or more

45. How many times in a quarter did you meet with your major
professor on the average? (Circle one.)

Less than five times per quarter . . . . . . . . . . 1
Between six and ten times per quarter. . . . . . . . 2
Between 11 and 20 times per quarter. . . . . . . . . 3

More than 20 times per quarter . . . . . . . . . . . 4

88

46. To what extent did your department engage in any of the
following activities? (Circle one number in each row.)

Very Very
Active Active Inactive Inactive
Organized orientation
programs for new
graduate students. . . l 2 3 4
Organized informal
activities for graduate
students . . . . . . . l 2 3 4
Organized informal act-
ivities for faculty-
student get-togethers . l 2 3 4
Organized programs or
seminars for graduate
teaching assistants on
teaching methods . . . l 2 3 4

47. Which of the above activities do you feel the department should
organize? (Circle as many as apply.)

Number 1 . . . . . . . . . 1
Number 2 . . . . . . . . . 2
Number 3 . . . . . . . . . 3
Number 4 . . . . . . . . . 4
All of the above . . . . . 5
None of the above- . . . . 6
48. In looking back on your eXperiences at Hypothetical University,
what would you say the administration could have done to make

your experience more meaningful in terms of social activites,
graduate student organizations and married student activities?

89

49. In conducting research (laboratory, library, field, etc.) for
your doctoral thesis, how much supervision were you given by
your major professor (or thesis advisor if not the same person),
and how much supervision would you have preferred?

 

 

 

 

Supervision Given Supervision Preferred
(Circle one.) (Circle one.)
1 Very close and con- 1

tinuous supervision

2 Close supervision but 2
not on a continuous basis

3 Continuous supervision, 3
but not very close

4 A moderate degree of 4
supervision
5 Very little supervision 5

50. If you were a major professor (or thesis advisor) and were
directing the research of doctoral students in your department,
how much supervision (both in frequency and attentiveness)
would you give your students? (Circle one.)

More than I received from my major
professor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Less than I received from my major
professor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

About the same as I received from
my major professor. . . . . . . . . 3

51. How much Opportunity did you receive from your thesis advisor
to incorporate your own ideas into the research design for your
doctoral thesis? (Circle one.)

Unlimited Opportunity . . . . . . . 1

Limited Opportunity . . . . . . . . 2

No Opportunity. . . . . . . . . . . 3

52.

53.

54.

55.

90

If you were a major professor (or thesis advisor) in your de-
partment, how much opportunity would you give your doctoral
students to incorporate their own ideas into the research de-
sign for their doctoral thesis? (Circle one.)

More than I received from my major
professor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Less than I received from my major
professor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

About the same as I received from
my major professor. . . . . . . . . 3

During the period of your doctoral training, did you partici-
pate in professional meetings? (Circle one.)

I attended one or more professional meetings but did not
present any papers at these meetings . . . . . . . . 1

I attended one or more professional meetings and
presented one or more papers at these meetings . . . 2

I did not attend any professional meetings . . . . . 3
How much encouragement did you receive from faculty members of

your department to attend professional meetings and to present
papers?

 

 

To Attend To Present
Professional Meetings ngers
(Circle one.) (Circle one.)
1 A great deal of encour-
agement l

A moderate amount of
2 encouragement 2

A small amount of en-
3 couragement 3

4 NO encouragement 4
During the period of your doctoral training, did you develop
professional contacts with important scholars or researchers
outside of your own department either in your own field or in
related fields?

Yes . . . . . . . . . 1

NO. . . . . . . . . . 2

91

56. If yes, were these professional contacts made with individuals?
(Circle one.)

In other departments of Hypothetical U.. . . . . . . 1
In other universities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Both 0 0 O C O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 O O O O 3

57. How much encouragement did you receive from faculty members of
your department to make professional contacts with important
scholars or researchers outside of your department?

With Pe0ple in Other

 

 

Departments of With People in
Hypothetical University Other Universities
(Circle one.) (Circle one.)

1 A great deal of encouragement 1

2 A moderate amount of encourage- 2
ment

3 A small amount of encouragement 3

4 No encouragement , 4

58. During the period of your doctoral training, did you have any
papers, articles, etc., published in professional journals or
magazines? (Circle one.)

Yes 0 O O O O O O O O O O 1

59. How much encouragement did you receive from faculty members
of your department to publish in professional journals or
magazines? (Circle one.)

A great deal of encouragement . l

A moderate amount of encourage-

ment 0 C O O O O O O I O O O C O 2
A small amount of encouragement 3
No encouragement. . . . . . . . 4

WE SINCERELY APPRECIATE YOUR HELP.

PLEASE RETURN THE QUESTIONNAIRE TO OUR OFFICE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

92

APPENDIX II

HYPOTHETICAL UNIVERSITY Lazarsville

 

Office of Vice President for Research DevelOpment
School for Advanced Graduate Studies - Office of the Dean
January 25, 1962

Dr. John Smith
World City
Anywhere

Dear Dr. Smith:

Having recently completed requirements for the doctoral degree at
Hypothetical University, you are in a most favorable position to assist
us in gaining insights and understanding of the graduate program at this
institution. We are assisted through views and recommendations of
faculty and academic administrators on a continuing basis as provided in
established administrative arrangements. Their reactions are invaluable.
However, the views and evaluations of those who have recently completed
their graduate studies appear to us as constituting a further important
and helpful source of information.

Our purpose is not to seek fault or praise but to obtain candid
evaluations based on personal experience and observations. We want an
indication how students appraise their graduate education experiences,
how they evaluate the graduate program at Hypothetical University and
how they regard the effectiveness of the manner in which it was carried
out.

A questionnaire has been prepared by our office. We realize that
you are busy and that asking you to complete a questionnaire may be an
imposition. Your cooperation, however, is most important to our study
and we would appreciate sincerely your taking time to respond to the
ritems involved. Kindly rest assured that what you say will be treated
in absolute confidence. Answers will never be read by anyone in your
department or college. Any final report resulting from this survey will
not identify individuals.

May we thank you in advance for your consideration and assistance
and ask that you return the completed questionnaire to our office as
soon as possible in the enclosed stamped self-addressed envelOpe. If
there are any comments you would like to make about things not covered
in the questionnaire, please feel free to do so.

Sincerely,

Vice President and Dean

93
APPENDIX III

HYPOTHETICAL UNIVERSITY Lazarsville

 

Office of Vice President for Research DevelOpment
School for Advanced Graduate Studies - Office of the Dean

January 26, 1962

Dear Doctor:

Having recently completed requirements for the doctoral degree
at Hypothetical University, you are in a most favorable position to
assist us in gaining insights and understanding of the graduate program
at this institution. We are assisted through views and recommendations
of faculty and academic administrators on a continuing basis as pro-
vided in established administrative arrangements. Their reactions are
invaluable. However, the views and evaluations of those who have
recently completed their graduate studies appear to us as constituting
a further important and helpful source of information.

Our purpose is not to seek fault or praise but to obtain candid
evaluations based on personal experience and observations. We want
an indication of how students appraise their graduate educational
experience, how they evaluate the graduate program at Hypothetical
University and how they regard the effectiveness of the manner in which
it was carried out.

A questionnaire has been prepared by our office. We realize that
you are busy and that asking you to complete a questionnaire may be an
imposition. Your cooperation, however, is most important to our study
and we would appreciate sincerely your taking time to reSpond to the
items involved. Kindly rest assured that what you say will be treated
in absolute confidence. Answers will never be read by anyone in your
department or college. Any final report resulting from this survey
will not identify individuals.

As you probably know, the Graduate School at Hypothetical
University is develOping more rapidly than almost any other segment
of the University. Its increase in size constitutes an important
response to the national need for more people with advanced graduate
training of quality. We wish, therefore, to obtain as complete
information as possible as we proceed in our develOpment of the
graduate program.

94

May we thank you in advance for your consideration and assistance
and ask that you return the completedquestionnaire.to our office as
soon as possible. If there are any comments you would like to make
about things not covered in the questionnaire, please feel free to
do so.

Sincerely,

Vice President and Dean

95
APPENDIX IV

HYPOTHETICAL UNIVERSITY Lazarsville

 

Office of Vice President for Research DevelOpment
School for Advanced Graduate Studies - Office of the Dean

February 26, 1962

Dear Doctor:

As you know, our office is conducting a study to evaluate
the Graduate Program here at Hypothetical University. During the
last week of January we sent a questionnaire asking for evaluations
based on your own personal experience and observations.

We realize that you are busy and that to complete a questionnaire
is an imposition. Your appraisal, however, is most important to our
study and we would appreciate sincerely your taking time to respond to
the items involved.

We are enclosing another c0py of the questionnaire along with
a stamped selfmaddressed envelOpe and ask that you return the completed

questionnaire to our office as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Vice President and Dean

96
APPENDIX V
A Research Note on the No Answer

Because two of the questions dealing with encouragement had a high
percent of "no answer" and since they are treated as independent variables,
they are crucial to the analysis. We have written this note to argue
the prOpriety for including them in this study. We maintain that the
high rate of no answer to these questions does not bias the data. These
no answer”re3ponses" are randomly distributed within the sample and are
due to faulty question construction.

Excluding the front sheet data, Openwended questions and questions
that were applicable only in certain situations, there were a total of
93 questions in the questionnaire.

In concerning ourselves with how to handle the "no answer"* we
decided to follow the procedure outlined by Zeisel** for those questions
where the-"no answer" reSponse was five percent or less.

Of the 93 questions, 88 had a "no answer" response of five percent
or less. These questions were cross~tabulated with several variables
including age, degree obtained, sex, division of study, hiatus, etc.,
to determine if the "no answer" reSpondents were of a particular
group. This was done for each of the 88 questions, and we found no
homogeneity in the "no answer" reSponse. Thus, having some confidence

that the "no answer" respondents for these questions were randomly

 

*By ”no answer" we mean to include only times when the reSpondent did
not answer a particular question to which he was asked to reSpond.

 

**Hans Zeisel, Say I£_With Figures. New York: Harper and Brothers,1957.

 

97

distributed, we included the questions in our analysis. The ”no answers”
were excluded from the tables and subtracted from the working N for that
table. Had we included them in the base figure of the table, we would
have superficially increased the reliability of that question. However,
by completely omitting_the "no answer” category from the table assumes
that they would distribute in exactly the same way as the group for

”no

whom a substantive reSponse was known. The "save" here is that the
answer” constitutes such a small percentage of the population that they
wouldn't make any difference.

Five questions had a "no answer" response higher than the arbitrary
five percent level. The exact percent of ”no answers” for these
questions was 8, 9, ll, 20 and 23 percent. In searching for some
explanation of the high ”no answer" reSponse for these questions, we
-observed that three of the five questions were set in a somewhat
unusual format. The remaining two questions were also set in a format
which is somewhat different from that which is standard for survey
questionnaires. Hence, we began to suspect the "question format" as
the cause of the high ”no answer" response for the five questions.

The 93 questions of the questionnaire represent four different
styles of question format. We shall identify each of them and refer
to them as styles A, B, C, and D.

FIGURE I

 

Question Style "AV

"How many members were there in your guidance committee?

 

98
The.first question style is the "fillwin” type which is quite
standard in surveys. There were six questions of this type in the
-questionnaire and the mean number of "no answer" response for this
'type-of question style was 4.1 which equals 1.1 percent of the-sample
\(the-range was 10 which is 2.8 percent of the sample).

FIGURE 2

 

Qpestion Style 9p"

What is your marital status?

Single, never married. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Married, no previous marriage. . . . . . . . . 2
Married, a previous marriage . . . . . . . . . 3
~Separated or divorced. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

 

_Question type "B" is probably the most common style of question
format that is used in questionnaires. A question,.followed by a
series of responses and the reSpondent is merely to check or circle
one or more codes correSponding to the responses under the question.
There were 28 questions of this type in the-questionnaire. The mean
number of persons failing to answer this type of question was 3.1
which equals .8 percent of the sample (the range was 19 which is 5.3

percent of the sample).

99

FIGURE 3

 

Question Style "9P
How would you rate the training Opportunities in your department
for a student who is interested in . . . (Circle one number in each row).
TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES

Excellent Good Fair Poor

Teaching only . . . . . . . . . l 2 3 4
Teaching and research . . . . . l 2 3 4
Research only . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4
Applied areas of the field. . . l 2 3 4

 

In the third format style, a lead statement is made which is ap—
plicable for each of the immediately following circumstances. The
reSponses are also uniform in that the set of fixed alternatives
for each question is exactly the same. The reSpondent then reads
each individual "sub-question” and circles the apprOpriate reSponse
that appears to the right of the question. There were 53 questions
of this type, counting each item (”Teaching only", ”Teaching and
Research", etc.) as individual questions. The mean number of persons
failing to answer this type of question was 8.5 which is 2.3 percent

of the sample (the range is 39 which is 10.8 percent of the sample).

100

FIGURE 4

 

Question Style “Q”
"How much encouragement did you receive from the faculty members of

your department to attend professional meetings and to present papers?”

 

 

To Attend Professional To Present
Meetings Papers
(circle one) (circle one)
1 A great deal of encouragement l

A moderate amount of encourage-

2 ment 2
3 A small amount of encouragement 3
4 No encouragement 4

 

The fourth question format style is quite similar to the previous
one ("C”) in that a lead or introductory statement is made which is
apprOpriate to more than one specific question and the categories of
response are exactly the same for each of the questions. It differs
from the third in that the categories of response are placed on the
horizontal axis and the questions on the vertical axis--one on each
side of the categories of answer. There were six questions with this
particular question format style and the mean number of persons failing
to reSpond to this type of question was 32.0 which is 8.9 percent of

the sample (the range was 72 which is 20 percent of the sample).

lOl

 

 

TABLE 1
Mean Percent of
Number of the sample with

Question Number of "No answers" One or more

Style Questions Per Question No response
"A" 6 4.1 1.].
"B” 28 3.1 .8
"C" 53 8.5 2.3
"D” 6 32.0 8.9

 

From Table l we can easily see that there is a sizeable difference
in the number of "no answer" responses which various question format
styles yield. For each question of style "D" an average 32 persons
failed to answer; 32 represents nearly nine percent of the total number
of persons surveyed. Of the other three question styles, "C" had the
highest percent of persons failing to respond, an average 2.3 percent
of the total group questioned.

The explanation for so many reSpondents failing to answer questions
put in the format of "D" probably lies in their failure to see them.

In the questionnaire, the place where the reSpondent was to indicate
his ”choice of answer” to a question was to the right of the category
of response, (the right side of the sheet) except where the questions
were put in the format of "D”. Here, half of the time the respondent
indicated his answer to the right of the reSponse category and half of
the time to the left. When the respondent had to indicate his reSponse
to the lgft of the category of reSponse the percent of "no answer” was

nearly 11 percent higher than when it was on the right.

102

 

 

TABLE 2
Mean Number Percent of
Place Number of "No answers” the sample
of of Per with one or more
Answer Questions Question no reSponse
Right 3 12.6 3.5
Left 3 51.3 14.3

 

Each of the five questions which yielded more than five percent
”no answer" response were crOSSMtabulated with several control variables
in order to determine if some particular group or category of persons
were failing to respond. Control variables were department, division
of study, type of degree obtained, sex, age, Specific time of graduaw

tion and number of years taken to obtain the degree. In no case was the

H 1

percent of no answer' response in any one category significantly
different than any other. Also, we analyzed these data to determine if
the same reSpondents were failing to answer the questions. We found
that only 3.5 percent failed to answer three of the five questions and
4.9 percent failed to answer two of them.

In conclusion, it appears that the reason for a high percent of
”no answer" to questions included in the Survey reported here was due
to faulty question construction. When the place for the reSpondent
to indicate his choice of answer was on the ”wrong” side of the page--
the left sidem-and when there is also, as usual, a reSponse requested
to the right of the question, the percent of persons failing to answer

the question on the left was 14.3. When the place is to the right side,

the percent of persons failing to answer varied from .8 to 3.5 percent.

 

 

HICHIGQN STRTE UNIV. LIBRARIES

31293103208603