.. :50 , 1 u... v 1.3.1.1: .2. , é .P . 5. x. . fr 1.2 5...; 7.1.. :3 .I.:. xv y. . . V . 2.... ‘ ‘ ... . . A V , §A xiivio 7.. . 1r :2. t. = .32 . act..[:v..!:.&k . .A \. 1.50, 'H A“: a" Au n. .uuh‘uh J nun“ ‘IA.I unu- THESIS 2 J 2 7 1* '1 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Becoming A Scholar: The Role of the Dissertation in the Search for Academic Identity in Graduate School presented by J. Greg Merritt has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for . Ph.D. Educational Administration I degree in . Higher, Adult and Lifelong l Education Adfim Major professor 1 1—08-02 Date MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 .i 1—? LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE Fgfiazooa mm “was AUG 0 8 2006 8 07 .09 6/01 c./ClRC/DateDue.p65-p.15 BECOMING A SCHOLAR: THE ROLE OF THE DISSERTATION IN THE SEARCH FOR ACADEMIC IDENTITY IN GRADUATE SCHOOL BY J. Greg Merritt A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 2002 ABSTRACT BECOMING A SCHOLAR: THE ROLE OF THE DISSERTATION IN THE SEARCH FOR ACADEMIC IDENTITY IN GRADUATE SCHOOL BY J. Greg Merritt The purpose of this qualitative, interpretive study was to examine the role the dissertation process plays on influencing and contributing to a student's academic identity. An additional purpose was to add to the body of research on graduate students and the dissertation process. Qualitative, biographical, and interpretive methods were used to explore the lives of four graduate students, all of whom stated that they were aspiring to be faculty members. All were interviewed during the dissertation— writing stage of their program. Three major findings are explored. l) The dissertation writing process is a major transition period for students. 2) Students ask important questions of themselves during the dissertation writing process and the answers to these questions lead to critical internal tensions that influence academic identity development. 3) Most students struggle when left on their own to manage the above tensions. The costs can be great for graduate programs and for higher education as they lose capable students. Finally, this study offers implications, suggestions, and recommendations for students, faculty advisors, and graduate programs on the role the dissertation plays in future faculty members “becoming scholars and developing academic identities”. Dedicated to my partner and best friend, Michele, and to my Ma. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Projects like this are never completed without the help and support of many people. In the limited space provided, I wish to extend a brief word of thanks to those that helped and supported me along the way. My apologies in advance to those who I fail to mention due to space constraints. Thanks to Mary Hummel, and my colleagues at the University of Michigan for providing support and time away when needed. Cindy Helman and Sheryl Welte provided assistance in our ‘dissertation support’ group long after they had finished, and Vicki Botek helped to edit the final draft and I thank them. Mike Schechter, my old friend, provided support and encouragement when I wasn’t sure I could finish. Special thanks to my advisor, Ann Austin, who exemplifies what it means to be an advisor for graduate students and without her guidance, assistance and support, I am certain I would be ABD for life. I also wish to thank the participants for their time and willingness to share their stories with me. Thanks Mom for always believing in me and supporting my goals. And finally, a special thanks to Jones (my dog) and Michele, my partner and best friend for life, for putting up with me being away and for always letting me know I could do it! You’re the best! TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ......................................... Vii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY ...................... 1 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ON THEORIES FOR CONSIDERING THE SHAPING OF ACADEMIC IDENTITY AND THE TRANSITION THROUGH GRADUATE SCHOOL .......................................... 21 CHAPTER 3: GAINING PERSPECTIVE ON GRADUATE STUDENTS: METHODS .................................................. 48 CHAPTER 4: THE FINE LINE BETWEEN EMERGING EXPERT AND IMPOSTOR: JOANNE’S STORY ................................ 62 CHAPTER 5: LOVING TEACHING—HATING WRITING: FRED’S STRUGGLE TO DEFINE WHO HE WAS AS AN ACADEMIC ...................... 87 CHAPTER 6: “JUSTIN’S HOME EVERYDAY...WHY CAN’T HE MOW HIS LAWN? DOESN’T HE WORK?" ACADEMIC WORK HABITS, THE DISSERTATION, AND IDENTITY .............................. 104 CHAPTER 7: THE STRUGGLE TO WRITE FROM A LARGER RESEARCH PROJECT: UNDERSTANDING ACADEMIC WORK IN LITA’S DISSERTATION STORY ................................................... 130 CHAPTER 8: EIGHT THEMES: ISSUES AND DILEMMAS THAT INFLUENCE ACADEMIC IDENTITY FROM THE FOUR STORIES WITH AMPLIFYING VOICE FROM THE FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANTS ................. 155 CHAPTER 9: WHAT WAS LEARNED: CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ......................................... 181 APPENDIX A .............................................. 204 APPENDIX B .............................................. 211 APPENDIX C .............................................. 212 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................ 213 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1- Conceptual map of the dissertation ............. 12 Figure 2- A description of three transition models that influence the conceptual framework of transitions during graduate school .......................................... 23 vfi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY Statement of the Problem A number of books and essays have been written on the state of graduate education (Baldwin & Blackburn, 1981; Becher, 1996; Berelson, 1960; Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Damrosch, 1995; Katz, 1976; Menand, 1996; Richlin, 1993), the problems of graduate—student attrition (Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Golde, 1996; Lovitts, 1996; Nerad, 1991), and ways to succeed in graduate school, particularly in completing the dissertation (Bolker, 1998; Cole & Hunt, 1994; Duff Brown, 1996; Glatthorn, 1998; McKinney, 1996; Meloy, 1994; Sternberg, 1992). However, much less research has been done on how one develops a sense of “academic identity” as a future faculty member or on the lived experiences of graduate students aspiring to the professorate (Anderson, 1998; Austin, 2002; Nyqist et al., 1999; Golde & Dore, 2001). In particular, little research has been done on the role that the dissertation plays in influencing or shaping one’s academic identity. In addition, few researchers have investigated the experience from the students’ perspective. Purpose of the Study My purpose in conducting this interpretive study was to examine the role the dissertation process plays in influencing and contributing to a student’s academic identity. An additional purpose was to add to the body of research on graduate students and the dissertation process. Research Question To achieve these purposes, I posed the following overarching research question to guide the collection of data for the study: How does the dissertation-writing process contribute to or influence a student’s sense of academic identity? To answer this question, I used qualitative, biographical, and interpretive methods to explore the lives of four graduate students, all of whom stated in our initial interviews that they were aspiring to be faculty members. I interviewed all of them during the dissertation—writing stage of their program. I learned about some additional events and life stories from them, but found it particularly revealing to focus on the dissertation. I discovered that the dissertation process was an especially poignant time in the lives of these aspiring faculty members. Importance of the Study Although it is difficult to obtain information on those whose academic progress never goes beyond the all- but—dissertation (ABD) stage (see Sternberg, 1992), it has been estimated that as many as 50% of the students who enter doctoral programs do not complete them (particularly in the humanities). Using data from six institutions, Bowen and Rudenstine (1992) found that 30.1% of graduate— student attrition occurred at the ABD stage, and another 13.3% during the dissertation phase. Thus, discovering more about the role the dissertation plays in the academic and professional development and identity of aspiring faculty members is important both to individuals and to institutions of higher learning. The findings from this study also can help graduate students understand and predict the kinds of questions and concerns that might arise during the dissertation-writing process, as well as help them comprehend how one derives meaning and a sense of academic identity from the writing process. By the time in their academic careers when students face writing the dissertation, most of them have become adept at “doing schooling,” i.e., the ability to complete specific assignments or examinations for instructors who hold the student accountable. These habits often include a built—in support network, especially as part of the active learning environment that increasingly typifies undergraduate and graduate education in the United States. But then such students are expected to move swiftly and easily from the schooling phase to become more self-motivated, independent thinkers who are dedicated to the solitary activity of researching and writing a dissertation. As a result of being successful in schooling, many students have developed habits of the mind that require having collaborative input, including such things as participating in discussions and working in small groups on projects. In addition, they have been successful at writing brief papers in a short period of time. These habits are not particularly helpful and, in fact, are often contrary to the writing of the dissertation. The dissertation requires one to develop habits that result in self—directed, creative, and original work. Thus, it is possible that many people find the transition a traumatic and troublesome life event. On the other hand, it is possible that others find the transition much less difficult due to habits they formed before or during graduate school. Thus, how one derives meaning from the dissertation process and how the process contributes to the development of future faculty varies from one person to another. Additional benefits of describing, exploring, explaining and understanding the role the dissertation plays for aspiring faculty members include the following. First, the study has potential benefits for those aspiring to be faculty members. By illuminating this period of graduate life, the study findings can help future academics understand many of the conflicting emotions (e.g., angst or elation) and possible developmental stages that relate to this period. By learning about the meaning of this period through narratives of those who have recently taken part in this process, graduate students who have not yet begun the dissertation may be able to anticipate some of the difficulty or ease surrounding this period. Second, it is possible that exploring this topic may lead to a modification of existing theories, frameworks, and models of academic transition and careers (Baldwin & Blackburn, 1981; Becher, 1996; Boice, 1992; Finkelstein, 1990; Livesey, 1975; Richlin, 1993; Whitt, 1988). Finally, understanding the nature of this period in graduate students’ lives should help career counselors, faculty mentors, advisors, and others interested in supporting doctoral candidates. With this understanding, career counselors and faculty members should be better suited to assist students in their career choices. As one of my professors told me, writing a dissertation about those in the process of writing dissertations and developing a sense of identity is like “studying in the hall of mirrors.” The project itself has resulted in some of the most intellectually challenging and rewarding times of my life and also some of the lowest lows. This, in part, is why I think it is a problem worth studying. That is, although my story is not the central focus of this study, I do not believe it is an anomaly among future faculty members. As mentioned, it has been estimated that as many as half of those entering graduate school fail to complete their degrees (Sternberg, 1992). In addition, as Golde (1996) stated in her dissertation on doctoral—student attrition, “Little is understood about the process of achieving a doctoral degree. There are few scholarly descriptions of doctoral students and doctoral education" (p. 1). Theoretical Framework for the Study Although this study is not about identity formation in the traditional psychological or Eriksonian tradition, it does afford a scholarly description of academic identity. Further, I used the notion of images of self to explore the complex lives of aspiring faculty members and to provoke conversation and discussion concerning graduate school experiences, particularly the dissertation process. I used a variation of Denzin’s (1989) interpretive interactionism to examine and explore the personal struggles, triumphs, and transitions of aspiring faculty members navigating the graduate school experience and writing dissertations. Interpretive interactionism is a methodology for studying individuals’ problems and how they are connected with both public issues and public responses to these problems. I was especially interested in graduate students’ concerns as they wrote the dissertation and as they related to the programs, people, and institutions that were part of this experience. In this study I was also interested in how the experiences of writing the dissertation within particular programs influenced students’ academic identity. Participants and the Case Studies This dissertation tells, in part, the story of four graduate students (Joanne, Fred, Justine and Lita [all pseudonyms]) who, at the time of the initial interview, were all planning to become faculty members. I asked these students to reflect on their experiences before and during graduate school, with particular emphasis on the dissertation experience. In addition to interviewing these graduate students four to six times each for 1.5 to 2 hours each session, I was also able to collect data about the experiences of other graduate students in four 2-hour focus groups. The individual participants in this study allowed me to be party to what are usually private conversations, often with themselves. Thus, I was able to uncover questions that they asked themselves during the dissertation process that helped to form what I termed their academic identity. The description of their experiences, the questions they asked themselves, and the meaning they derived from those experiences and questions enhanced my understanding of the graduate school experience. The stories of these four individuals show that dissertation writers contribute to their own academic identity by asking themselves two critical questions during the dissertation process: “Who am I as an academic?” and “What does academic ‘work’ mean to me?” Within each of these questions are sets of problems that tend to emerge during the dissertation process. The graduate school experience and dissertation stories of these individuals exemplify some of the relevant problems. Comments from individuals in the focus groups amplified the issues and questions raised by the four interview participants. The question “Who am I as an academic?” appears to result in a number of competing images of self. One of these images, the emerging expert versus imposter, occurs for most novice writers and scholars and has been discussed by others (see, for example, Brookfield, 1994; Clance & Ament, 1978; and Harvey’s 1985 book entitled The Imposter Phenomenon). Dissertation writers often believe that, having passed comprehensive examinations and entered the dissertation phase of graduate school, they are emerging as “experts.” Simultaneously, the same dissertation writers may feel very much like “imposters.” Joanne’s dissertation story (along with amplifying voices from focus group members) exemplifies this experience. A second problem that faces many dissertation writers is the struggle between becoming a teacher and becoming a researcher. This theme is also shared by new faculty members (Boice, 1992). Drawing especially on Fred’s experiences during the dissertation phase, I explored how a student may use teaching as a procrastination method to avoid writing the dissertation and how this influences the person’s self-perception as a future academic. A third issue arises as dissertation writers ask themselves, “What does ‘academic work’ mean?” They are challenged to consider their own work habits and the differing perceptions that friends and family have of “work." This is particularly critical if one comes from a working—class background like Justin’s, whose dissertation story pertains to how he understands academic and non— academic work. For dissertation writers like Lita, the issue of understanding what academic work means is exacerbated by the decision (encouraged by her advisors) to take a piece of a larger research project to complete her dissertation. The notions of working collaboratively versus independently moved to the fore and resulted in her having difficulty with where ideas come from and who can/should/has the right to claim them. In each of the cases explored in this dissertation, I begin by providing some background on the student’s graduate school experience and exploring the problem in the story as he or she asks these critical questions. Although I focus on the four cases, I also draw on data collected from focus groups to examine the role of the dissertation 10 process in the formation of academic identity. The conceptual approach to the study is shown in Figure 1.1. Definition of Terms and Concepts Although much research has been conducted on the academic experiences of new faculty members (Boice, 1992; Gaff, Pruit—Logan, Weible, & Others, 2000; Menges & Associates, 1999; Rice, Sorcinelli, & Austin, 2000; Sorcinelli & Austin, 1992), less is known about how aspiring faculty members’ identities develop or are shaped. Studying this issue requires understanding the following terms: Ph.D. student, scholar, academic identity, transitions and the “stages” of graduate school. For some, the words student and scholar are synonymous. In fact, a student is defined in the Merriam— Webster Dictionary (http://merriam—webster.com) as a “scholar or learner, especially one who attends school.” For purposes of this study, I defined a student as one who was pursuing a Ph.D. and taking courses. (Although clearly one is still a student while writing the dissertation, I chose to define student in a way that differentiated between student and scholar.) 11 CONTEXT: All individuals in the study intended to become faculty members. Four individual cases came from the field of teacher education, and four focus group discussions were with students in various disciplines. Academic Identity—CENTRAL FOCUS 0 Big Question: How does the dissertation-writing process contribute to or influence one’s sense of academic identity? TWO IMPORTANT QUESTIONS EMERGE: / \ Who am I as an academic? What does academic “work” mean to me? l) U Competing Images of Self I I l i Two cases based on Who am I as an Two cases based on What does academic? academic “work” mean? Case: Emerging Expert vs. Imposter Case: Work Habits (Academic vs. Non-academic) Case: Teacher vs. Researcher Case: Collaborative vs. Individual Work on the dissertation EMERGING SENSE OF ACADEMIC IDENTITY Figure 1: Conceptual map of the dissertation. l2 A scholar as defined by the Merriam—Webster Dictionary (http://merriam—webster.com) is “(a) one who has done advanced study in a special field or (b) a learned person.” Again, a scholar certainly can be a student, but the specialization of scholarship (Damrosch, 1995) is heightened for future academics with the writing of the dissertation. Thus, for this study, I defined a scholar or Ph.D. dissertation writer as a person who is focused on a specialized topic, uses newly found intellectual training and methods and typically is in a more solitary pursuit of knowledge that leads to development of an academic identity. In his work on late and middle career development and identity of faculty members, Weiland (1997) stated, “Academic identity can be understood to represent a dynamic ‘configuration’ of elements: those that are internal, or psychological, maturational and developmental; and those that are external, social and disciplinary" (p. 260). For the purpose of this study, I explored the internal, psychological, maturational, and developmental elements of identity. I viewed the external, social, and disciplinary nature of identity as a context that was occurring for all of the participants. That is, all of the participants were at approximately the same place in their programs (writing 13 chapters of their dissertations), and were studying in the same discipline. In his book The Courage to Teach, Palmer (1998) stated, “Identity is a moving intersection of the inner and outer forces that make me who I am, converging in the irreducible mystery of being human” (p.13). Thus, I borrowed from both Weiland and Palmer, and for this study viewed academic identity as who one is and becomes in the academy, influenced by the intersection of the multiplicity of people, things, thoughts, feelings and behaviors that contribute to one’s development. It is the moving intersection between the inner and the outer forces that helps one understand oneself in the confines of an academic institution or discipline. Additionally, this study was conducted in a research university and the definition incorporates professional identity, which may occur for students who choose non—academic work settings but still develop “academic identities” in their discipline. Another potentially thorny aspect of this study is the use of the word transition to describe how one navigates the academic experiences in graduate school, particularly as one moves into the dissertation—writing phase from the student course-taking phase. Schlossberg, Waters, and Goodman (1995) broadly defined a transition as “any event, or non—event, that results in changed relationships, 14 routines, assumptions and roles” (p. 27). Further, they believed a transition is a transition only if it is defined by the person as being so. They explained: To understand the meaning a transition has for a particular individual, we need to examine the type of transition (anticipated or unanticipated), the context of the transition (relationship of person to transition, setting in which the transition occurs), and the impact of the transition on the individual’s life (on relationships, routines, assumptions, roles). (p. 35) In the case of navigating the graduate school experience, a person may go through numerous transitions. Brammer (1991) defined a transition simply as “a short time of personal change with a definite beginning and ending" (p. 4). He proposed that a transition is a process consisting of fairly predictable stages that flow into one another, overlapping and recycling through earlier stages. For the purpose of this dissertation, transition was defined as the process of an individual (in this case in graduate school) progressing through distinct, institutionally mandated stages of an experience, which results in change and ultimately helps shape the individual’s identity. Golde (1996) noted that “some researchers have divided the process of doctoral education into stages” (p. 23), which she synthesized into a four—stage model: (a) taking 15 courses, (b) comprehensive examinations or a paper to mark the advancement to candidacy, (c) the dissertation proposal, and (d) the dissertation research and writing stage. Each of these stages is described below. Following acceptance into graduate school, a student takes classes in what Tinto (1993) called “stages of transition” (p. 235), in order to come to new and more advanced levels of expertise in a field or discipline. As one progresses through graduate school, he or she typically takes a comprehensive examination. All students participating in this study had completed the majority of their course work and had taken a comprehensive exam. For some students, taking the comprehensive exam can be an important part of feeling connected or disconnected to the discipline or field of study. Some described the process as being rewarded for what you now know, whereas others described the experience as finding out all you do not know. In the third stage, a student decides on a dissertation topic, forms his or her dissertation committee, and writes the dissertation proposal. Time frames often vary greatly (Nerad, 1991), and this stage may intertwine with the second one. The fourth stage, the research and writing of the dissertation, has the most 16 unpredictable time frame (Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Golde, 1996), particularly depending on the field of study. In the natural, physical, and life sciences, students often conduct their research in a laboratory setting that is funded, whereas in the humanities, the research is often individualistic and less likely to be funded (Nerad, 1991). In the hard sciences, the stages have more variance as research typically begins when the student enters a lab in the first two years. Each of these formal stages provides a window through which to view particular aspects of the shaping of an academic identity. This study was focused on the development of academic identity at the beginning of the fourth formal stage. Overview Chapter 1 was an introduction to the study. The problem was set forth, followed by the research question guiding the study. The need for the study was discussed, as was the theoretical framework. The participants and case studies were described and key terms and concepts were defined according to their use in this study. Chapter 2 contains a review of literature on graduate school education, the problems of the ABD syndrome, 17 literature related to new faculty careers, and formation of academic identity. Particular attention is paid to existing frameworks of transition, literature about academic careers, and literature that provides advice to students about navigating through the graduate school experience, particularly in writing the dissertation. This section is intended to help situate this study in the larger discourse of graduate education. Chapter 3 describes the methods used to come to know, understand, and make sense of the stories heard from the aspiring faculty members. Also in Chapter 3, the university and college (education) culture in which these students studied is discussed. The core of the dissertation consists of the stories of the four participants mentioned earlier. Although the existing frameworks informed and guided my organization and telling of each case, I stayed as close to the participants’ words and interpretations as possible. Given the lack of exploration of graduate students’ voices describing the doctoral education experience, it was important to me to allow the students’ experiences to guide my understanding of the development of academic identity. Chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7, tell the participants’ individual stories. Responses to the question “Who am I as 18 an academic?” are the focus of Chapters 4 and 5. Chapter 4 represents the issues of expert versus imposter; in this chapter, Joanne’s issues are described. Chapter 5 describes Fred’s exploration of the notions of being a teacher versus a researcher. Chapters 6 and 7 contain cases responding to the critical question that arises during the dissertation phase of graduate school: “What does academic ‘work’ really mean to me?” Justin’s story, presented in Chapter 6, is rich with reflection and provides the images of his coming to understand academic and non-academic work and the influence of his working— class background. Chapter 7 discusses how Lita came to understand the work of an academic as she wrote a dissertation from a larger study and struggled to determine who owned the dissertation and how the work was defined. Chapter 8, looks across the four stories and incorporates the discussion from four focus groups to look more deeply into the range of challenges that face graduate students writing their dissertations. Also, the contribution of the dissertation process to students’ search for their academic identities is shown. Chapter 9 describes what was learned from the study. In particular, the study is situated into the broader discussion on graduate education occurring nationally. In 19 addition, implications, suggestions, and recommendations for students, faculty advisors, and graduate programs are provided. Finally, the benefits of this type of research are also discussed and suggestions are made for further research. 20 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ON THEORIES FOR CONSIDERING THE SHAPING OF ACADEMIC IDENTITY AND THE TRANSITION THROUGH GRADUATE SCHOOL Introduction Graduate school. No one in the tiny town of Loami (population 800) could tell me about his or her experiences in graduate school. Among my parents and my friends’ parents, few had even gone to community college. I did not consider pursuing a Ph.D. until I arrived in East Lansing in 1990. Even then, it was not clear to me what the experience would be like and how it would influence and shape who I now am. As a full—time residence hall director, I was taking courses and pursuing a degree in order to advance my career. It was when I was introduced to a particular faculty member, known for her commitment to teaching her students, that I began to realize my love for teaching and to think about how I, too, could become that elusive entity called a “scholar.” While I was taking courses, writing comprehensive exams, and preparing to write a dissertation, I thought about ways in which graduate school influences students who are aspiring to the professorate. I thought about my own transitions, both big and small, about the ways in which 21 those around me influenced me, and about what I was becoming. From these reflections on my experience, the idea of studying the lives of those writing dissertations was born. This chapter is intended to situate the present research within a larger context. First, because this is a study about academic transition, I discuss some of the predominant theories about adults in transition, paying particular attention to how the theories might apply in a graduate school setting. Second, because I am interested in students’ academic identity before and during the writing of the dissertation, I review literature on the shaping of identity. Third, because this study relates to the concerns of graduate school, I consider literature on the ABD syndrome and on academic careers of graduates. Literature on Transitions In the ongoing flux of life, one undergoes many changes.... New skills are learned, old abandoned; expectations are fulfilled or hopes dashed—in all these situations the individual is faced with the need to give up one mode of life and accept another. (Parkes, 1972, p. 23) In the literature on transitions, a number of key concepts appeared to be relevant to the transition that takes place as one navigates through graduate school toward the dissertation process. In Figure 2.1, a concept map of 22 I EXAMPLES of How Transition ! Theory Informed This Research 1.1- , ._._.__. _.-_l Schlossberg, Waters & a o ’ Goodman’s Transmonal Brammer 8 Process- Framework Stage Model ' - - - A 1 Fr m H n (The n 1 1 1 Transition) (41229.24 __0__ _op_§9__) Letting Approaching Transition Go.& v (Event or Non-event resulting in Changc)Emcfing Experiencing Managing taking Testing . TYPC Context Impact the Cyclical Minimizing Depression hold or New Changing Reactions over Time Transition Feelings Feeling & searching npw Options . ‘ ans Coping Resources (The 4 8’5) A A A for Dialling P A A //> upport x. . . V V Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Self strategies Point I Point2 Point 3 Point4 PomtS Point 6 A A 3 Situation (’ { \\ l I \“‘\\__ l Taking Courses 0' ‘ . . . . ‘ . \\ E R'Slbcntf’ionu‘ynnng: Academic Identity Formed “‘~~\-\ l Comprehensive in(t)1:c(:1ctin; 8222122220“ /// £315."--- identity 111313;? ““3”" / ///. r1“ Nicholson’s General Model of the Transition Cycle //, Phase V/I , Preparation “I‘m / I ‘4 Phase IV Phase [1 Stabilazation Encounter ! I. / \ . / ‘ 7/ 1’ I \k Phase in Adjustment Figure 2. A description of three transition models that influence the conceptual framework of transitions during graduate school. 23 Schlossberg et al.’s (1995) transition framework, Brammer’s (1991) process—stage model, and Nicholson’s (1990) general model of a transition cycle illuminates the essential concepts of transition that informed my thinking for this study. Schlossberq11Waters. and Goodman's Transitional Framework (The Individual Transition) The transitional framework or model devised by Schlossberg et al. (1995) was intended to help professional counselors (and other help providers) acquire the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that would enable them to work more effectively with adults in transition. In the transitional framework they developed, these researchers described the process of going through a transition, enumerating the major areas that affect how clients cope with transitions. According to Schlossberg et al., (1995) going through a transition consists of three major elements: (a) approaching transitions: transition identification and transition process, (b) taking stock of coping resources, or the 48 system, and (c) taking charge, or strengthening resources (p. 26). As mentioned in Chapter 1, these authors defined transition broadly as “any event, or non— event, that results in changed relationships, routines, 24 assumptions and roles” (p. 27). Further, they believed a transition is a transition only if it is defined by the person as being so. They explained, To understand the meaning a transition has for a particular individual, we need to examine the type of transition (anticipated or unanticipated), the context of the transition (relationship of person to transition, setting in which the transition occurs), and the impact of the transition on the individual’s life (on relationships, routines, assumptions, roles). (p. 35) After identifying the transition, Schlossberg et al. explicated “the 48 system” (situation, self, supports, and strategies) in their model to show the variables that influence an individual’s ability to cope during a transition: 1” The Situation variable—(What is happening? For example, the transition to retirement differs from the transition of having a first baby.) 2.The Self variable—(To whom is it happening? Each individual is different in terms of life issues and personality.) 3.The Support variable—(What help is available? Supports and available options vary for each individual.) 4” The Strategies variable—(How does the person cope? People navigate transitions in different ways.) (p. 47) The final part of the transitional process is strengthening these resources in order to move effectively through and out of the transition. In this study, I espoused Schlossberg et al.’s view that “a transition is not so much a matter of change as of 25 the individual’s own perception of the change” (p. 28). Thus, I allowed the study participants to define whether they believed they had experienced a transition and, if so, whether they viewed it as a positive or negative, anticipated or unanticipated event. It would appear at first glance that this type of transition would be anticipated—that is, it would “predictably occur in the course of the unfolding life cycle” or, in this context, in the course of an unfolding academic career (Pearlin & Lieberman, 1979, p. 220). However, I believe that the participants in this study did not anticipate some of the transitions. Many ideas garnered from Schlossberg et al.’s transitional framework influenced the interview protocol (Appendix A). Summary of influences on research questions from Schlossberg et al. The important components of Schlossberg et al.’s work and the implications for this dissertation are as follows. According to Schlossberg et al., their transitional model consists of three major parts: identifying the transition, taking stock of one’s coping resources, and strengthening the resources available to oneself. In this study, I attempted to discover how the participants viewed this period in their lives. For example, were they anticipating a great change from going 26 to class as a student, or did they find the experience similar to their previous experiences? Further, I attempted to discover what effect this period had on their lives. For example, how had their relationships, routines, assumptions, and roles changed now that they were making progress on their dissertations, as compared to when they were taking courses? The particular focus of Schlossberg et al.’s transition model was on those factors influencing one’s ability to cope during a transition. In this research, I explored with participants each of the variables listed as important to coping during the graduate school experience (i.e., the situation, self, support, and strategies variables). I accomplished this by listening to and interpreting each participant’s description of his or her academic experiences, probing for an understanding of how these variables affected the participants’ lives. Brammer’s Process—Stage Model of Transition Brammer’s (1991) model of transition was a result of his more than 40 years of clinical experience with people in transition and his reading and research on coping and change over a lifetime. Brammer defined a transition as “a short time of personal change with a definite beginning and ending” (p. 4) and proposed that transitions consist of 27 fairly predictable stages that flow into one another and that overlap and recycle through earlier stages. Brammer’s process-stage model (shown in Figure 2.1), which he adapted from Hopson (1981), was derived from literature on dying popularized by Kubler-Ross (1969) and Parkes (1972). This process—stage model follows the basic grieving process model but is adapted to general life transitions. What follows is an overview of the model and a brief description of the six critical points in a transition as identified by Brammer. Brammer said that the length and severity of responses to a transition depend on many factors. Specifically, these include “the meaning of the transition for you, the extent to which you express your feelings about the transition, the use of previous experiences with transitions, and the extent and functioning of your support system and other coping resources” (pp. 21—22). These factors parallel those described by other researchers (Ebaugh, 1988; Glaser & Strauss, 1971; Hopson, 1981; Ingelhart, 1991; Mercer, Nichols, & Doyle, 1989; Schlossberg et al., 1995; Sell, 1991). In describing the six critical points in a transition, Brammer specified how these mediating variables affect any transition. He also briefly described the typical strategies to work through 28 each point of a transition. Brammer cautioned that there can be individual variations in his model. “Some stages may be skipped, others repeat stages in a circular fashion, and some may remain fixed at a particular stage” (p. 23). I explored the notion of stage-structured transitions for participants in this study. The critical points in Brammer’s model are described below. Critical point 1: Entering the transition. Brammer described the initial entry into a transition as a crisis and noted that its severity depends on the suddenness of the experience. In less critical transitions, presumably including students going through stages or steps in graduate school, “people typically experience confusion, anxiety, momentary inefficiency (such as forgetting), and a sense of being constricted...while others see the entry into a transition as a predictable ending to a previous life style" (Brammer, 1991, p. 24). Brammer suggested that self—help strategies for this critical point would be to “assess the crisis, inventory your resources, decide the best help to obtain, and work toward stabilization and resolution of the emotional impact” (p. 25). Critical point 2: Experiencing cyclical feelings. Following the brief critical point of entering the transition, an individual experiences cyclical feelings. 29 The severity of this second stage depends on the triggering event and sometimes results in dread, anger, sadness, or fear in grieving people. In particular, Brammer noted, “The second stage is considered critical also because many fears are experienced as one contemplates the future” (p. 28). Strategies for self-help include expressing one’s feelings and gaining reassurance from others that these feelings are perfectly normal. Critical point 3: Minimizing feelings. Brammer reported that typical responses to transitions at this point include denial, disbelief, hope, anger, and fear. The individuals Brammer studied seemed to describe a “grieving process.” This point in the transition includes feelings of loss. Strategies recommended to cope with this critical point include maintaining one’s self-esteem, expressing one’s feelings, maintaining physical health, and stabilizing and assessing coping resources and skills. Critical point 4: Managing depression and searching for meaninq. One’s self—esteem is the most prominent component of this critical period in a transition, according to Brammer’s model. If self—esteem slips, it is possible that a person may experience deep and possibly clinical depression. Strategies to cope with this period include expressing and reflecting on the experiences 30 through journals and talking with others. If depression persists, seeking professional help is the best course of action. Critical point 5: Lettinngo and taking hold of new plans. Characteristically, at this stage, “you can give yourself permission to release the past relationship, job, or value” (Brammer, 1991, p. 39). Individuals typically view this point as the change that represents a new beginning (Ebaugh, 1988; Glaser & Strauss, 1971). There is a realization that the transition is ending, and that helps the individual let go of former roles and seek new roles. Strategies for c0ping with this point in the transition include reinforcing one’s ability to state that “things are better,” being cautious about relapses, and discussing the transition with others, which can result in productive learning. Critical point 6: Testing new options. The final point in the transition process is typically a time of hope and optimism (Brammer, 1991). At this point, one can shift his or her views of the world and experience transformational change. Again in reference to the present study, one may begin to feel confident about his or her ability to “become an academic" while writing the dissertation. Strategies to help a person at this point 31 include making positive, confidence-building statements to oneself, stating goals positively and precisely, and engaging in a support group. Summary of influences on research questions from Brammer. Brammer described four factors (the meaning of the transition, the extent to which one expresses his or her feelings, the influence of experiencing transitions in the past, and the way one uses coping resources and support systems) that he believed influence the severity of a transition. I explored with the study participants the degree to which these factors influenced how they navigated graduate school. Brammer believed that general life transitions can be organized in a series of stages and can be used as an explanatory road map to help people put their feelings into words and make sense of their experience (through six critical points in a transition). In this study, as I interviewed participants, I checked to see whether their stories of going through the stages of graduate school could be mapped onto a stage—structured model. Brammer helped me to see, in the context of this study, how the transition in graduate school may result in feelings of confusion. It was interesting to explore with participants whether the extreme emotions that Brammer 32 described occurred in the participants’ transition from being students taking courses to now writing their dissertations. In the interviews, I explored whether graduate students experienced loss after their formal classroom experiences were complete and they were now working mostly in isolation on the dissertation. Nicholson’s General Model of the Transition Cycle Studies on the challenge of adjusting to job change have provided a wealth of insights into transitions and transition theory (Bridges, 1980, 1988; Van Maanen, 1976, 1977). Nicholson (1990) provided a transition model based on research on job mobility and his work at the University of Sheffield’s Social and Applied Psychology Unit. Although this dissertation is not related to job change, the similarities between job change and the change that occurs between taking courses in graduate school and writing the dissertation appear to make this line of research potentially relevant. Nicholson’s model of the transition cycle was shown in Figure 2.1. Nicholson believed his model differed from previous models because it [aims] to be non-normative—it does not prescribe that certain experiences will or will not occur. It aims to be a systematic general framework, allowing for the full range of extremely different experiences we know people encounter in transition to interpolated and interpreted. It does so with the aid of three guiding 33 principles: recursion, disjunction, and interdependence. (p. 87) What follows is a discussion of the three guiding principles Nicholson mentioned and their influence on transition cycles. Recursion is the most important principle in the transition cycle because movement is continuous. Nicholson believed that every person is at some point in one or more transition cycles. Because change is always possible, even in presently stable environments, one is in varying states of readiness for the onset of a new cycle. Hence, in Figure 2.1, Stage I is also Stage V. As Nicholson noted, “each experience of transitions, in some way, affects one’s future experience of transitions” (p.87). Disjunction is the second guiding principle. From his research on transitions, Nicholson concluded that experiences and events can be divided into stages according to their distinctive qualities. He described the stages of disjunction as follows: Expectations and motives rule the Preparation stage (the leading up to the point of change); emotions and perceptions are pre-eminent in the Encounter stage (the first days and weeks of familiarization with a new job); assimilation and accommodation govern the Adjustment stage (the period of developing performance and psychological change); and relating and performing dominate the Stabilization stage (the steady state achieved after Adjustment). (p. 88) 34 The description of each of these stages is helpful in ascertaining the extent to which they depict the parallel transition that is possible while going through graduate school. Finally, the third principle, interdependence, guides the transition cycle. Nicholson believed that What happens in one stage exerts a powerful influence over what happens at the next. For example, one’s state of preparation (i.e., readiness for change) can soften or sharpen the immediate impact of Encounter. Equally, how acute, benign, or demanding is one’s first Encounter with changed circumstances can set the direction for the Adjustment strategies one will be predisposed to enact in the longer term. Whether adjustment modes are reactive or proactive (personal change vs. role development) establishes the kind of Stabilized connection that will be achieved between self and situation. The Stabilized patterns arrived at in work and relationships are a form of Preparation and springboard for future change. (p. 88) Nicholson pointed out that individuals in transition could usefully ask themselves the following kinds of questions having to do with the transition cycle: 21.Where am I now on the transition cycle? 2. How did I get here? Z3.Has there been a pattern to my experience of previous cycles? 14.Does this contain any warnings about what is going to happen to me next? ES.Can I foresee my next cycle, and if not, why not? 6. Is there something I should do to determine what happens next or what the next cycle will be like? '7.What might management systems do to help me through my current stage, the next stage and future cycles? (p. 91) 35 Exploring this transition (with this general model in mind) yielded worthwhile information on the applicability of Nicholson’s model and the degree to which future transitions might be navigated (e.g., the transition to the first faculty job). Further, as I focused on the issue of how the dissertation process influenced one’s sense of academic identity, the critical questions that dissertation writers asked themselves could be seen intertwined in a larger perspective of graduate school transitions. Summary of influences on research questions from Nicholson. Nicholson described a general model of transition based on work—role transitions. In his work he used a general theory regarding adjustment to change. In particular, he described four distinct stages of a transition cycle. In this dissertation, I explored whether participants who were experiencing the transition through graduate school mapped onto this more general cycle. Nicholson provided three guiding principles influencing his general transition cycle. These three principles—recursion (movement in a cycle is continuous), disjunction (experiences are divided into stages due to their distinct qualities), and interdependence (what happens at one stage influences what happens at another)— 36 provided a number of assumptions to explore with participants in this study. Considering Nicholson’s views on the transition cycle, if the graduate school experience of moving through program stages parallels this transition cycle, participants could be asked the degree to which each stage influenced the following stage. (Or at least when I interviewed students, I could stay attuned to this phenomenon and note its presence or absence.) Summary Of the Three Transition Models The three models of transition explored in this section helped provide the initial framework of questions or themes explored in the interview protocol. However, the graduate school experience shared by the participants in this study was too complex to fit within any one of the transitional theories. What proved beneficial was to situate this research within the context of transitions in order to explore further how such experiences shape academic identity. Research on Academic Identity As mentioned earlier, identity is a thorny issue both to define and to research. Research on identity was originated and popularized by renowned psychoanalyst Erik 37 Erikson. As Weiland (1997) pointed out, the term identity is “essential to Erikson’s revision of orthodox Freudian methods (i.e., their almost exclusive focus on inner life and on childhood) and his elaboration of the eight stages of the human life cycle, particularly the transition from adolescence to early adulthood when an occupation or vocation is chosen” (p. 256). A fair amount of research has been conducted on the general notion of “career identity” (Van Maanen, 1976, 1977, 1978; Van Maanen, 1990), but few researchers have explored the concept in academic contexts. Palmer (1998) spent a good deal of time discussing teacher identity in his book The Couraqe to Teach. He asked, “Who is the self that teaches?” This question is similar to ones I asked in this study. I was interested, as was Palmer, in discovering the answer to the “who” question because it is a “seldom—taken trail in educational reform, a trail toward the recovery of the inner resources good teaching always requires” (p. 7). I was interested in learning about the inner resources that dissertation writing requires and its effect on who one becomes in the academy. Palmer described his understanding of identity in terms of who we are as teachers. He believed that 38 “identity and integrity might grow within us and among us, instead of hardening as they do when we defend our fixed positions from the foxholes of the pedagogy roles” (p. 13). He went on to state that by identity he did not mean just the good deeds good teachers do; rather, identity also includes “our shadows and limits, our wounds and fears, and our strengths and potentials” (p. 13). As I was learning from the participants in this study, I listened for both the good things they learned and did as they navigated graduate school, as well as the concerns, fears, and issues they encountered as they wrote their dissertations. Palmer described identity as: an evolving nexus where all the forces that constitute my life converge in the mystery of self: my genetic makeup, the nature of the man and woman who gave me life, the culture in which I was raised, people who have sustained me and people who have done me harm, the good and ill I have done to others and to myself, the experience of love and suffering—and much, much more. (p. 13) It was these words that led me to try to put the participants’ stories in context. I attempted to provide enough background so that, as I described how these dissertation writers asked themselves critical questions about who they were as academics and what academic work actually meant to them, I conveyed that they were whole 39 people, not just graduate students who may become faculty members. In a national survey of graduate students, Anderson and Swazey (1998) found that graduate school had “considerable strength as a change process of the most fundamental kind” (p. 10). In fact, they described the graduate school socialization process as a time when one is “shedding one’s previous self conception and taking on a new view of the self that reflects one’s role and membership in the new group” (p. 12). It was with this in mind that I wanted to view the specific role the dissertation might play in taking on membership in the academy as an aspiring faculty member. Other authors have explored issues of identity in the academy, even if this was not their primary focus. Examples include Cooper, Benham, & Collay’s (1999) reflections on “finding a home" in the academy during graduate school, Brookfield’s (1994) book describing critically reflective teachers, Clark’s (1987) book entitled The Academic Life, and a major national project on re—envisioning the Ph.D. headed by Jody Nyquist and funded by the Pew and Spencer foundations (see Nyquist et al., 1999, for an initial discussion of that research). 40 Literature on New Faculty’s Careers What one becomes during the dissertation process is related to who one is after successfully navigating the transitions in graduate school and having received the Ph.D. An extensive body of literature on new faculty members and academic careers has been produced during the last 10 to 15 years (Becher, 1996; Boice, 1992; Finkelstein, 1990; Goodson, 1992; Menges & Associates, 1999; Murphy, 1993; Rice et al., 2000; Schén, 1987; Shea & Knoedler, 1994; Whitt, 1988). Some autobiographical research on faculty work and lives also was related to transition issues in faculty’s careers. These issues included changing from a teaching to a research institution (Womble, 1995), geographical moves (Dufresne, 1992), issues facing famous sociologists (Berger, 1990), and issues facing working—class academics (Dews & Law, 1995). Also, some classic work on graduate and professional students influenced how I thought about this study (Katz, 1976). Over the past decade, a plethora of studies and reports have been written on the transition from student to faculty member. One such report was Whitt’s (1988) dissertation, in which she described effective and ineffective ways of succeeding as new faculty members in a college of education at a large research university. Her 41 work preceded a popular book by Boice (1992) entitled The New Faculty Member. In that book, for which he surveyed and interviewed hundreds of new faculty members over time, Boyce concluded, “What overshadows the experience of many newcomers is the despair of isolation, insecurity, and busyness” (p. 4). Certainly, these are issues that dissertation writers face. Boice further constructed a simple theory to help provide him a “sense of cohesion and direction for the wealth of information at hand” (p. 12). Boice described this theory as follows: This four-part theory (involvement, regimen, self- management, and social networks, or IRSS) deals with the most fundamental skills and attitudes so elementary that we may take them for granted. Involvement ... is immersion in campus life—in its social networks, in activities that provide supports such as getting to know professors and students, and in an optimistic sense of membership in one’s campus. Regimen ... is the skill of establishing balance between time expenditures for teaching (usually excessive) versus scholarly writing (typically nonexistent). What this skill comes down to is learning a regimen of moderation and efficiency. Self-Management ... is learning to solve the right problem ... and attending to whether one is on task. Another aspect of self—management is learning the skill of emotional expression and learning from one’s context.... An example with new faculty is their tendency, when faced with tough problems such as writing for publication, to engage in negative self- talk that can undermine confidence and momentum. Social Networks ... is benefiting from the power of social networking. Consider a single example of how new faculty can benefit from sociality: spending as much time at collegial socializing on and off campus as at other professorial activities, such as 42 writing and teaching, is key to success in areas such as scholarly productivity. (pp. 13—14) The issues that have been mentioned in the literature as characterizing the experiences of early career faculty may also characterize the experiences of graduate students during the advanced stages of their training. Overall, the literature concerning new faculty made little mention of the influence of graduate school. This gap in the literature was another reason for researching this period. Literature on the All But the Dissertation (ABD) Syndrome The status of ABD (All But the Dissertation) is the critical one in American graduate education. Since the 19608 its poignancy, sometimes permanency, has been growing. We all seem to know someone—a friend, relative, spouse, colleague—who is either filled with apprehension confronting the task fresh after completing course work or bogged down for years in stop-again, start-again efforts to finish. (Sternberg, 1992, p. l) The best dissertation is a done dissertation. This advice is often given by advisors, peers, and counselors to those struggling to finish, or those seeking dissertation support. The ABD syndrome, as it has become popularly known, has long been a concern to faculty and administrators but continues to persist in higher education settings (Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Menand, 1996). Certainly, whether one is able to finish or does not finish the dissertation has a profound effect on one’s sense of 43 academic identity. Although this dissertation is not intended to shed light directly on methods or strategies to finish a dissertation, a brief review of the literature in this area is helpful in highlighting issues I explored with study participants. Statistical data also will help readers understand the extent of the problem. Why Writinq the Dissertation Is Such a Problem Many psychologists have investigated the main difficulties that dissertation writers experience (Boice, 1993; Duff Brown, 1996). As clinical psychologist Mary McKinney (1996) explained, Bright students who have “sailed through” school until they hit the dissertation run into trouble for a few understandable reasons. First, there is the overwhelming size of the average dissertation.... Many students may have gone through their entire career and been smart enough to get away with doing everything at the last minute. A dissertation can't be accomplished with a few all—nighters. This strategy no longer works. (p. 1) McKinney went on to discuss how, for many students, the dissertation marks the end of a particular phase of life and affects students’ identity: For many, the dissertation marks the end of a long life of “studenthood” and the crossing of the threshold to not being a student anymore. As a result, issues of autonomy and separation come up. For some students, it’s like leaving the fold and leaving the family.... Some students do well with independence but, for others, the dissertation experience uncovers psychological issues that they’ve not dealt with before. (p. 2) 44 Stern’s (1986) research seemed to support this idea. He found that people who had difficulty with separation and loss, perhaps as a result of a trauma in childhood—like the death of a parent, divorce, or moving frequently—took longer to complete their dissertations. I explored the concerns that McKinney and Stern raised as I tried to understand and describe what was happening to the study participants. The Statistics: Completion Rates and Time—to—Deqree According to Menand (1996), “the key statistic in the profile of the new Ph.D. is the extraordinary amount of time he or she has spent acquiring the thing” (p. 81). One of the three things Menard cited that make graduate education so time consuming is the dissertation process. In their landmark study In Pursuit of the Ph.D., Bowen and Rudenstine (1992) provided data that put into perspective such trends as increased time-to—degree, low completion rates, and the large commitment of time by many who start but do not finish doctoral programs. The median elapsed time between the B.A. and the Ph D. is now 10.5 years, of which 7.1 years are spent as a registered student. Students in the humanities and social sciences are among those who spend the longest—11.9 years between degrees, and 45 8.3 years as registered students. Bowen and Rudenstine indicated that the extraordinary length of time to complete graduate school in the humanities is related to the unclear paradigms of scholarship in those fields. There also may be other factors that have not been explored. Citing a study that Nerad and Cerny (1993) conducted at Berkeley on the issue of low completion rates and lengthened time-to—degree, Kerlin (1997) listed six major patterns among students in the humanities and social sciences who had experienced longer than usual times-to- degree: 1” These students spent excessive amounts of time polishing their master’s theses; 2.The students overprepared for their oral exams, often spending from six months to a year in isolated preparation; 3.Tbey spent excessive time, from one to two years, identifying and focusing on a dissertation topic and developing a proposal and they seemed to lack clarity about the process and expectations; 4.They had difficulty making the transition from being a “class-taking” person to a “book-writing” person and felt lost during this transitional phase; 5.8tudents who took a longer time to degree had different conceptions of the process: they viewed the stages of course work, orals, and proposal writing more as hurdles to be surmounted and discrete phases rather than as steps leading to the completion of their dissertations; 6.These students felt a lack of support at both the departmental and faculty levels throughout the different phases of their programs. (p. 189) According to Kerlin, students were more successful when their graduate programs created support systems for 46 dissertation writers and faculty carefully mentored students, treating them like junior colleagues. With participants in the present study, I attempted to learn about the transition from class-taking student to book writer, as noted above. Exploring adults in transition, identity development and issues related to graduate school students provided me a base for exploring the role the dissertation plays in developing an academic identity. In particular, this literature provided a complex lens through which to view graduate student life. 47 CHAPTER 3 GAINING PERSPECTIVE ON GRADUATE STUDENTS: METHODS My own academic life has been in a College of Education. The culture that I have come to know parallels (to some degree) what I heard from participants in the study since they had also studied education. I, too, had expected and may still choose to work as a faculty member sometime in the futurel. .As I reflected on my own experiences and recognized how those experiences have influenced me, I thought it important to provide a context to the culture in which these students lived their academic lives as well. The methods I chose to study the phenomenon of navigating graduate school and writing the dissertation helped me to explore and understand the experiences of these graduate students in that context. Below is a discussion of the research methods chosen, the data collection and analysis process, and the background and context of the program in which the participants studied. Research Methods I recall being asked early in my graduate program, “Do you think you are more a qualitative or quantitative lMy present position at the University of Michigan allows me to teach one course in the Psychology Dept. 48 researcher?” As I had studied in a behaviorist psychology master’s degree program, I had been taught that the only “real” science was in the physical or natural sciences, and the only way to be respected was to use experimental or at least quasi-experimental design. With this background, I initially found the question odd and presumed that the only “real” research was quantitative in nature. It was only after I had taken the methods course in my doctoral program in the College of Education that I began to understand the question. The choice of a “qualitative dissertation” is born out of my belief that to understand an experience one needs to be a part of it. Being the “researcher as human instrument" (see Meloy, 1994) allowed me to do just that. Phenomenological Interviewing My first methodological decision was to use a variation of Irving Seidman’s (1991) phenomenological interviewing strategies. He describes how in-depth interviewing allows people to “select constitutive details of their experience, reflect on them, give order to them, and thereby make sense of them” (p.1). This was the model of interviewing that I chose to apply in order to accurately tell the story of a graduate student’s life and help me make meaning out of that each academic year. 49 story. The purpose of this type of interviewing is neither hypothesis testing nor evaluation. At the root of in-depth interviewing is “an interest in understanding the experience of other people and the meaning they make of their experience” (Seidman, p. 3). I discovered and learned about the role the dissertation played in the development of academic identity of the respondents by asking about their graduate school experiences. I found interviewing to be a powerful way to gain insight about dissertation writing, graduate school life, and academic identity. I believe, as Seidman states, that “the use of interviewing as a form of inquiry is most consistent with people’s ability to make meaning through language. It affirms the importance of the individual without denigrating the possibility of community and collaboration” (p. 8). My use of in-depth interviewing provided me with a deeper understanding of the issues, questions, structures, and processes that graduate students encounter in pursuit of their Ph.D. Further, it led me to respect the individuals that agreed to share with me their stories. 50 Interpretive Interactionism I searched for methodology that would best lead me to my goal of understanding the issues and problems of these future faculty members. I looked at a number of qualitative research books (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Marshall & Rossman, 1995; Meloy, 1994; Stake, 1995) but found Denzin’s (1989) book entitled Interpretive Interactionism most helpful. I used many of his methods to help me to understand the data that is collected and shared here. According to Denzin, “the focus of interpretive research is on those life experiences that radically alter and shape the meanings persons give to themselves and their experiences” (1989, p. 10) Denzin (1989) also describes three assumptions that organize his work and apply to my study: First, in the world of human experience, there is only interpretation. Second, it is a worthy goal to attempt to make these interpretations available to others. By doing so, understandings can be created. With better understandings come better applied programs for addressing the major social issues of our day. Third, all interpretations are unfinished and inconclusive. (p. 9) Thus, it remains with the reader to form his or her own interpretations of this study. Applying some of the methodological strategies posited by Denzin (1989), I discovered that the problem that faced 51 dissertation writers in understanding themselves as academics and future faculty members was both a potentially private problem and a public issue of graduate school attrition. Data Collection and Analysis Process In the following section, I discuss the process I followed to collect and analyze the data. In brief, I piloted the initial interview protocol, chose the institution, learned about the college from which the participants were chosen, conducted the individual interviews, determined the focus group questions and protocol, identified the focus group participants, and analyzed the data. Interview Protocol Pilot Informed by the previously mentioned theories and literatures, I developed a protocol to study the lives of graduate students. Two people agreed to be interviewed and provide suggestions on the effectiveness of the interview protocol. The resulting analysis and suggestions from these two individuals resulted in a final interview protocol (see Appendix A).2 2 As mentioned in Chapter 1, the interview protocol is broader than the narrower topic of the role of the dissertation process in influencing academic identity that resulted after analysis of the data. 52 Choosing the Institution and Understanding the College of Education Culture I chose to conduct this research in a prominent College of Education at a major research university due to its emphasis on research and development of future faculty members. The Human Subjects Committee at my home institution (Michigan State University) approved the interview protocol and study design. Before selecting and interviewing the final research participants, I also learned about the culture and climate of the College of Education by talking with several “informants.” I expand on the College of Education Program at the end of this chapter. Conducting the Individual Interviews In order to identify potential participants for the study, faculty members in the College of Education provided me with the names of students who were both writing their dissertations and had expressed an interest in becoming faculty members upon completion of the program. I then sent each person on this list a letter explaining the project and asking for participation. I spoke with a number of students who responded. Five individuals’agreed to participate, and signed consents. The approach that I used in the interview process was 53 1 I' T primarily open—ended questions similar to Seidman’s (1991) three—interview series. Due to time constraints, I adapted this method to a four-interview and sometimes five—interview series with each participant. Each interview lasted approximately 90 minutes and the interview process occurred over approximately a three- to four—week period with each participant. The purposes of the interviews parallel Seidman’s suggestions as explained below. In the first interview, I was attempting to establish the context and life history of the participant. In the second and third interviews, I was asking participants to reconstruct details of their graduate school experience (especially dissertation writing) within the context that it occurred. Finally, in the fourth (or fifth) interview, I asked participants to reflect on the meaning of graduate school, writing a dissertation, and becoming a faculty member. Focus Group Interview Protocol and Participant Selection Focus groups with participants from outside the College of Education were also used to inform the research. In particular, they provided “amplifying voices” to what I was hearing and learning from the individual participants (see Appendix B for resulting protocol). A recruitment flyer and 3 Five individuals were interviewed but an audiotape failure made the data unusable for the 5‘h participant. 54 letter was sent to Ph.D. students. Twelve participants agreed to participate in this part of the study. Four focus groups were formed (three participants in each group) and each met for approximately two hours. Two of the groups consisted of students with fields of study generally in the humanities, while the other two consisted of students generally in the fields of mathematics and sciences. Data Analysis for the Individual Interviews After the interviews were transcribed, I began the process of interpreting the data. I studied each transcript, listened to many of the tapes multiple times, marked and labeled the text, and organized excerpts into categories that were formed as I asked myself questions such as: 0 What connects the stories of each of the participants? 0 How do I understand and explain these connections? 0 What do I understand now about the graduate school experience, the dissertation process, and academic identity that I did not understand before I began the interviews? 0 What surprises me about these data? 0 How is this consistent or inconsistent with other literature? 0 How have these data/has this study gone beyond the literature I have studied? I organized the data in a way that would help me answer those questions. First, I listed themes or categories that 55 emerged from the interviews. At the same time, I extracted quotes from the transcripts that were consistent with those themes, and inserted the quotes into a matrix for each participant, showing the relationship between the quotes and the themes. I worked from not only from the transcripts, but also directly from the tapes, in order to take advantage of voice inflection for meaning. The resulting matrix for each participant was used to create a profile of that person which included a chronology of meaningful graduate school experiences and events. The profiles are the basis of the stories that are shared in Chapters 4—7. The central issue of “critical questions” that dissertation writers ask themselves to form a sense of academic identity emerged as I looked across all profiles to find common themes. The focus group material, which was collected after the individual interviews, was reviewed to find confirming, disconfirming, “conflicting” and amplifying voices for the critical questions that had emerged during the individual interviews. A Final Word about the Stories As I look at each of the stories that are told in this dissertation, I find it important to share something from one of my faculty members. Anna Neumann, in her (1992) 56 paper entitled, "On experience, memory, and knowing: A post-holocaust (auto)biography," eloquently addressed the issue of representation and its relation to self. She explained that we can only understand another’s intended meaning through our own experience. While I reached for his story—accessible to me only in partial form because I cannot (nor do I want to) reenter his world—I have been able to discern that story only on my own terms—only in the image of who I am, where and when I am, what I know, and what I seek out. What I discern of his story, what I remember of it, and what I then retell is not his experience as such. Rather, it is what I, with my inclinations and needs and understandings, imagine his experience to be. What I heard, what I saw, and what I felt, then as I listened, were about him. But they were less of him than of myself. Searching for his story, I created the beginnings of my own. What I tell you here and now is less of him than of me. (p. 10) My experiences helped shape not only the focus of this work, but also my interpretation of the participants’ stories. It is not possible for me to understand all of the participants perfectly, but I tried to understand them by listening intently to what they had to say and putting their behavior as graduate students in context. In order to understand more about the world in which these students studied, I turn now to a brief description and background of their graduate program. 57 History and Background Information about the Program To better understand the program and the stories told by the participants, I interviewed two experienced faculty members and a few students (not participating in this study) about the program. What follows provides a context concerning the culture that existed in this college while I was interviewing the participants. The faculty members I spoke with felt the education program was poor in the 19708. The program was best described as a mass production model of preparing teachers, 2,500 at a time. The style of teaching was to present mass lectures in large classrooms. The program for graduate students was not research oriented. A new Dean arrived in the late 1970s, and significant changes occurred over the next ten years. Most notably, the culture shifted from a “practitioner-based” faculty (focusing on having a good teacher preparation program) to faculty who were hired to be productive, nationally recognized scholars. By the mid- 19803 the culture had completed the change and was described by a faculty member I spoke with as “research is everything” and “other things are nothing.” By the late 1980s, and as a result of another new Dean being appointed, the program shifted back to a more practitioner—based focus. The emphasis on doctoral 58 students’ research faded, while the practice and work in public schools were viewed as essential. By the time the participants in this study were interviewed in the late 19908, the college culture was in transition once again, moving from a practitioner-based approach to a more research—based approach. According to the professors I interviewed, this renewed emphasis on research is still in its infancy but it is hoped that it will improve the quality of dissertations. The effect on the faculty of this historical pendulum swing between practice and research has had an impact on the college culture that was experienced by the students in this study. Their perception of this culture is explored in the next section. The Departmental Culture from Students’ Perspective The faculty members I spoke with described the student culture at this university more favorably than the culture at other institutions they had attended or where they had worked. One member said, “From seeing other programs, there is more of that sense of ‘colleagueship’ and people working together here than at other places.” He believed that there was more support than just from one’s advisor. He described the university as having more student groups and interest 59 groups, and more students and faculty socializing together, than at other places. The student culture is influenced by the fact that two- thirds to three-quarters of the students are full-time teachers. Some of the students teaching full—time with whom I spoke wanted to be connected to the classroom as full—time teachers, but also wanted a scholarly life. Generally, even the students who were not full-time teachers wanted both. However, I encountered a few vocal exceptions to the descriptions that the student culture was filled with people working together and being good colleagues. In particular, there were two respondents who felt like outsiders. They felt that the scholarly and collaborative (vs. competitive) atmosphere of colleagues was “for the chosen few” who were selected as teaching assistants or research assistants. Their feelings may have been exacerbated by the fact that the methods for selection to these important positions were not clear to all students. Finally, additional issues that may have affected the participants in this study included their belief that graduate student orientation could be improved and could be extended throughout the first year, that the physical structure of the college/university did not provide a public space that would allow even better collaborative 60 interaction, and that students who had been part of the latest transition from a practitioner—based to a more research—focused program were at a disadvantage. Summary This chapter provided an understanding of the philosophy and rationale for the research methods chosen, the process for how the data was collected and analyzed, and a brief exploration of the program where each of the four individuals studied. This program was the setting of which the four participants were a part as I sat down to interview them. What follows are the participants’ stories. 61 CHAPTER 4 THE FINE LINE BETWEEN EMERGING EXPERT AND IMPOSTOR: JOANNE’S STORY I want to use the word “high” but that’s so normative, but I’m going to say high—high standards for what expertise is— that I would never claim to have expertise. I mean, I probably could study my whole life and never claim.... I could probably read just my advisor’s work my whole life and not call myself an expert in his work. You know what I mean? So partly I mean that I’m still going. I haven’t achieved expertise. And partly I mean that there’s something very deliberate and studious about it. I mean something very kind of analytic about it. If nothing else, the process of writing a dissertation and completing a Ph.D. can lead one to feel like an expert on a very narrow piece of research. No one else has asked exactly the same question, read exactly the same literature and produced exactly that same dissertation. However, for some dissertation writers, a self-image as an emerging expert never appears. In fact, some dissertation writers develop feelings of being an impostor and fear being discovered at any moment as a fake. This experience can be frightening, humbling, and stifling. The “impostor phenomenon” was first identified and studied by two psychologists at Georgia State University, Dr. Pauline Clance and Dr. Suzanne Imes (1978). Harvey (1985) describes the “impostor syndrome” as intense feelings of fraudulence in the face of success and achievement. She 62 states, “If you suffer from the impostor phenomenon, you believe that you don’t deserve your success; you’re a phony who has somehow ‘gotten away with it.’ You aren’t the person you appear to be to the rest of the world” (p.2). For some dissertation writers, many of the criteria for feeling like an impostor described by Harvey are present. Often, graduate students are highly successful in attaining admission into a selective Ph.D. program and can continue to be very successful during the coursework and comprehensive exams, but feelings of being fraudulent can arise at the dissertation stage. Completing a dissertation can be a new kind of writing experience for the student, and in some cases, it is unclear how to go about it. This situation can lead to competing images of self for the ‘writer. Dissertation writers can see themselves simultaneously as emerging experts in their field and as frauds. Despite approval of their work by advisors and peers, those facing feelings of being an imposter fear that each new stage in the writing could reveal their true lack of expertise or “shortcomings.” Brookfield (1994) further identified the issues that future faculty members sometimes face as they navigate graduate school. In particular, he notes that ...the cultural roots framing impostorship are 63 hard to disentangle, but most who spoke about impostorship viewed it as having been produced by their awareness of the distance between the idealized images of omniscient professionals they attached to anyone holding doctoral degrees in their professions, and their own daily sense of themselves as stumbling and struggling survivors. This contrast between the idealized and the actual was so great that the inference was made that aspiring to describe themselves in these idealized terms was unrealistic and unconvincing. (p. 205-06) Despite some feelings of being an imposter, like those Cksscribed above, the majority of the participants in this st:udy stated that they often felt like emerging experts in tlieir field while they were writing their dissertations. TTiey'felt very much a part of the “academic club” with tlieir'professors. This dichotomy of emerging as an expert versus feeling liJce an impostor was one of the main issues that emerged frtnn Joanne’s story. This story, in part, is her response tO t:he question: “Who am I as an academic?” Joanne’s Background In her 408 at the time of writing her dissertation and parflicipating in this study, Joanne already had a wealth of eXFKEIience in education. As the daughter of two SCI'1olteachers, education had always been important for Jtfiulne. She was the youngest in her family, and her older Sitilings had all attended a small liberal arts college in 64 Ddichigan. Later, her nieces and nephews had all attended £3tanford. She described her family’s experience this way: I often tell people that everyone in my family— all my siblings and I—married up, but not in terms of money, in terms of intelligence. And almost all their grandchildren now have gone to Stanford on, pretty much, complete academic scholarships. We just have one going this fall with 16008 on her SATs. Joanne was raised in what she described as a “large “marking-class town.” By the time she was in high school, liexr father had become the superintendent of the school. Tiius, she was a “model student, not even skipping on ‘ESenior Skip Day.’” She described high school as simply “Choing her work,” but she graduated in the top ten of her class. Joanne loved going to college, but said that she never Merked particularly hard. I never did any work outside of the class. I mean, I was always a real good discussant, and I loved those classes and I worshiped my teachers and I’d do what I had to do to get by. You know, we were reading “Fathers and Sons” and I read maybe the Cliff Notes. I just didn’t take the academic part of it. I loved school, though. I loved going to college. Though fairly typical for undergraduates, the dicillotomy of loving having discussions with others in COllege but not liking independent work is a component that retllrned to Joanne’s life as she was writing her 65 dissertation (i.e., she loved classes and did well, but struggled during the dissertation process when she felt alone). As a doctoral student, she was caught between, on the one hand, emerging as an expert and, on the other, being exposed as an academic impostor. This competing image of expert versus imposter, often felt by graduate students and other academic scholars (Brookfield, 1994; Harvey, 1985), would be experienced by Joanne numerous times during the dissertation process. When Joanne graduated from college in 1975, she did not want to become a teacher. However, after graduation she found herself pushed toward getting her teaching certificate. She received her teaching certificate in just one semester, and began teaching English in a small high school, where she remained for a little more than three years. She felt she was not a very good teacher and never actually felt a calling to the classroom. Rather, she was a political activist. So Joanne resigned her teaching position and began to work on a political campaign for a U.S. senator. Following the campaign, she found herself without work again, and wondering what to do next. At 28, she began a master’s program in public policy at a research university on the East Coast. She felt very lost and unprepared in the 66 program, which she described as an applied economics program. And I had no economics background—none. I don’t think I even had a course in economics as an undergrad. I was an English teacher, right? And I entered.... My schoolmates were like Dartmouth, Stanford, you know, and they had all had economics majors. So here I am, you know, like lost. I am like lost. I mean—I spent the first year—probably the whole first semester—just crying more than I did studying. I was just lost. I mean, these were advanced level statistics and economics courses. But over Christmas, I kind of grabbed hold of myself and figured out that I was crying more than I was studying. After the first semester, Joanne met her husband-to—be and, though never having been what she described as a “star” student, she successfully graduated with her master’s degree. Several job opportunities followed graduation and she chose to work a two—year stint in a social welfare office in Washington D.C. After that enjoyable experience, Joanne was again interviewing and looking for full-time employment. She found it at the Urban Institute in Washington, D.C. So anyway, this woman who I had worked with there said, “You know, have you ever thought of working here?” And I said, “No, you only take people with Ph.Ds.” And she said, “No, that’s not true; we take other people for large projects and other things. Why don’t you ...?” And basically I didn't even end up interviewing. I just started working there. It was like I never even really applied. I just kind of started work. Like one day after my other job ran out, I just kind of 67 showed up and worked for a half a day. And then they paid me for half a week and then they paid me three-quarters, and then it was just kind of a they said why don’t you come work on this one project and then I worked on that, and then another one, and then another one, and then I was employed full time within about a month. But that’s where I really learned to write. Despite her undergraduate degree and subsequent teaching of English, it was the experience at the Urban Institute that Joanne believed taught her to write in an “academic environment.” After more than five years in Washington D.C., Joanne returned to Michigan and was married in 1988. She then took a position in the governor’s office and had trouble adjusting to a new kind of writing there: I’ve been working in this academic atmosphere for five and half years where everything has to be perfect and everything’s very rational and analytic. And now I’m in this highly political position and I’m thinking I’m supposed to be giving these analytical reports. And, oh, man, that was a mess. The frustration in this position, as well as a sense of not having fun, persuaded Joanne that it was a good time to quit work and have a family. Applying for the Ph.D. At 37, Joanne became pregnant for the first time. While pregnant, she was introduced to a top—level person in the College of Education (where she eventually enrolled in 68 the Ph.D. program). She obtained a position there writing grants and working on teacher supply and demand in Michigan. It was at this time that the culture of the College was changing and there was an emphasis on a more practitioner—based curriculum. She worked on several assignments with the Dean of the College, who asked her one day, “Have you thought about getting your doctorate?” Considering that she was having a baby and not interested in a doctorate, Joanne ignored the question. But, as she said, some people are persistent. So, she works on me and works on me and works on me. She talks to me maybe every two weeks. “Have you applied yet? Have you applied yet?” And I said, “I haven’t even decided I want to do it yet.” And it works out well, until I leave. And when I leave she says, “Why don’t you come back half time?” and she raised my salary by $17,000, but told me I could work half time if I worked on my doctorate. So I leave and I have my baby and I come back and, of course ... and this is mid— July of 1990, and of course I apply to be accepted that fall. So here I am with a 4-month- old baby and I’ve got a job and I’m starting a doctorate and, did I mention, I’ve got a 4-month— old baby. What a fool. But somebody else has convinced me that taking the first year of the doctoral program in Education will teach me a lot about the intellectual history of “the Michigan Partnership.” So I decide I’ll just do that—I’ll just take those three courses—they’re called prosems. I’ll just take those three introductory prosem courses and then I’m quitting. Though Joanne still felt ambivalent about continuing in the program, she was influenced to stay beyond the three 69 introductory courses by two professors who taught the proseminar. In the final course of the series, a very prominent figure in the field came to her office. She remembered the conversation: So about in the middle of the third prosem—this is probably the first and last time this happened—he came to my office and sat down and said, “What do you plan to do with your life?” Well, I’ve got this 4-month—old baby.... And he said, “Well, I would like you to pursue your doctorate here and I would like you to be a student of mine.” And then I said, “Oh, yes, those were my plans." Though it was not, in fact, her plan to pursue her doctorate, this prominent figure had a great influence on Joanne’s future. As many writers describe, one of the difficulties of finishing a Ph.D. program is that one must be convinced that one wants to finish (Cole & Hunt, 1994; Duff Brown, 1996; Hawley, 1993; McKinney, 1996; Menand, 1996; Sternberg, 1992). Though numerous people in the program had tried to persuade her to get her degree, Joanne was ambivalent about actually doing it until that prominent figure spoke to her. So I was ambivalent about a degree. I was also ambivalent about my daughter and what kind of time I could give to her. Yeah, it’s funny. Though my parents value education, my father has a specialist degree, and he tried to talk me out of starting. He said, maybe education’s highly valued, but family’s valued even higher. So he tried to talk me out of it. You know, “You’ve got a 4—month—old daughter, what are you doing 70 with your life, blah, blah, blah.” But at the same time I was intrigued. I mean I had seen some of the stars [the professors]. So here I am. I mean, this might not mean anything to you, but I’m watching nationally prominent scholars teach every day. I’m working with [she names the prominent educators]. Here I am. I’m like catapulted from nowhere in education up to the Dean of the College. So it’s all very heady. And so I’m intrigued. I respect and like these people, and I’m real intrigued. The ambivalence described above was further complicated by the fact that nationally prominent scholars surrounded Joanne. This situation resulted in the persistent feeling that she should be “living up” to their standards. This experience appeared to contribute to the self—image revealed throughout Joanne’s recounting of her time as a doctoral student: Was she an impostor, or an expert? Emerging as an “Expert Writer” in Coursework? Writing had always been an important part of Joanne’s education. She stated that she had always scored “high marks” in writing as an English major in college. Her expertise expanded as she wrote grants and other short reports as part of her job. But when she compared her experience and expertise with experienced writers and scholars on her doctoral committee, she became a bit more 71 skeptical about her abilities, as she had often been in the past. I had always done well in writing, but I had never been asked to write very long things or very difficult things. I think people think I have a fairly good way with words. I mean fairly engaging, easy to listen to. In college, I was decent; I wasn’t great. It took me a lot more time.... what was expected of me in high school versus college was this huge jump that I didn’t ever make very well. And then even at the Institute early on they said, “Well, this isn’t creative writing. Just state your idea and clarify it.” And you’ll say, “Well, how could she think she became a good writer at the institute then?" because you read somebody like my advisor and it’s unbelievable. Because it’s more interpretive, etc. But the way it made me a good writer is that it just got crystal clear. It’s like being forced to clarify your thoughts over and over and over again for three and a half years. In general, Joanne believed she had some writing ability, but she did not particularly enjoy the activity. (This was a sentiment I heard from many other dissertation writers in this study.) For example, the College of Education worked very hard to have students reflect on their experiences in journals, yet Joanne did not like the task. I just don’t like it. I’d rather have an audience. I just don’t like things without an audience. Hey, if nobody’s listening, I didn’t say it. If a tree falls in the woods and no one’s there to hear it, forget it. It didn’t happen, you know? While writing her dissertation, Joanne had lost a 72 great deal of confidence, but she described having built some writing expertise during her coursework. For example, she cited developing a sense of security during a course she took as a first year doctoral student. It had been described to her as a very difficult course, but she received a grade of A on the first paper she wrote for it. This experience helped build up her confidence. On the other hand, Joanne shared many other stories of her writing experience during coursework, which described less successful outcomes with professors she admired. One, in particular, exemplified her work for her favorite professor. I took an entire week to write. I mean, it’s a lO-page paper, right? And I’m not talking about.... Like, I basically switched my time around with the Dean and wrote for an entire week. And then she brought it and she had us trade papers. And so she gave everybody another week to write it. And I totally rewrote the paper. I mean, completely. Like, started over from scratch. And my friend didn’t. She just kind of improved it over the week. So here I had spent like 40 hours one week and 40 hours the next working on one paper in my favorite professor’s class. So 80 hours on a 10-page paper! Come on! I mean, get over it! Though less successful in terms of time to complete the task, this pattern of rewriting and getting A’s with her favorite professors did help Joanne to feel more competent. Additionally, she was feeling more like an expert in 73 writing as part of her coursework because a number of her papers were about public policy, a field in which she had worked for ten years. Joanne recounted another case in which she was told how “brave” she was when, in her introductory course, she took a major professor’s piece of writing and revised it. But I didn’t know it was brave. Again, I’m going back—I didn’t know who these people were. I mean I knew my advisor was a big deal, but I didn’t know he was as big a deal as he is. I just kind of thought it was fun. But I guess they really were impressed that I would take a major professor's work and revise it for an introductory course. These experiences typify Joanne’s life as a graduate student, wavering between feelings of security and feelings of doubt. At one point she could begin to feel like an expert herself, and at the next she could be overwhelmed by the expertise of others, feeling as though her own weaknesses, particularly in her writing, would be revealed at any moment. The Dissertation Proposal: Stops and Starts Like many of the students I interviewed for this project, Joanne moved efficiently through the Ph.D. program taking courses and comprehensive exams in a timely fashion. By 1994, she was “floundering around” with a dissertation proposal. 74 I think this was just a basic kind of time of floundering. And I just kind of kept writing ideas to my advisor, and he came to talk to me a couple of times.... He had just gone to another university. So in the summer of ’94, he met with me a couple of times. And I would really call this as a time of just floundering around and trying to figure out ... well, I could do this; I could do that; I could do this; I could do that. But it doesn’t all seem for naught. I mean, I was passing this stuff on to committee members. I remember even saying this to my advisor more than once, “Well I could be interested in about anything I had more than one day to work on.” So part of my floundering was an inability to really have time to get into it. While trying to determine her dissertation topic, CT<22<:ause she finally had taken the time to decide on a t:<:>1;>ic. As Joanne completed her proposal, she continued to sat: grudggle with her own sense of what she knew and what her eacjiuprzisor “wanted.” Part of the reason she chose the CiJL £5353€srtation topic that she did was that her advisor had an j'ertZ-Getrest in the same thing. And I don’t even know if my dissertation will be understood in the milieu [of educational policy], but I just kept feeling like so many policies aren’t aimed at teaching. I kind of decided to take Title I only because it was a program I knew my advisor was interested in. And I was thinking of taking Title I and then looking at two teachers. And that’s what my 1995 proposal will 75 say. It’s really looking at how it plays out. But I still didn’t know what I was doing. So anyway, so I wrote this grant and that’s kind of what it will say—that I’m looking at how Title I plays out. And I didn’t really know if it was two teachers or five teachers or one school or 20 schools or, you know, I didn’t know. Ambiguity at the dissertation proposal stage is not Linusual for graduate students, but in Joanne’s case, it was EDarticularly damaging. Her not knowing what she wanted fierself, while studying topics only because her advisor was j.nterested in them, would wreak havoc on Joanne’s scholarly :i