’ VEltxrii

0.9 in. 1.. .1
z 1

.
. r13.
.
’

.
2.33.45. rinse». ,
35.35. 33m.
fiuﬂﬁmm .
.

is

‘
l

fa ' :
. .3: ﬂﬁyzg

3,

hr

£1.37, 1|; :3.
‘ 1i , I. all:

y. 5307..., i v
‘ III: 1.7. 1‘3
.viy .f..z..l:

ail...
150W:
«Ii...

. .53: Funk. Yunﬂuxﬁwi ”unﬁt."

LI.

 

3, LIBRARY
250’ Michigan State
University

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

The Journey Through the Dissertation Writing Process: Do
Relationships Matter?

presented by

Michelle Pride

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

Ph.D. degree in CounselingPsycholggx

 

 

5W amt/—

 

CMajor Professor‘s Signature
///22 /05
I /

Date

MSU is an Afﬁnnatlve Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

.-.—.—‘—A-.-.--n---eQIOQCeOer-n-.-e-n-o-s-c-e-I-.-e-e-e-e---o-n-e-o-e-I-o---0---o-v-e-o---e-o----~-e--I-n-e-o-n-o-e-t-

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 p:/CIRC/DateDue.indd-p.1

THE JOURNEY THROUGH THE DISSERTATION WRITING PROCESS:
DO RELATIONSHIPS MATTER?
By

Michelle Pride

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁlhnent of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology

2005

ABSTRACT

THE JOURNEY THROUGH THE DISSERTATION WRITING PROCESS:
DO RELATIONSHIPS MATTER?

By
Michelle Pride

The dissertation is the one of the ﬁnal degree requirements for the Ph.D. in
counseling psychology. The purpose of this study was to explore women student’s lived
experiences of the dissertation writing process. This qualitative, exploratory study
utilized semi-structured interviews with eight female doctoral students, all enrolled in
different Counseling Psychology doctoral programs. Several areas of literature were used
to form the conceptual framework for this study, persistence, women’s issues and
development and self-in-relation theory.

The following research questions were addressed: a) What are student’s
perceptions of their journeys through the dissertation writing process, b) What are
student’s perceptions of the relationships (or lack of relationships) they have with faculty,
advisors, and mentors? c) What are the implications of students’ experiences on their
choice of future career paths?

Some of the major themes that evolved out of the analysis of the interviews were:
a) the importance of both connections and disconnections to the dissertation process, b)
how connections can be enhanced by working through disconnections, c) the need for
awareness and evaluation of power dynamics in mentoring and advising relationships,
and d) the contribution of resiliency to the process. The women identiﬁed a number of
facilitating factors along their journeys: a) mutual relationships with advisors, mentors,

and committee members, b) relationships with peers, 0) built in structure or scaffolding

within the program, and d) personal resiliency. They also addressed barriers to their
journeys, including difﬁculty with advisers and committee members, isolation from their
programs, and ﬁnding appropriate ways to structure their journeys through the writing
process.

These ﬁndings give rise to several implications or recommendations for training
in counseling psychology. Since connections, or mutual relationships, were identiﬁed as
facilitating factors and disconnections, or problematic/abusive relationships, were noted
as barriers, several of the implications addressed ways Counseling Psychology programs
can increase and maintain connection and involvement throughout the dissertation

journey.

PROLOGUE

The purpose of this dissertation was to increase understanding of the meaning
female graduate students place on the structures and processes of their research-training
experiences, speciﬁcally the experience of writing their dissertation. The project was
qualitative in design and data were gathered through interviews with female graduate
students in counseling psychology.

In qualitative research, “the researcher is the research instrument” (Williams,
1997). The biases, assumptions, values, personal history, and identity of the investigator
are a meaningful part of the context of the interviews. These factors have an impact on
what the investigator chooses to explore and how the dynamic of the discussion evolves
between the investigator and the participants. The biases and assumpn'ons also impact
what factors or ideas the investigator attends to during the interview, as well as during the
process of data analysis (Taylor & Bogdan, 1998; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). As such, it has
been recommended that the researcher outline her/his qualiﬁcations, motivations for
exploring this topic, and her/his relationship with the participants (Patton, 1990).

The following sections of the prologue address several content areas. In the ﬁrst
section, I tell my own story. I wrote this initially to facilitate my process of identifying
my biases, assumptions, and values about the dissertation process and my own journey
before I entered into the process of interviewing the participants. This was an important
part of my process as a qualitative researcher because identifying these biases and

assumptions allowed me the capacity to monitor them. In the second section, I identify

iv

my biases and assumptions and address my process of monitoring them. In the last

section, I address developmental changes in my perception of my own journey.

A Measme of Autobiography

“Education in feminism must include a measure of autobiography, if only to
convince younger women that growing up as a woman, while it will never be easy, is
possible” (Genovese, 1991, p. 246).

The parallel process of the development of this project with my own development
as a researcher is readily apparent. For this reason, I believe the discussion would not be
complete without ﬁrst situating it within a meaningful context. I am a doctoral candidate
at Michigan State University and I am currently in the process of writing my dissertation.
As I write this, I am all but dissertation (ABD), as I have pmsed my comprehensive
exams, and completed all my coursework and internship. Although it was easy for me to
state my status and achievements, explaining how my journey through the dissertation
process has evolved and the impact this journey has had on the direction and dynamic of
this project is more diﬂicult.

My journey through the dissertation process has not been easy, however as the
previous quote suggested, it has been possible. As I thought back on my experiences, I
became aware of the signiﬁcance of maintaining balance and perspective. On the one
hand, I amverythankful tothe pcoplewho have supported andencouraged meandlam
interested and invested in my project. On the other hand, I have experienced anger, guilt,
resentment, and frusn'ation related to the process of completing my dissertation. My

struggle was how to acknowledge and honor these emotions without allowing them to

overpowerandunderminethe ﬁnalpreduct. Becausemyprecessandthispreductwere
so inextricably related, it felt important to address these emotions.

In retrospect, I entered my Ph.D. program naive to the realities of higher
education. During my training in my master’s program, I completed the obligatory
research classes, wrote a thesis, and worked as a research assistant for my advisor. When
I applied to Ph.D. programs and they asked me about my research interests, I
enthusiastically told them about my sin-rent projects and my future interests. The truth,
however, was that I was not interested in doing research and I had even abandoned the
idea of becoming an academic because the thought of being obligated to do research
distressed me. However, I believed that my acceptance to a doctoral program in
counseling psychology came with the assurance of support and guidance from faculty. In
my naivety, I thought that my assigned adviser would ipse facto be my mentor and would
help me get through my research requirements. My misguided belief that someone was
going to reach out to me and ask me to be their mentee left me disappointed when it did
not happen. I felt ill prepared to negotiate the subtle politics of higher education by
myself and I was intimidated by the prospect of asking for help. Although I was
successfully completing the necessary academic requirements in terms of coursework, the
research requirements ominously loomed in front of me, blocking my progress. AS I
struggled with my feelings of adequacy and competency, I drifted further away from my
program and my advisor. It became increasingly clear that my desire to avoid research
was incompatible with my goal of completing my doctorate. During this time, I wrote a
paper for a career class that explored factors that contribute to women’s career

development. I was, in part, motivated to write this paper in an attempt to make sense of

my own process and development. The feedback I received on this paper led to the
development of my research apprenticeship project, in which I investigated graduate
students’ perceptions of their research-training environment. Even though this
experience spurred me on and increased my sense of efficacy, I still felt alone and
overwhelmed at the prospect of writing a dissertation. Many of the students who
participated in my apprenticeship project cited relationships or the lack of relationships
with mentors, advisors, committee members, and others as signiﬁcant factors in their
development as researchers (Pride, 2002). I began to view the ideal research process as a
dynamic relational exchange of ideas within a commrmity of scholars. This paradigmatic
shift in my view of research as isolating and individual to research as relational became
the driving force behind this current project.

As I began my initial work on my dissertation, my program went through an
incredible transition. Nearly all the full time faculty, including my advisor and
dissertation chair, took positions at other universities, leaving my program and my
progress in a precarious position. This experience fundamentally impacted the direction
of my research because it brought into relief my own relational needs with respect to
research experiences. My apprenticeship project had highlighted the importance of
relationships on development as a researcher, which I understood at an intuitive level. I
had not internalized how these relational experiences speciﬁcally impacted me, as a
researcher, though, until I experienced the loss of signiﬁcant relationships with my
adviser and other faculty members (Pride, 2002). Further understanding how
connections and relationships impact research development became the guiding principle

for my research.

Assumptions and Biases

The importance and centrality of relationships, both good and bad, led me to
develop a qualitative project that would directly acknowledge the relationship between
the researcher and the subject. My motivation for telling my story was to own my
experiences and recognize their impact on my research. I recognize that my description
of my process and experiences is bound by my subjectivity. The cumulative effects of
my history, socialization, and experience affect my perception of the original experiences
as well as what I chose to disclose and what I edited from the story. This document is but
one construction of my journey through the dissertation process. However, the process of
reﬂecting on my journey helped me to identify assumptions 1 had about the dissertation
process. The assumptions I identiﬁed are: (a) the dissertation process is isolating and
lonely, (b) the process is difﬁcult and frustrating, (c) completing the dissertation has more
to do with individual persistence than with institutional structures that facilitate the
process, (d) completing the dissertation is not necessarily about creating a meaningful
research project as much as it is about just completing the research, and (e) the research-
training environment can be toxic to some individuals.

In addition to the assumptions that I have identiﬁed, I also ﬁrmly believe that
everyone’s dissertation experience is unique. My goal was not to let my own experience
overwhelm this project, but to allow each individual to give voice to their unique
experience and to allow that to emerge out of the interviews to create the larger context of
this project. One way I sought to accomplish this was to identify and outline my
experiences and biases prior to beginning this study. In addition, I regularly revisited

these ideas and reﬂected on them through journaling and in discussions with colleagues.

viii

By externally checking my own biases and experiences, I was able to focus on truly

understanding and documenting the subjective experience of each participant.

A Changing Perspective
At the end of each interview, I asked every woman who participated in this
project four questions:
0 If yom' dissertation got dressed, what would it wear?
0 If your dissertation could speak, what would it say?
0 What does your dissertation remind you of?
o What is special about yom' dissertation?
The questions began as a way to encourage the women to think about their projects
differently and add levity to the process; however, as the interviews progressed, I
recognized them as having a substantive contribution to the overall direction of this
project. As such, I thought I would end by taking the time to answer the questions myself
in order to provide another window into my inner experience of writing a dissertation.
The ﬁrst part of this prologue was written before I completed the process of writing my
dissertation. These questions, however, were answered as I neared the end of this project
and they provide a different, more conﬁdent, less cynical perspective on my experience.
0 My dissertation would wear jeans, a T-shirt, and stacked black leather boots. My
dissertation is comfortable, not glamorous or showy, with a little bit of attitude.
0 My dissertation would say “YES!!!”
0 My dissertation reminds me of my cohort of choice, Abby and Camille. My

journey through the dissertation process has forever bonded me to these two

incredible and inspiring women. They have provided me with shoulders to cry on
when I have been frustrated and overwhelmed, swift kicks to the butt when I have
been wallowing too long in my own self pity, and the strength and encouragement
to keep going when I was sure that I had reached my limit.

My dissertation is special because it gives voice to the stories of the women who
agreed to participate in my research. My dissertation is special because it opened
my eyes to the many possibilities that exist in the way people experience their
journey through the dissertation process and it challenged many of my initial
assumptions. My dissertation is special because I have grown and changed as a
result of my journey through the dissertation process. Although the process may
not have gone as smoothly as I would have liked and I was overwhelmed much of
the time, I am thankful and proud to have completed the project. My dissertation
is special because it allowed me to connect with people about their experiences
writing their dissertation, good and bad, tragic and celebratory (many of those
stories are not presented in this document because they did not meet the inclusion
criteria for participating). I will be forever thankful to everyone who told me their

story and to my family and ﬁiends for supporting me through this process.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
A National Conversation .......................................................................................... 1
Trends in Counseling Psychology ........................................................................... 3
Scientist Practitioner or Science VS. Practice .............................................. 5
Self-in—Relation Theory ........................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE - - - - - 13
Introduction ............................................................................................................ 13
The Feminization of Psychology ........................................................................... 14
Psychology as a Science .................................................................................... 16
The Scientiﬁc Hierarchy ............................................................................ 16
Psychology’s Position on the Hierarchy .................................................... l7
Legitimizing Counseling Psychology .................................................................... 19
The Impact of Professionalism on Counseling Psychology ...................... 21
The Problem of Counseling Psychology’s Professional Identity .............. 23
The Scientist-Practitioner Model ........................................................................... 24
The Importance of Research .................................................................................. 26
The Role of the Developmental Model on Research Training .............................. 27
Developmental Models .............................................................................. 28
The Socio/Cultural/Political Impact of Developmental Models ................ 30
Self-in-Relatien Theory ......................................................................................... 3 3
The Impact of Relationships on Training .................................................. 35
The Gender Conundrum ........................................................................................ 38
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 40
Purpose ................................................................................................................... 40
Qualitative Methods ............................................................................................... 41
The Researcher ....................................................................................................... 41
Selection of Participants ........................................................................................ 43
Participant Criteria .................................................................................... 44
Procedures .............................................................................................................. 45
In—Depth Interview ..................................................................................... 45
Data Analysis and Coding ......................................................................... 46
Considerations ........................................................................................................ 48
Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 49
CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS AND CODING ................................................................................. 50
Introduction ............................................................................................................ SO

The Participants ..................................................................................................... 51

 

Angela ........................................................................................................ 52
Britt ............................................................................................................ 54
Carmen ....................................................................................................... 55
Deva ........................................................................................................... S6
Ellie ............................................................................................................ 56
Fiona .......................................................................................................... 57
Gina ............................................................................................................ 58
Hannah ....................................................................................................... 59
Themes ................................................................................................................... 60
Positive Experience .................................................................................... 62
“Oh my goodness, I know how to do research.” ....................................... 62
Summary .................................................................................................... 69
Mid-Range Experiences ............................................................................. 70
Up-Swing Experience ................................................................................ 71

“Since this committee has come together, it’s kind of renewed my
sense of hope and energy.” ............................................................ 71
Summary .................................................................................................... 78
“I look at things very differently new.” ..................................................... 80
Summary .................................................................................................... 88
“I feel like 1 could win the award for most improved.” ............................. 89
Summary .................................................................................................... 98
Ambivalent Experiences ............................................................................ 98

“I go back and forth between feeling ok about it and then just

being tired of it.” ............................................................................ 98
Summary .................................................................................................. 103

“My dissertation wasn’t that hard for me because. . .I went through
the crap with my thesis.” .............................................................. 104
Summary - - - -- -- -- ............. - -- - 113
Conclusions .............................................................................................. 113
Negative/Damaging Experiences ............................................................. 1 18
“Every process is an incident.” ................................................................ 119
Summary .................................................................................................. 125
“All of a sudden, it blew up.” .................................................................. 126
Summary .................................................................................................. I 39
Conclusions .............................................................................................. 140
The Dissertation Dialogues .................................................................................. 141
If Your Dissertation Got Dressed, What Would It Wear? ....................... 142
If Your Dissertation Could Speak, What Would It Say? ......................... 144
What Does Your Dissertation Remind You Of? ...................................... 146
What Is Special About Your Dissertation? .............................................. 147
Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 150

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................. 153
Introduction .......................................................................................................... 153

xii

Self-in-Relation Theory ........................................................................... 155

Discussion of Themes .......................................................................................... 156

Connection and Disconnection ................................................................ 156

Integration and Isolation .......................................................................... 158

Structure ................................................................................................... 160

Resilience ................................................................................................. 161

Considerations ...................................................................................................... 163

Implications .......................................................................................................... 164

Relational Issues ...................................................................................... 164

Structural Issues ....................................................................................... 166

Conclusions .............................................................................................. 167

Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................... 170

Personal Reﬂections ............................................................................................. 172
APPENDICES

A. Statement of Informed Consent ............................................................... 174

B. Sample Recruitment Letter ...................................................................... 176

C. Demographic Sheet .................................................................................. 177

D. Interview Schedule ................................................................................... 178

REFERENCES ......... 179

xiii

CHAPTER I

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of female doctoral
students in Counseling Psychology as they progressed through the dissertation writing
process. The following sections address the importance of giving voice to these women’s
experiences both within the context of a national dialogue on graduate student retention,
as well as within the ﬁeld of counseling psychology. This chapter also sets the context
for examining trends in research training and training models in Counseling Psychology

and lays out the rationale for utilizing relational theory to examine these issues.

A National Conversation

There is a national conversation evolving among faculty members, administration
and others concerned with the state of higher education regarding trends in the
educational environment. Changes in higher education from “. . .downsizing and
underﬁmding to increased corporatization and pervasive labor exploitation, including
wholesale reliance on part-time labor and relative declines in graduate student and faculty
compensation” (Levitts & Nelson, 2000, p. 44) have implications for the experiences
graduate students are having in their pursuit of an advanced degree. Research during the
past several decades indicates that the national attrition rate ﬁom Ph.D. programs is about
50%, and women are leaving in higher numbers than men (Levitts & Nelson, 2000).
Although it would be easy to blame attrition rates on the lack of talent or ability on the

part of the students who have left, the true explanation may be much more complex

(Levitts, 1996; Lovitts & Nelson, 2000). Research indicates that students who leave
graduate programs and students who complete their degrees are equally qualiﬁed
(Levitts, 1996; Lovitts & Nelson, 2000).

There is a positive relationship between the successful completion of the Ph.D.
requirements and integration into the academic community of the department (Levitts &
Nelson, 2000). However, oftentimes students are “expected to perform as mature,
independent (though ﬂedgling) scholars in an authoritarian social structure where they
are in a subordinate and dependent position socially, intellectually, and ﬁnancially”
(Levitts, 1996, p. 14). Because of this expectation of independence and competence,
students may not feel they can ask for help or give voice to issues that are impacting their
decisions to leave or stay.

Students learn that “the ‘successful’ student is ‘happy’ and compliant” (Levitts &
Nelson, 2000, p.49). However, Nyquist and her colleagues (Nyquist, et al., 1999) found
that many students indicate that they are receiving mixed messages from various
authority ﬁgures within the academy as to what constitutes success. These students
report experiencing a “secret model” of graduate training that dictates implicit rules and
norms that may contradict the explicit messages they are receiving (Nyquist, etal., 1999).
It may be normal to experience some confusion and conﬂict in the initial stages of
professional development in graduate programs. However, these students reported
negotiating confusing and ambiguous experiences without the beneﬁt of safety nets,
assistance, or guidance from others (Nyquist, et al., 1999). What becomes clear in this
confusion is that the academy needs to take a critical look at what is occurring in graduate

programs and not allow students’ silences to reinforce the belief that nothing is wrong

with the system, only with the students who are leaving the system. Lovitts and Nelson
admonish departments to “look to their own practices for answers and solutions to the

issue of student attrition” (2000, p. 50).”

Trends in Counseling Psychology

It is time for counseling psychology to take this advice and begin to look inward
to increase its understanding of how trends in graduate education are speciﬁcally
affecting the discipline. A current issue in the ﬁeld is gaining a clearer understanding of
factors that contribute to patterns of research productivity among graduates in counseling
psychology. There are several larger socio/political/cultural trends that impact this issue
that will be explored in the following pages.

The relationship between the research-training environment (RTE) and the
development of students’ research interests and competencies is a complex and dynamic
issue. The RTE has been conceptualized as “all these forces in graduate training
programs (and, more broadly, the departments and universities within which the
programs are situated) that reﬂect attitudes toward research and science” (Gelso, 1993, p.
470). Although research training has always been an important part of training in
counseling psychology, it is only in the past 20 years that this issue has become a topic of
theory and research (Gelso & Lent, 2000). Much of the debate today centers not on
whether the RTE has an impact on the development of students’ research interests and
competencies, but how or through what mechanisms the RTE inﬂuences students’
development as researchers. This concern with training has been bolstered by data

indicating that students in counseling psychology are ambivalent about the role of

research in their future careers and produce little, if any, research after graduation (Gelso,
1979; Gelso, et al., 1988). Additionally, most students indicate they are more interested
in a career in practice than in science (Kahn & Scott, 1997). It may not be realistic, or
even worthwhile, to produce students who are all interested in research or to have all
students demonstrate the idealized 50/50 split between research and practice (Gelso &
Lent, 2000). This does suggest, however, the necessity for counseling psychology to
examine its training goals and processes. Counseling psychology has espoused a
commitment to the scientist-practitioner training model since its inception; however,
there has been little agreement or clarity regarding the meaning of either science or
practice or the way these two should be integrated in training or practice (Gelso & Lent,
2000).

There is nothing to indicate that research productivity in counseling psychology is
low compared to other disciplines (Gelso & Lent, 2000). A number of studies, though,
have been conducted examining ways to increase student interest in research and
exploring factors related to research productivity (see Gelso & Lent, 2000 for a review).
The underlying belief motivating many of these studies of the research-training
environment is that the production of quality, scientiﬁc research is critical to the viability
of the profession of counseling psychology (Gelso & Lent, 2000; Galassi, 1989; Magoon
& Holland, 1984). However, since the majority of counseling psychologists produce no
research after graduation, it seems apparent that not everyone shares this belief. A
number of authors have made the observation that practitioners do not perceive research
as having value to them or their practice (Goldman, 1976, 1977, 1982; Heppner &

Anderson, 1985; Hill, 1982; Ross, 1981). Beyond not being interested in conducting

research, these professionals are not even interested in consuming research, or using
science to inform their practice. Rather, they are more apt to rely on personal
experiences or guidance ﬁom colleagues and teachers (Barlow, Hayes, & Nelson, 1984;
Kanfer, 1990). This latter ﬁnding has implications for the importance of the relationship
in training. It appears that professionals in clinical practice are more likely to consult
with individuals they have relationships with in order to further their understanding of a
particular client issue, rather than consult a scientiﬁc journal for that information. This
suggests that practitioners value learning through relationships more than learning in

isolation.

Scientist Practitioner or Science Versus Practice?

Although graduate training programs may espouse a scientist-practitioner model
(or some combination of science and practice), the model for post-graduate activity
seems to be scientist or practitioner. Students may receive mentoring for both their
clinical and research skills; however, this mentoring does not oﬁen come from the same
person. When asked, students indicated that they felt a true scientist-practitioner model
or mentor, someone who actively engaged in both scientist and practitioner activities, was
rare (Aspenson, et al., 1993). This lack of models or mentors who exemplify a
combination of these two important roles may contribute to students believing there is no
way to combine the roles, therefore, they must choose one or the other.

It is important to understand why so few counseling psychology graduates are
engaging in research given the importance of research to the growth and development of

the profession. Patton (2000, p. 2) stated, “The role of graduate education is critical

because it forms the intellectual and ideological core that deﬁnes who we see ourselves to
be. . ..” Ifthis is true, then counseling psychology graduate students are likely inﬂuenced
to become scientists or practitioners during their training. The connection between
research productivity and the research training environment has been the topic of a
number of studies (Brown, Lent, Ryan, & McPartland, 1996; Gelso, Mallinckrodt, &
Judge, 1996; Kahn & Scott, 1997; Phillips & Russell, 1994). These studies have
explored many of the ingredients for an effective research training environment outlined
by Gelso (1979). Gelso (1979) proposed that within the research training environment:
(a) the faculty itself should model appropriate scientiﬁc behavior, (b) research activity
among students should be positively reinforced, (c) anxiety should be reduced and
motivation enhanced through early and minimally threatening research involvement, (d)
the artiﬁcial tying of research and statistics needs to be untied, (e) students need to be
taught to look inward for research questions and ideas, (f) science needs to be construed
as a partly social experience, as well as an isolated intellectual one, (g) students need to
be taught that all experiments are ﬂawed and limited, (h) training needs to focus on the
varied investigative styles, (i) students need to be shown how science and clinical
experience can be wedded, and (j) training needs to focus on how research gets done in
an agency. Although this list of factors is quite extensive, nowhere does it address the
signiﬁcance of relationships in the training environment to training outcomes.

Gelso (1979) suggests training in research is more complicated than training in
practice and requires students to master a dramatically different skill set. Not only are the
skills different, they may be contradictory. Training in science is presented as a highly

logical, unambiguous endeavor, where skepticism and emotional control are necessary

and valued, whereas counselors need access to both intellectual and emotional resources
in therapy. Additionally, counselors must tolerate ambiguity in the therapeutic process,
while at the same time, demonstrating conﬁdence in their theory, skill, and techniques
(Gelso, 1979; Strupp, 1981).

The production of research is presented as an individual endeavor that is
necessarily isolating. Counseling, on the other hand, provides for “a kind of constant
intimacy” (Gelso, 1979, p. 27). Relational factors, including afﬁliation and nurturance,
are signiﬁcant parts of the counseling process. The importance of the relationship to the
therapeutic process has been extensively studied (see Hill & Williams, 2000 for a
review). Ultimately, the factor that predicts success in counseling is not theoretical
orientation or technique, but the relationship or working alliance between the client and
the therapist. Bordin (1979) identiﬁed three elements of the working alliance that
facilitate the therapeutic process: (a) agreement on goals, (b) agreement on tasks to
achieve goals, and (c) development of emotional bonds between the therapist and client.
As such, it is important for those individuals who engage in counseling to value the
relationship and understand its signiﬁcance in the therapeutic process.

There are obstacles to applying directly this understanding of the role of
relationships in therapy to the RTE. Central to this are systems of tenure and promotion
that “reward faculty exclusively for funded research and publications typically at the
expense of teaching and mentoring” (J ohnson, 2002, p. 90). This reward system within
the academy serves to perpetuate the stereotype of the lone researcher by creating an

environment where relationships are not legitimized.

Our understanding of research training can be enhanced by furthering our
understanding of the role of relationships in research training, i.e., relationships with
advisors, committee members, mentors or other signiﬁcant relationships. The RTE is the
primary socialization agent for future professionals within the ﬁeld of psychology and
intellectual and social integration into this environment is important for developing the
skills necessary to complete the doctoral program (T into, 1993). Although peers are
important socializing agents, the faculty advisor relationship has a more signiﬁcant
impact on graduate students’ academic development and persistence (Golde, 2000). The
literature in Counseling Psychology acknowledges the importance of the advisory and
mentoring relationship (Betz, 1997; Gelso, 1979; 1993; 1997; Hill, 1997); however, there
have been few studies investigating these relationships (Gelso & Lent, 2000). Despite
this gap in our knowledge, the data that exist suggest the importance of both advising and
mentoring relationships (Gelso & Lent, 2000). Aspenson and his colleagues (1993) found
that relationships with faculty and experiences with role models had a signiﬁcant impact
on students’ perceptions of the RTE.

Self- in-Relation Theory
The foundation of self-in-relation theory requires a paradigmatic shift in
the way development is conceptualized. Self-in-relation theory provides a framework for
this exploration of students’ perceptions of research training. This theory is an approach
to understanding women’s development that is speciﬁcally grounded in and gives voice
to women’s experiences. The theory has evolved over the past 30 years out of the work
of a group of feminist researchers at the Stone Center for Developmental Studies and

Service at Wellesley College. The researchers have contributed to the development of

this theory included Jean Baker Miller, Judith Jordan, Alexandra Kaplan, Irene Stiver,
and Janet Surrey. The theory suggests that understanding and description of women’s
lives and development have traditionally been forced into “categories that originated in
the attempt by men to describe all life (Miller, 1986, p.xviii).” These traditional models
have not only overlooked the strengths women possess, but they have “consistently
mislabeled women as defective” and pathologized their ways of learning,
communicating, and developing (Jordan, Kaplan, Miller, Stiver, & Surrey, 1991, p. v).
The theory initially evolved out of the researchers exploration of issues related to the
clinical diagnosis and treatment of women (Jordan, et al., 1991). Rather than
emphasizing independence and individuation as markers of healthy development, this
theory is based on the assumption that all growth and development occurs in connection
to or in a relationship with another person (Miller, 1991). Self-in-relation theory diverges
from other contemporary theories of development in its emphasis on connection rather
than separation as the signiﬁcant pathway to development (Surrey, 1991). My vision of
self-in-relation theory, as it relates to the current study, is highlighted in Figure 1.
Although the theory was designed to explore growth and development speciﬁcally
as it relates to the therapeutic or clinical treatment of women, I believe this lens is
appropriate for exploring women’s growth and development at students and as
researchers. This ﬁgure visually depicts the similarity and overlap in the processes of
therapy and learning as conceptualized by self-in-relation theory. Further, it highlights
the centrality of relationships in both processes. The therapeutic alliance or relationship
is the vehicle through which change occurs in therapy. Clients learn and grow as a result

of having positive and successful exchanges within the therapeutic environment. This

process is mirrored in the academic environment where students learn and develop within
their relationships with academic faculty. I am interested in looking more speciﬁcally at
how these relationships impact the way women perceive their experiences during the
dissertation writing process. I believe this model has enormous potential for increasing
understanding regarding the interrelatedness of the development of research-practitioner

activities and identities particularly because I am looking at students in counseling

psychology.

 

Self-in-Relation Theory

 

 

Learning and Therapy
development occur in occurs in

\

Connection/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mutual Relationships

/ \

Facilitates/enhances F acilitates/enhances

/ \
1. Self— worth

2. Self-esteem Ability to engage in relationships

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Self-knowledge

 

Figure 1. Model of Self-in-Relation theory.

10

The review of literature that follows in the next chapter contains literature
relevant to development of psychology as a ﬁeld, counseling psychology as a sub-ﬁeld,
and to individual development in order to provide a foundation for the present inquiry. It
also explores the political, historical, and social context of research training in counseling
psychology. The review will examine the assumption that the production of scientiﬁc
research is critical to the development of the ﬁeld of counseling psychology and,
consequently, the impact of this assumption on the models utilized to train graduate
students in this ﬁeld. The guiding questions are: (a) how has the emphasis on the
production of scientiﬁc research limited our conceptualization of graduate training,
research productivity, and the integration of science and practice? (b) how has our
investigation of these issues been biased by the historical milieu regarding training? and
(c) what role do relationships play in enhancing or deterring the research training
process?

This was an exploratory study aimed at gaining a more holistic understanding of
female graduate students’ perceptions of their research training and the role of
relationships on the dissertation writing process. A qualitative methodology of in-depth
interviewing was utilized for the present inquiry. The naturalistic procedures of in-depth
interviewing allowed for the exploration of the subjective experiences of graduate
students in the RTE and gave access to richer perspectives than could have been
uncovered with survey methodology. The following research questions were addressed:

0 What are students’ perceptions of their journeys through the dissertation writing

process?

11

What are students’ perceptions of the relationships (or lack of relationships) they

have with faculty, advisors, and mentors?

What are the implications of students’ experiences writing their dissertations on

their choice of future career paths?

12

CHAPTER II

Review of Literature

Introduction

The review of literature that follows will begin by exploring the shift in gender
ratios impacting not only the ﬁeld of psychology, but counseling psychology, more
speciﬁcally. Over the past 30 years, there has been an increase in participation by
women in the ﬁeld of psychology. This is not to suggest that gender is a causal, or even
determining, factor in research training outcomes. In fact, the literature indicates that
there is no gender effect related to research attitudes, self-efﬁcacy, or productivity
(Bishop & Bieschke, 1998; Gelso, et al., 1996; Kahn & Scott, 1997; Phillips & Russell,
1994). It may be more appropriate to view issues in training in terms of a generational
effect, rather than a gender effect. The literature suggests that “trends away from
academia and vocational psychology and toward private practice” are strongly reﬂected
in the attitudes of graduates in counseling psychology, with current students being even
more practice oriented than their more experienced colleagues (Fitzgerald & Osipow,
1986, 1988). Nevertheless, it would be naive to overlook the potential implications of the
changing gender ratios on the ﬁeld as a whole and on research training more speciﬁcally.
Next, the issues of science and research and their impact on the development of
psychology, counseling psychology, and the research training models will be addressed.
Finally, the review examines the intersection of gender and research training and explores

alternatives to the reigning training paradigm.

13

The F eminization of Psychology

There has been a steady increase in the participation of women in the ﬁeld of
psychology during the past 30 years. This trend is evidenced by the increased number of
degrees in psychology granted to women and the number of women accepting academic
positions in psychology programs. Between 1970 and 1990, the number of Ph.D.’S
awarded to women in psychology more than doubled. In 1970 women received slightly
less than a quarter of the Ph.D.’S; however, by the end of the 19805 they were earning
more than one-half the doctorates awarded in psychology (Ostertag & McNammara,
1991). Ten years later, by the end of the 19905, the number of Ph.D.’s received by
women had grown to more than two-thirds. (APA, 1999). In 1987 women held 20% of
the tenured faculty positions in psychology at four-year colleges and universities (NSF,
1990). A decade later, they hold 35% of these positions (Murray & Williams, 1999).
The trend in counseling psychology is similar. Data from a 1998-1999 survey by the
American Psychological Association (APA Research Ofﬁce, 1999) indicate that 25% of
the full professor positions and 48.5% of the associate professor positions in counseling
psychology are held by women.

Although women appear to be making movement into tenured faculty positions,
the higher faculty rank and more prestigious full professor positions are still
predominantly held by men (Kite, et al., 2001). This disparity in rank leads to disparity
in power, prestige, earning potential, and other resources. “In 1993, the annualized salary
of full-time doctoral women psychologists was 84% that of such men” (Kite, et al., 2001 ,
p. 1081). A recent study found that male and female psychologists in clinical practice

were engaging in similar work activities, however they were being reimbursed

l4

differentially (Sentell, Pingitore, Scheffler, Schwalm, & Haley, 2001). In fact, the
average salary for women employed full time as psychologists was about $20,000 less
than that for men (Sentell, et al., 2001).

The potential for change in the composition of the academy exists. As the current
full professors prepare for retirement, there will be a signiﬁcant number of female junior
faculty poised to advance into those positions (Kite, et al., 2001). However, given that
this potential has existed for the last 15 years, it is reasonable to wonder whether women
actually will be given the opportunity to advance and whether they will take the
opportunities if they are made available. Mednick (1991) hypothesized that outcomes in
scholarly progress are related to the distribution or arrangement of power relations within
the discipline. Although women appear to be entering graduate programs in psychology
in increasing numbers, they “are not entering academic settings to the extent necessary
for a real change at all levels” (Mednick, 1991, p. 614). Despite the apparent
“feminization of psychology,” the power structure within the academy continues to be
comprised of predominantly Caucasian American men (Bowman, 1997).

Understanding graduate students’ perceptions of their research training may
ultimately shed light on patterns of career choice and development related to research.
Further, understanding female graduate students’ perceptions is essential since they
constitute a majority of the Ph.D. degree recipients, and they continue to be
disproportionately represented in the lowest ranks of the academy. This issue is
especially signiﬁcant if our goal is “not simply to help women succeed in obsolete
patriarchal institutions but rather to reconstruct those institutions” (Kite, et al., p. 1080,

2001). Neumann and Peterson (1997) have justiﬁed focusing on women’s experiences in

15

the academy by suggesting that research is inﬂuenced by individuals’ lives and as the
lives that comprise a ﬁeld change, then the ﬁeld also changes. As these changes occur,
how knowledge is conceptualized, constructed, and pursued in that ﬁeld may also change
or be questioned. “Thus studying diverse women’s lives as sources of their research
epistemologies leads us to consider how a ﬁeld’s previous epistemological weavings may
shift and change, or simply come undone, as new and divergent lives come to spin its
intellectual cere” (N eumann & Peterson, 1997, p. 3). First, however, we must
understand how the institution was originally constructed and what the major factors
inﬂuencing its construction and development were. The next sections will explore the
impact of the hard science/soft science debate on the development of psychology and,
more speciﬁcally, counseling psychology, as well as the centrality of science and
research to the identity and training of counseling psychologists. Challenges and

alternative perspectives to the reigning research-training paradigm will also be presented.

Psychology as a Science

The Scientiﬁc Hierarchy

Science, and the people who conduct it, is given a position of authority and power
within our society. “The naming of some claim or line of reasoning or piece of research
‘Scientiﬁc’ is done in a way that is intended to imply some kind of merit or special kind
of reliability” (Chalmers, 1999, p. xviiii). When advertisers want to sell a product, they
substantiate it with scientiﬁc research to demonstrate its effectiveness and desirable
results. This regard for science and its methods is not just a popular-culture phenomena;

it is especially evident in academia. Many disciplines have added “science” to their

16

description; for example political science, library science, etc, “presumably in an effort to
imply that the methods used are as ﬁrmly based and as potentially fruitful as in a
traditional science such as physics or biology” (Chalmers, 1999, p.xviiii). Although the
regard for science is clear, what constitutes science and what methods and lmowledge are
truly “scientiﬁc,” are more ambiguous issues. Some have suggested that science is
derived from facts (Chalmers, 1999); others believe that science must be replicable and
cumulative (Hedges, 1987), while still others think that science should be objective
(Durkheim, 1938). The debate regarding the legitimacy of some sciences over other
sciences has resulted in the establishment of a hierarchy of “sciences,” with physical or
hard sciences positioned at the top and social sciences or soft sciences relegated to a
lower berth. Admittance to the elite and exclusive society of “real science” is highly
sought after and rarely attained. Those who currently hold power in the hierarchy
determine what is legitimate science. They deﬁne what methods, processes, and
outcomes are acceptable. All other research and knowledge is somehow less legitimate
because it is not real science. Many people in the social sciences have attempted to
model the physical sciences by transferring and applying the scientiﬁc method to social

questions in order to legitimize the research within their discipline (Chalmers, 1999).

Psychology ’s Position in the Hierarchy

Psychology has never ﬁt neatly into the physical or social sciences. Even in
ancient times, people debated whether issues of the mind belonged to the medical doctors
or the philosophers; psychology has variously been associated with medicine, physiology,

neurology, and philosophy during its history (Hoethersall, 1995; Solomon, 2001). By the

17

ﬁrst century BC both medical science and philosophy had begun to describe
psychological phenomena in increasingly similar ways (Solomon, 2001). Psychology,
however, has fought against this position between the sciences and has consistently
sought to establish itself as a “real” science, even modeling “its standards of scientiﬁc
rigor on Newtonian physics” (Hoethersall, 1995, p. 54).

The academic tradition within psychology has been heavily inﬂuenced by the
traditions in mathematics and physics. Psychologists regularly measure complex
psychological processes, such as motivation and intelligence, in an attempt to ﬁnd exact,
objective relationships between these processes and numbers (Hoethersall, 1995). The
discovery of these relationships would make it possible to eStablish psychological laws
similar to the physical laws of the universe and would allow psychologists to predict
behavioral and cognitive processes with the same accuracy as physical phenomena
(Hoethersall, 1995). Unlike physics, psychological theories make nonspeciﬁc predictions
(i.e., that groups will differ) not the speciﬁc predictions utilized in the physical sciences
(Maxwell & Delaney, 1990). Although early philosophers, such as Comte, argued
against the idea of a science of the mind, in the late 19th century, Herman Ebbinghaus
demonstrated the possibility of applying rigorous and reliable methods to scientiﬁcally
study memory (Hoethersall, 1995). This achievement, and others like it, has served to
fan the ﬂame of the debate surrounding psychology’s tenuous position on the science
hierarchy.

World War II and the Veterans Administration (VA) system played pivotal roles
in determining the psychology’s position on the science hierarchy. Prior to the end of the

war, the only ‘psychologists’ employed in the VA system were baccalaureate and

18

master’s level psychometricians who administered tests to patients (Peterson, 1996). The
only psychotherapy that occurred at the VAs was conducted by neuro-psychiatrists
(Peterson, 1996). However, the need for mental healthcare workers increased
dramatically with the return of 16 million veterans at the end of the war (Peterson, 1996).
Even though psychiatrists had no choice but to seek out the assistance of psychologists in
administering tests and psychotherapeutic treatment, they were reluctant to grant
psychologists any legitimacy in the endeavor (Frank, 1984). In order to ﬂee themselves
from the tyranny of psychiatry and establish psychology as a legitimate mental health
profession independent of the medical ﬁeld, both the level and type of training required
to be a psychologist was revised (F rank, 1984). Frank suggested that this was
accomplished by turning to the “traditional training for the Ph.D.” and adding a research

component to the existing training programs (1984, p. 426).

Legitimizing Counseling Psychology

The tensions between hard and soft sciences and psychology’s struggle to
legitimize itself are mirrored in a parallel process within the counseling psychology
subspecialty. In the last 25 years, the ﬁeld of psychology has seen an increase in the
number of women and a decrease in the number of men participating in, and graduating
ﬁom, Ph.D. programs. This trend in graduate school is, no doubt, inﬂuenced by the
changing ratio of male to female undergraduate psychology majors (Keyes & Hogberg,
1990). One reason for this trend is the “popularity of ‘nurturant’ specialties like clinical,

school, and counseling...” (Keyes & Hogberg, 1990, p. 101). Not only are more women

19

participating in the ﬁeld of psychology, but certain specialties within psychology have
come to be seen as nurturant and soﬁ, as women’s ﬁelds (Betz & Hackett, 1981).

The perception of counseling psychology as a “nurturant” and, therefore, a
feminine specialty, is a challenge to its legitimacy as a rigorous, scientiﬁc discipline
within the ﬁeld of psychology. Despite signiﬁcant similarities between clinical and
counseling psychology, clinical historically has been given much more prestige than
counseling (Tyler, 1992). Two factors may contribute to the perception of clinical as the
more prestigious specialty. Clinical psychology grew out of the mental health movement,
and has always been closely linked to medicine, and therefore, legitimate science (Tyler,
1992). In addition, most clinical psychologists complete their graduate work in
departments of psychology located in liberal arts colleges, whereas most counseling
psychologists come from programs in colleges of education (Tyler, 1992). In 1995, 75%
of counseling psychology programs were housed in colleges of education (Norcross,
Sayette, Mayne, Karg, & Turkson, 1998). Programs within colleges of education are
generally considered professional programs, which carries less prestige than an academic
discipline located within an academic department. “Keeping the ‘scientist’ part of
counseling psychology is the central reason for some counselors to have a home in
psychology” (Gelso & Fretz, 1992, p.44). Without this “scientiﬁc” stamp of legitimacy,
there is nothing to distinguish counseling psychology from other soft science ﬁelds, and

therefore, nothing to enhance its status within this hierarchy.

20

The Impact of Professionalism on Counseling Psychology

In their 1986 occupational analysis of counseling psychology, Fitzgerald and
Osipow concluded that as a ﬁeld, counseling psychology is becoming “an increasingly
applied specialty” (1986, p. 543). They based this observation on data indicating fewer
graduates are going on to academic positions. Additionally, they found that those who do
pursue academic positions are strongly practice oriented, and fewer academicians are
engaging in ﬁeld, process, or outcome research (Fitzgerald & Osipow, 1986). Concern
about the impact of increasing professionalization has been a recurrent theme in the
counseling psychology literature. In 1937 Woodworth asserted his fear that
professionalization of psychology would undermine and corrupt its scientiﬁc legitimacy
(W oodworth, 193 7). Some 55 years later, Sechrest afﬁrmed this prediction stating, “Our
standards have been lowered over the past 20 or 30 years with the proliferation of
professional training programs making no more than a bow in the direction of scientiﬁc
practice, let alone scientiﬁc training” (Sechrest, 1992, p. 20). Galassi (1989) has stated
that without a unique lmowledge base of theory and research that is regularly updated,
counseling psychology cannot remain viable. He further suggested that it is unlikely that
practitioners will contribute to or develop this knowledge base to any great extent
(Galassi, 1989). These statements clearly centralize science, speciﬁcally research, in the
ongoing debate over the future legitimacy of counseling psychology.

McFall (1996, p.4) asserted that “attributions of value are clearly ordered from
leﬁ to right” with basic science being the most valued and professional application being
the least. Obviously, as the ﬁeld of counseling psychology becomes more applied, it

becomes less valued. Nearly half the counseling psychologists polled in one survey

21

indicated they would not choose counseling psychology again as their career, in part
because they were “dissatisﬁed with their status vis-a-vis related specialties and its
impact on their practice...” (Watkins, Lopez, Campbell, & Himmell, 1986, p. 308).
Although these data are more than 15 years old, to date there has been no more recent
survey of the division membership regarding this issue, and there is nothing in the current
literature to contradict this ﬁnding. This observation is signiﬁcant because it reinforces
the observations regarding the challenges to the robustness and viability of the ﬁeld. It
also points to the necessity to look inward at factors within counseling psychology and
their impact on the development of the ﬁeld and on individual counseling psychologists.
Central to the viability of the ﬁeld is the satisfaction of those individuals who have
trained as counseling psychologists. However, there are a number of factors within the
ﬁeld that challenge counseling psychology in its attempt to establish viability and
legitimacy. The major challenge is related to counseling psychology’s lack of unique or
distinguishing features.

Psychologists have done much to place psychotherapy on a ﬁrm scientiﬁc
foundation, examining the theoretical base and conducting research on process and
outcomes (Peterson, 1996). However, these skills are not counseling psychology’s to
own or monopolize. Psychiatrists, social workers, nurse practitioners, marriage and
family therapists, and counselors of every kind are offering “talk therapies” that are
virtually indistinguishable from those provided by counseling psychologists (Peterson,
1996). Although counseling psychologists may believe themselves to be more skilled in
providing these services, there is no evidence to support this belief. In fact, outside of the

US, education for professional or applied psychology is done at the masters’ level. “The

22

United States of America is the only country in the world that has a large, doctoral level

profession of psychology” (Peterson, 1996, p. 1).

The Problem of Counseling Psychology ’s Professional Identity

The lack of distinguishing or unique features is a constant challenge for
counseling psychology. Ivey (1980, p. 3) described counseling psychology as “the most
broadly based applied specialty of the American Psychological Association.” Counseling
psychologists engage in the broadest assortment of professional activities, with the
greatest variety of client pepulations, utilizing the broadest array of interventions (Ivey,
1980). However, this wonderfully rich diversity creates problems when attempting to
establish a clear professional identity that distinguishes counseling psychology as a
unique ﬁeld (Gelso & Fretz, 1992). Thus, scientiﬁc research becomes a central factor in
legitimizing the ﬁeld of counseling psychology. In fact, Goodyear and colleagues (2000)
suggested that counseling psychology’s distinctiveness is situated in its research and
training emphasis. Counseling psychology programs are more likely to be engaged in
research on diversity and career related issues than clinical psychology programs
(Norcross, et al., 1998).

Practitioner models of training were supported at the Vail Conference as an
alternative to the scientist-practitioner model (Korman, 1976). Although clinical
psychology readily adopted the practitioner model and has developed doctorate of
psychology (Psy.D.) training programs, counseling psychology has resisted change to the
scientist-practitioner model (Steltenberg, et al., 2000). Much like the ﬁeld of psychology

legitimized and distinguished itself ﬁ'om psychiatry by adding a research component to

23

training, we see counseling psychology attempting to legitimize and distinguish itself

through research.

The Scientist-Practitioner Model
...en counseling psychologists falls the chief responsibility for conducting the
research upon which depends the possibility of more effective counseling. Any
applied ﬁeld needs roots in the basic scientiﬁc discipline which lends substance to
its work. It is therefore imperative that psychological counseling remain ﬁrmly
established within the orbit of basic psychological science and the related
disciplines, and that counseling psychologists acquire the research skills which
make possible the enlargement of knowledge (APA, 1952, p. 176).
This statement, ﬁ'om the ﬁrst major training conference in counseling psychology,
incontrovertibly established both science and practice as essential parts of graduate
training models. The scientist-practitioner training model has been used by counseling
psychology since its inception and many programs continue to utilize this model of
training today (Aspenson, et al., 1993; Gelso, 1979). Despite the historical precedent
centralizing the importance of research training in psychology, graduate students in all
areas of applied psychology indicate ambivalence about the role of research in their
professional lives (Gelso, et al., 1988). In fact, “few counseling psychologists go on to
publish research after obtaining their doctoral degree” (Kahn & Scott, 1997, p. 38). Gelso
(1993, p. 468) emphasized that it is “during graduate school that students’ attitudes
toward and investments in research are shaped” and that it is these experiences that

ultimately inﬂuence the level and extent of involvement students will have with research

24

during their careers. Understanding the processes that shape and enhance students’
attitudes toward research is complicated by a lack of agreement or uniformity in the ﬁeld
as to what is considered legitimate research and how research training should be
implemented.

Although the scientist-practitioner model has been widely adopted by graduate
training programs, the issue of integrating science and practice in counseling psychology
has been a highly controversial and hotly debated topic (Aspenson, et al., 1993). Some
critics asserted that the model lacks legitimacy because it fails to account for
compatibility of interests and abilities with the roles that students are trained to perform,
whereas others believe that the model continues to be an essential part of the discipline
(Aspenson, et al., 1993; Belar & Perry, 1992; Frank, 1984). Both of these perspectives,
however, assume a fundamental agreement as to what constitutes the scientist-
practitioner model. Kanfer highlighted the quiddity of this issue, stating:

The most common distortion of the Boulder Model has been the focus on science

in graduate school and practice in later professional activity. In other words, a

successive rather than simultaneous adherence to the scientist-practitioner concept

is frequently adopted (Kanfer, 1990, pp. 264-265).

This may be the most common distortion, but it is not the only one. There has been no
consistency and little agreement on the integration and implementation of the scientist-
practitioner model (Gelso & Lent, 2000). Often science is equated exclusively with
research, speciﬁcally publishable research. However, there has been some discussion in
counseling psychology related to expanding the deﬁnition of science to be more inclusive

of research that is not necessarily geared toward publication, as well as practitioners who

25

reﬂect a “scientiﬁc attitude” in their work with clients (Galassi & Brooks, 1992, p. 58).
Regardless of the way science is ultimately deﬁned within the profession or what is
determined to count as real research, there is no way for counseling psychologists to

avoid science or research in their training and professional activities.

The Importance of Research

Research is a salient component of graduate education, careers in practice, and
academic careers. In their training materials, doctoral programs in counseling
psychology describe their training models (research-practitioner, practitioner-scholar,
etc), along with the relative emphasis of research, practice, and other activities within the
program. Applicants are aware of the requirements for degree completion, as well as the
emphasis the program has placed on research prior to entering the program. Although
speciﬁc requirements for degree completion may vary across programs, the dissertation is
a universal requirement for Ph.D.s in counseling psychology. Most students indicate they
are more interested in a career in practice than in research (Kahn & Scott, 1997).
However, acceptance to the program of their choice may depend on the students
demonstrating an interest and investment in the research process that ﬁts with the
program’s training philosophy, regardless of their true feelings about research (Kahn &
Scott, 1997).

Despite the initial enthusiasm for research reported during the application process,
for many students the dissertation will be the only piece of research they produce. The
modal number of publications for members of Division 17 (counseling psychology) of

the American Psychological Association (APA) is zero. Further, division members

26

report devoting only a small percentage (8%) of their work time to research (Watkins, et
al., 1986). This last statistic may, in part, be inﬂuenced by the fact that a majority of
counseling psychology graduates (71%) are initially employed in human service settings,
environments that afford few opportunities and little time for research (APA, 1996). This
is not to say that research is not an important part of practice. Research does inﬂuence
practice, even if practitioners are not able to cite speciﬁc references, it is almost certain
that their training as a practitioner was based in research (Heppner & Anderson, 1985).
In order to provide effective, competent, and ethical services, psychologists must stay
abreast of the scientiﬁc literature.

F or those graduates who enter the academy, actively engaging in research is a
necessity. Although academic positions carry responsibilities in many areas (teaching,
advising, administration, research, etc.), without actively pursuing a program of research

and publishing in their ﬁeld, advancement through the academic ranks is unlikely.

The Role of the Developmental Model on Research Training

In order to understand fully the importance of research within the structure of
counseling psychology, it is important to understand the structure itself. Development
and developmental models have played a signiﬁcant role in counseling psychology. One
of the central tenets that has deﬁned psychology as a discipline is the focus on
development (Gelso & Fretz, 1992). Beyond deﬁning an approach to working with
clients, this emphasis on the developmental has inﬂuenced the way counseling
psychology cenceptualizes training and professional identity. In their text, Counseling

Psychology, Gelso and Fretz (1992) described the development of the profession through

27

the lens of a broad developmental model. They utilized terms such as infancy, childhood
adolescence, young adulthood and maturity to describe both the historical development
of the profession, and the individual’s experience of training within the profession.

The potential hazard in the broad application of developmental theory to
counseling training and identity is situated within the limits of the theories being utilized
to describe or explain these experiences. Many contemporary developmental theories
have grown out of the psychoanalytic tradition and many continue to emphasize an
approach to understanding development that is heavily inﬂuenced by a traditionally and
stereotypically masculine approach. The rigid application of these theories limits our
ability to conceptualize growth and development by favoring one lens with which to view
training and professional identity; a lens that clearly focuses on separation, individuation,
and independence as favorable outcomes. Choosing to observe development through this
lens leaves other perspectives out of focus and out of sight. This next section will

explore contemporary views and competing perspectives on development.

Developmental Models
In her review of the developmental literature, Surrey (1991) detailed the theme of
separation and individuation that pervades many contemporary theories of development.
Currently, developmental theory stresses the importance of separation ﬁom the
mother at early stages of childhood development (Mahler, 1975), from the family
at adolescence (Erikson, 1963 ), and from teachers and mentors in adulthood
(Levinson, 1978) in order for the individual to form a distinct, separate identity.

(Surrey, 1991, p. 52)

28

These models not only highlight the necessity for individuals to separate to achieve full
development of the self, but suggest that the only way to achieve normal development is
to separate and individuate. Individuals who fail to separate or individuate risk
developing problems and pathologies related to their sense of self.

The three theories identiﬁed by Surrey suggested a number of devastating
consequences for the individual who is unable to separate and individuate. Mahler
(1968) proposed a stage theory related to the development of the self. In the beginning
stages, individuals are psychologically fused to the mother ﬁgure and they gradually
progress to separation as they progress through the stages. She suggested that the
inability to separate and individuate the self from others results in pathological
developments, including narcissistic and borderline personality disorders. Erikson (1963)
believed adolescence was a critical time for resolving the developmental crisis related to
the formation of a personal identity. Adolescents must break dependent ties as they
struggle to establish and deﬁne their unique identity. A failure to achieve a sense of
independent identity results in role confusion and consequent difﬁculty in integrating a
system of values and establishing direction in their lives. Levinson (1978) stated that
during the ﬁrst 20 or so years of life, the “highly dependent child grows in complex
biological, psychological and social ways to become, in greater or lesser degree, an
independent responsible adult” (Levinson, 1978, p.3). During adulthood, Levinson
believes people face developmental crises that must be resolved in order to establish the
“basis for a relatively satisfactory life structure” (1978, p. 59). He theorized that an
important phase during early adulthood is “Becoming One’s Own Man.” The tasks of

this phase are to establish a stronger sense of an independent self and to establish more

29

authority and seniority within one’s world. Levinson associated success in this phase
with the masculine, and stated, “It is the feminine in a man that leads him to be soft and
dependent” (1978, p. 234). He further stated that if an individual is to grow or develop in
important aspects of life (career, relationships, leisure, etc.) he or she “must become more

individuated” (Levinson, 1978, p. 243).

The Socio/Cultural/Political Impact of the Developmental Models

The importance of separation and individuation extends beyond developmental
theory to social, cultural, and political systems that value the “rugged individualist,” that
person who is able to forge their own way and to succeed with minimal help from others.
These ideals are reﬂected in the structures and processes of the academy. Development
of the academic self, much like the personal self, is a stage-like process involving a series
of crises (comprehensive examinations, dissertation, etc), which are resolved by the
individual in a “sequence of allegedly essential separations from others” (Miller, 1991, p.
11). In order to pregress through graduate programs in a timely fashion, students must
independently complete these requirements and master the requisite skills related to
independent research and scholarly scientiﬁc study. In writing about the demands of the
scientiﬁc requirements, Gelso stated, “Certain aspects of the process inevitably entail
aloneness, where the scientist (student) must independently think through, formulate,
write about, master, etc., the puzzles of his/her domain” (1979, p. 26).

This perspective has not only inﬂuenced what is seen as successful development
of the academic self, it has also inﬂuenced how incompetence, impairment, and failure

are conceptualized. Frank (1984) suggested a major ﬂaw in the scientist-practitioner

3O

model is that it approaches the teaching of these two skill domains very differently.
Clinical skills are taught through a variety of courses, supervised practical experiences,
group discussions, and case conferences. It is expected that it will take years to develop
clinical skills. Research skills are generally taught through a year-long statistics
sequence and a year-long research design sequence (Frank, 1984). It is expected that
students will require extensive supervision of their clinical skills in order to develop
competency; this same expectation is often not integrated into research training.
Although most research articles have multiple authors, the dissertation remains a
requirement individuals must complete on their own. It has become a rite of passage with
only limited value for teaching students about research, as most students never complete
any research beyond the dissertation (Krumboltz, 2002). Training environments that tend
to produce more research “provided more encouragement and supportive services for
research, required a research course in counseling more ﬁequently, and were more likely
to involve students in a research experience or apprenticeship with a faculty member”
(Galassi, Stoltz, Brooks, & Trexler, 1987, p. 43). Peer support and group collaboration
have come to be seen as integral parts of the scientiﬁc process in other areas, including
physics and computer programming (Krumboltz, 2002). Douglas Osheroﬁ’, a 1996 Nobel
laureate in physics, has questioned the legitimacy of awarding individual prizes since the
scientiﬁc advances are the product of teams of hundreds of individuals (In print and on
the air, 2001). Yet, psychology continues to insist that the benchmark of competence in
research, and for the Ph.D., is being able to produce an original, independent piece of
research, the dissertation. Many counseling psychology programs are located within

large research universities (Meara, et al., 1988). This may be a key factor in

31

“perpetuating the hegemony of the scientist-practitioner model” (Steltenberg, et al., 2000,
p. 3), as the academy has established “tenure and promotion policies that tend to
emphasize faculty competence in research and publication but give little credit for
clinical expertise and experience” (Steltenberg, et al., 2000, p. 3).

The practitioner model for training provides an alternative to the reigning scientist
practitioner paradigm within counseling psychology. The answer, however, may not be
to wholly discard the model, but to re-examine the way in which we implement the
model. Although counseling psychology has historically endorsed developmental models
that emphasize separation and individuation as measures of competence and mature
achievement, there are other perspectives to consider. Miller (1991) challenged the
notion of the necessity of separation to the development of the mature self. Miller
suggested that:

...the beginnings of the self are not those of a static lone self being ministered

to by another, but rather of a self inseparable from dynamic interaction. And the

central character of that interaction involves attending to each other’s mental

states and emotions. (Miller, 1991, p.14)

Miller (1991) contended that all growth and development occur within these dynamic
interactions, not separate from them. This self-in-relation theory provides another way of
ﬂaming the development of the self and potentially offers an alternate way of
conceptualizing graduate education. In the previous chapter, I introduced the idea that the
similarities and overlap between the processes of therapy and learning facilitated the

application of self-in-relation theory to the academic environment.

32

Self-in-Relation Theory

The idea of the development of the self-in-relation requires a paradigmatic shift in
the conceptualization of development. “Lack of cultural investment in relationship as a
primary value, however, has led to the neglect of study of this line of development in
both males and females” (Jordan, 1991, p. 87). Self-in-relation theory emphasizes
relationships as the context for experience, experimentation, and development. Because
the self is conceptualized as emerging within the context of relationships, “there is no
inherent need to disconnect or to sacriﬁce relationship for self-development” (Surrey,
1991, p.53). The basic elements of this theory can be summarized as:

(1) an interest and attention to the other person(s), which form the base for the

emotional connection and the ability to empathize with the other(s); (2) the

expectation of a mutual empathic process where the sharing of experience leads to

a heightened development of self and other; and (3) the expectation of interaction

and relationship as a process of mutual sensitivity and mutual responsibility that

provides the stimulus for the growth of empowerment and self-knowledge

(Surrey, 1991, pp. 58-59).
This mutuality can provide meaning and motivation in people’s lives; its absence can
negatively impact self-esteem (Jordan, 1991). Miller (1986b) refers to the positive
outcomes of connection as “the ﬁve good things”: zest, increased ability to act, increased
sense of self worth, greater clarity regarding self and others, and a desire for more
relationships. Disconnections result in the opposite of these ﬁve things: less energy,
disempowerment, confusion, less self-worth, and turning away from relationships.

Disconnections are not necessarily negative things to be avoided, though, as all

33

relationships ebb and ﬂow through times of connections and disconnections. The
strengthening work in relationships occurs during times of reconnection after a
disconnection. “Reconnections can be quick and easy, or it can take time, effort and
creativity” (Dooley & Fedele, 2004, p.231). The key to transforming these disconnections
and remaining open to others is resilience. Understanding relational resilience requires
understanding of both the individual factors and the relational dynamics that contribute to
adjustment and connection (Jordan, 2004). Relational resilience requires a shift from
“individual ‘control over’ dynamics to a model of supported vulnerability,” from a “one-
directional need for support from others to mutual empathic involvement,” from “power
over dynamics to empowerment” from “ﬁnding meaning. . .to creating meaning” (Jordan,
2004, p. 32).

Traditional work and academic settings are generally not designed to promote or
foster mutual exchanges, with their emphasis on productivity and competition (Jordan,
1991). Although the original meaning of the word competence was ‘to seek together’, it
Shares its root with the word competition. The current understanding of competence
reﬂects this shared root, as competence has come to imply rivalry or competition (Jordan,
2005). “The competition and mastery implicit in most models of competence create
conﬂict for many people” (Jordan, 2005, p.12). This system reinforces marginalization
and oppression by valuing competition, dominance, and mastery over “conﬁdence,
creativity, and participation in growth fostering relationships” (Jordan, 2005, p. 12).

The hierarchical nature of the academy, which rewards individual achievement
with the incentives of tenure and promotion, devalues the existing underlying system of

mutuality and interdependence. Mutuality is seen as antithetical to the power over

34

hierarchy in the academy. Mutual power implies that all participants contribute in order
to enhance everyone’s personal power, not just the personal power of certain others or
oneself (Surrey, 1991). The current rules of the academy do not leave room for mutual
exchange. Terminal degrees (e.g. the Ph.D.) and tenure are not awarded based on
collaborative or mutual efforts, but individual accomplishments. Mutuality challenges
the organization and structure of the environment because it takes the emphasis oﬁ' just
knowing the rules and winning the game (or getting the promotion or tenure) and puts the
emphasis on the personal relationships in the environment (Gilligan, 1982). The
traditional culture of therapy, much like the traditional culture of the academy, has
supported several myths of competence: the therapist or the faculty member is the expert,
change is unilateral, and the person with power should not be vulnerable (Jordan, 2004).
Self-in-relation theory provides us with a ﬂame for examining these myths and the way
they impact methods of training in counseling psychology. Although there have not been
any studies utilizing self-in-relation theory to explore research training, there have been
several studies on mentoring and advising relationships that indicate the powerful eﬁ’ects

relationships have on the training process.

The Impact of Relationships on Training

David Aspenson and his colleagues conducted a combined qualitative and
quantitative study on graduate students’ perceptions of the scientist-practitioner training
model (1993). Students were classiﬁed into three groups based on their attitudes
regarding the model: Positive, Negative, and Ambivalent. Although there were a number

of differences between the groups’ perceptions of the training model, consistent across

35

groups was the indication that mentors, role models, and relationships with faculty had a
signiﬁcant impact on their perception of their research training. In fact, respondents in all
three groups indicated concern about faculty not meeting their interpersonal needs and
suggested that this interpersonal distance contributed to their perceptions of the training
model (Aspenson, et al., 1993).

Hollingsworth and Fassinger (2002), utilizing a quantitative design, investigated
counseling psychology graduate students experiences with research mentoring
relationships. The results of their study indicate that mentoring experiences were a strong
predictor of research productivity. In addition, they found that the mentoring relationship
mediated the relationship between the research training environment and research
productivity, suggesting that “a research mentoring relationship is the vehicle through
which the training environment has greatest impact on individual students’ research
productivity” (Hollingsworth & Fassinger, 2002, p.327).

This idea that the relationship is the vehicle through which students’ perceptions,
attitudes, and behaviors are impacted is supported by a study on supervisory relationships
aadany, Ellis, & Friedlander, 1999). Ladany, Ellis, and Friedlander (1999) investigated
the relationship between the supervisory working alliance, or the relationship between a
supervisor and a counselor trainee, and supervisory outcomes. They found the aspect of
the supervisory relationship that was signiﬁcantly related to satisfaction with supervision
was the emotional bond between the counselor trainee and the supervisor. When trainees
viewed their emotional bond as strong, they also tended to perceive both their

supervisors’ and their own performance more positively (Ladany, et al., 1999).

36

Schlosser and colleagues conducted a qualitative analysis of the graduate advising
relationship (Schlosser, Knox, Moskovitz, & Hill, 2003). Their study suggested that
students perceived the advising relationship as important to the training environment.
They classiﬁed students’ descriptions of advising relationships into either positive or
negative descriptors. The authors suggested that positive advising may have many
common characteristics with mentoring. However, they made the distinction that, while
mentoring implies a positive exchange between a prote'gé and a professional, advising
relationships can be positive or negative and guidance either be provided or not provided
(Schlosser, etal., 2003).

Although all of these studies looked at different relationships in the training
environment and at different aspects and outcomes of the relationships and training,
fundamentally they all found relationships to be signiﬁcant to the training experience.
The research training environment (RTE) is the primary socialization agent for future
professionals within the ﬁeld of psychology and intellectual and social integration into
this environment is important in developing the skills necessary to complete the doctoral
program (Tinto, 1993). Pascarella and Terenzini (1991, p.33) deﬁne integration as:

...the extent to which the individual shares the normative attitudes and values of

the peers and faculty in the institution and abides by the formal and informal

structural requirements for membership in the community or in the subgroups of
which the individual is a part.

Mentors, advisors, and other faculty members can facilitate integration and
meaningful connection within the academic community by creating space for students to

cultivate their skills and identity (Schramm, 2000). The signiﬁcance of creating space for

37

connections and fostering integration into the academic community is highlighted by
research that indicates many students who experience negative encounters,
marginalization, disconnection, or a lack of integration into the academic or social
community withdraw from their programs (Johnson, Goldberg, & Sedlacek, 1995;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Tinto, 1993).

Tinto suggests that frequent contact or connection with faculty is important to
students academic persistence. Although classroom contact is important, “encounters
which go beyond the mere formalities of academic work to broader intellectual and social
issues and which are seen by students to be warm and rewarding appear to be strongly
associated with continued persistence” (1993, p.57). While these relationships have
enormous potential for enhancing students’ experiences in the academic environment,
they also have the potential to do harm. Disconnections or violations in close
relationships, especially those that involve dependency, such as between a faculty
member and a student, can result in isolation and difﬁculty expressing vulnerability or
reaching out for help (Jordan, 2004).

The previous research, coupled with the self-in-relation theory, seems to indicate
that relationships are signiﬁcant factors in graduate students’ academic progress. Since
this area of inquiry is in its infancy and the potential applicability of self-in-relation
theory to research training has yet to be addressed, I believe this issue is best explored
using a qualitative methodology of in-depth interviewing.

The Gender Conundrum
It has been established that both men and women cite relationships with mentors

and advisers as Signiﬁcant factors in their training and development (Aspenson, et al.,

38

1993; Pride, 2002). However, based on the literature in gender studies and
communication (Tannen, 1984, 1986, 1990), it is reasonable to assume that men and
women may both experience and talk about relationships differently. Currently, thereis
no existing literature base related to the impact of relationships on research training and
research in counseling psychology on mentoring and the RTE is in its infancy. Because
of these two factors, the goal of this project is to avoid setting up any one particular style
or theme as nomral and a standard to use for comparison. It is outside the scope of this
project to investigate the differential ways men and women experience and discuss
relationships; therefore, this project will focus on women’s perceptions of the impact of
relationships on their development as researchers. It is hoped that greater understanding
of female students’ experiences in the RTE will increase awareness of issues in research
training and facilitate future development of training models. In addition, it is hoped that
by increasing our understanding of the role relationships play in the training process, it
will encourage counseling psychology programs to be more deliberate and thoughtful
about integrating advising, mentoring, and other relationships into the training

experience.

39

CHAPTER III
Methodology
Purpose

The purpose of this present study was to develop a better understanding of female
counseling psychology graduate students’ perceptions of the impact of relational factors
on the development of their dissertation. It was believed that understanding graduate
students’ perceptions of their research training would better inform development and
implementation of graduate training programs in counseling psychology. Additionally, it
was anticipated that results of this study would ultimately shed light on patterns of career
choice and development related to research.

Inquiry into research training and graduate student development is “in its infancy”
(Gelso & Lent, 2000, p. 111). AS such, a qualitative methodology was appropriate to this
study because the goal was to explore how participants understand and make meaning of
this process. An interview schedule, based on domains of interest identiﬁed from the
literature, provided a loose structure for the interviews. Participants’ personal and
academic histories, salient aspects of identity, current and previous experiences with
research, and relationships with faculty, advisors, and mentors were explored as they
pertained to the development of their dissertation interests and related skills.
Speciﬁcally, the research questions to be addressed included:

0 What are students’ perceptions of their relationships (or lack of relationships)

with faculty, advisors, and mentors?

40

o What are students’ perceptions of their journey through the dissertation writing
process?

0 What are the implications of students’ experiences on their choice of future career

paths?

Qualitative Methods

The term qualitative methods refers to a range of techniques that are used to
“come to terms with the meaning, not the ﬁequency, of certain more or less naturally
occurring phenomena in the social world” (Van Manen, 1979, p.520). In the social
context of doctoral education, the dissertation is a naturally occurring phenomenon. Even
so, the process of writing the dissertation has not been widely studied from the
perspective of students who are engaged in the process. Miles and Huberman (1994)
suggested that qualitative data “are a source of well-grounded, rich descriptions and
explanations of processes in identiﬁable local contexts.” Further, qualitative inquiry is
particularly well suited to researching women’s issues because quantitative
methodologies have typically been designed by men and are subject to inherent
patriarchal biases (Miller, 1986a; Williams, 1997). Whereas qualitative methods, with its
focus on meaning making, allowed for a kind of knowing to emerge that is sensitive to
the meaning conferred on these processes by the participants themselves (Williams,
1 997).

The Researcher
A central and unavoidable element of qualitative research is the role of the

researcher. Qualitative research is the product of a real person and his/her biases,

41

assumptions, values, personal history and identity of the investigator are a meaningful
part of the context of the work.

In a similar study of female graduate students in counselor education who were all
but dissertation (ABD), Williams made the observation. that she was both an observer and
a participant in the research (Williams, 1997). I identiﬁed with this statement. I am
currently a doctoral candidate in the process of writing my dissertation; as such, my
process is inextricably linked to the product. As one of my participants said, “If you want
to ﬁnd out what somebody’s neurosis is, ask them what their research topic is.” It is no
accident that I am writing my dissertation about women’s journey through the
dissertation process. Although I moved through my required coursework and counseling
practica in a timely manner, the research requirements signiﬁcantly delayed my progress.
Because I did not complete my research apprenticeship project on time, I had to delay my
comprehensive examinations, as well as application for internship. The problems I
encountered in completing my apprenticeship project leﬁ me terriﬁed to do my
dissertation. Although this project served as a stepping stone to my dissertation, it also
contributed to the development of my assumptions and biases about the dissertation
process. My assumptions and biases were: (a) the dissertation process is isolating and
lonely, (b) the process is difﬁcult and frustrating, (c) completing the dissertation had
more to do with individual persistence than with institutional structures that facilitate the
process, ((1) completing the dissertation is not necessarily about creating a meaningful
research project as much as it is about just completing the research, and (e) the research-

training environment can be toxic to some individuals.

42

I also recognize that because of my experiences writing my proposal and
interviewing the participants, 1am in a very different place now than I was when I began
this process. So even as I identify the biases that impacted me as I began my journey, to
chronicle the evolution and change in my attitudes and biases about the process would be
an entire paper unto itself. Sufﬁced to say, what is written here is but one construction of
my journey through the dissertation process; however, it is not the only story. I say this
to own that my writings before I began the interviews and progressed and reﬂected on my
own journey through the dissertation come from a much different place than what was
written after these experiences. The process of hearing other women’s stories helped me
to put my own story into perspective by forcing me to examine issues of power, control,
and ownership in my own story as I examined these issues in the stories of the
participants.

Selection of Participants

Both purposeful sampling was initially utilized in selecting participants for this
study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The process of purposeful sampling has been referred to
as “judgmental” sampling because it requires the researcher to use her or his judgment to
determine the appropriateness of participants based on the research questions (F etterman,
1989). The participants in this study were recruited on a voluntary basis through contacts
with internship training directors, emails, and letters. An announcement that brieﬂy
described the study was sent to training directors at two identiﬁed APA-accredited
internship sites. The training directors were asked to distribute letters that described the
study to female interns at their training site. In addition, a description of the study and

request for participation were posted to a list serve for training directors of internship

43

sites in Colorado. Women who were interested in the study were asked to contact the
investigator for more information. Ten women who contacted the investigator met the
criteria for inclusion in the study and nine interviews took place. The women who
participated came from contacts with three different internship sites in two different
states. All of the women who participated had attended different graduate programs.
Participant Criteria
The present study was grounded in the history and development of counseling
psychology. The focus of this inquiry was on female graduate students in counseling
psychology and their perceptions of relational factors in the RTE. One of the ﬁrst major
hurdles in the dissertation writing process is defending the dissertation proposal.
Students who have successfully defended their dissertation proposal have begun the
writing process and have established relationships with their advisors and committee
members. For these reasons the following criteria were used in selecting participants:
0 The participants were to be female doctoral students in counseling psychology
0 The participants must have successfully proposed their dissertation
o The participants who had successfully defended their dissertation must have
completed this within one year prior to the interview
In summary, the scope of this study was limited to counseling psychology students
who were still close to the process of writing their dissertations and at the precipice of

beginning their professional careers.

Procedures

Prior to beginning the interview process, participants were asked to sign a consent
form. The interview process began with the participants completing a demographic form
that asked for general demographic information, including age, year in program, number
of presentations or publications, research coursework completed, etc. Forms were
labeled with participant numbers rather than names. Students were not asked to identify
the names of faculty members or their home universities during the interviews. When
information of this nature came out during the course of the interviews it was deleted
from the transcriptions in order to protect the identity of the participants. Concerns
related to conﬁdentiality will be discussed in the limitations section. Anonymity was not
assured in this study because of the nature of face-to-face interviews.

The procedures for qualitative inquiry that were utilized in the present study
included three steps, as described by Lincoln and Guba (1985): interviewing, data

analysis, and writing the case report.

In-depth interviewing
In-depth interviews are intended to be more like conversations between peers than
highly structured question and answer sessions (Lincoln &Guba, 1985; Taylor & Bogdan,
1998). This does not mean that the interview is completely free of structure. Smith
(1995) suggested identifying broad themes to be covered in the interview and designing
neutral questions that avoid value-laden or leading language and jargon. He also
suggested utilizing open-ended questions in order to encourage the respondent to address

the topic with as little prompting as possible. Participants’ academic histories, research

45

preparation, relationships with mentors, advisors, and dissertation committee members,
and dissertation research were explored as they pertained to student’s perceptions of the
development of their dissertation interests/topics and related skills.

Interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed for analysis. Analysis was on-
going and occurred as the data were collected. This method was utilized with the
expectation that domains of interest would become clearer and interviews would become
more focused over time as themes developed out of the data.

Interviews were limited to approximately lhour with each participant. Participants
were provided with a brief description of the study and encouraged to think about their
research experiences and relationships with mentors, advisors, and committee members

prior to their participation in the interview.

Data analysis and coding

Data analysis involved describing and analyzing patterns of relationships that
emerged from the participants’ responses (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Although there is
no right way to conduct data analysis, there are two important components to the data
analysis process: (a) data reduction or de-contextualization and (b) data interpretation or
re-contextualization ( Marshall & Rossman, 1989; Tesch, 1990).

Coding or identifying themes represents the process during which the collected
data is broken down, conceptualized, and re-constructed in a new form (Strauss &
Corbin, 1990). This process allows the researcher to pull out themes from the larger
body of collected information in order to create categories of related data. The categories

were analyzed for the emergence of patterns or themes. According to Charmaz (1983),

46

the initial phase of coding involves simply categorizing and sorting the data. These codes
allowed the researcher to “label, separate, compile, and organize the data” (Charmaz,
1983, p. 111). The purpose of this design is to create categories that “ﬁt the data rather
than forcing the data into codes” (Charmaz, 1983, p. 112). Secondary coding, or focused
coding, is a more selective or conceptual process. During this stage, the researcher
collapses or condenses the data from the initial coding into more manageable analytic
units. Additionally, the researcher is able to develop a more integrated understanding of
the local process and interactions by observing the patterns and interconnections that
evolve from the data (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

Prior to beginning the coding, my ﬁrst objective was to gain a holistic sense of the
data. To do this, I read through each of the transcripts several times to become familiar
with the content of each interview. Next, I began to analyze the transcripts one at a time,
line by line. Coding was done by hand; no software programs were utilized to facilitate
coding. In the margins to the right of each transcript, I identiﬁed categories or topics as
they emerged from the interviews. This is similar to “the constant comparative method
of analysis” outlined by Glaser and Strauss (cited in Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Although
Glaser and Strauss developed this method speciﬁcally to derive grounded theory, the
stages were helpful in guiding data analysis. The two analytic procedures used were
“making of comparisons” and “asking of questions” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 62).
During this process, “one’s own and other’s assumptions about phenomena are
questioned or explored” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p.62). As I engaged in this initial stage
of coding, I also worked on maintaining an awareness of my own assumptions and their

impact on this project by journaling my own reactions and responses to the data and the

47

coding process. Once the data were broken down into meaningful units, they were
reanalyzed and put back together by making connections between categories (Strauss &
Corbin, 1990).

The purpose of this project was to increase the understanding of the meaning that
female graduate students’ place on the structures and process of the research training,
speciﬁcally their dissertation experience. In order to maintain the integrity of their
experiences and perceptions, I chose to present the ﬁndings in a narrative format using

quotations to allow their voices to emerge in their own words.

Considerations

There were several limitations to the current study that warrant discussion. First,
as noted by Lincoln and Guba (1985) and Miles and Huberman (1994), interpretations
that emerged out of the interviews were dependent on and consequences of the
interaction between the investigator and the context. As a female graduate student in
counseling psychology, I had my own understandings, convictions, and conceptual
orientation. It was important for me to explore continually the impact of my biases on the
interviews and the results (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

Second, the sample for this study was comprised of women who had successfully
negotiated (nearly) all of the requirements for the Ph.D. In addition, all of the women
self-selected to participate in this study. This particular group was targeted because
women constitute a majority of the degree recipients in the ﬁeld, and students at the
internship level should have at least begun the dissertation process. However, the narrow

sample may limit the ability to generalize results to students who have not been

48

successﬁil in negotiating the various degree requirements, to male graduate students, or to
students who were not interested in participating in a study like this one.

Finally, all participants were informed that every attempt would be made to
protect their conﬁdentiality and that there was a risk that this may not be entirely
possible. Identifying information was altered whenever possible in the ﬁnal document;
all of the participants were given pseudonyms and the names of faculty members and
institutions were either changed or omitted, as were dates of attendance and graduation.
However, given the close-Imit nature and relatively small size of the ﬁeld of counseling
psychology, it may be possible for readers to infer the identities of participants. Because
internship level students have completed the vast majority of the requirements for their
degrees, they may be immune to any potential ramiﬁcations on their academic standing

due to their participation in this study.

Conclusion
This chapter reviewed the purpose for this study and presented a rationale for the
utilization of a qualitative methodology. Information was provided on participant
selection, data collection, and data analysis. A short section was included that reviewed
information about the researcher and addressed my assumptions and biases. This section
was included as a check in order to reduce the impact of these assumptions and biases on
the processes of data collection and analysis. The following chapter will present the

results of the analysis of the interviews.

49

CHAPTER IV
Data Analysis and Results
Introduction

This chapter consists of two major sections. The ﬁrst section provides
information regarding the participants’ dissertation journeys, basic demographic
information, and contextual information about the participants’ perceptions of their
journeys. It also addresses commonalities and differences across the women’s
experiences that will be highlighted as part of the data analysis. The participants will be
presented in the order in which the interviews occurred.

Potential participants received information requesting their participation in a
qualitative study of women’s experiences writing their dissertations. No eﬁ‘ort was made
to recruit women who had a particularly bad or unusual experience, however many of the
following stories address negative, even damaging, experiences and give voice to the
accompanying emotional consequences. The group of women who agreed to participate
was a self-selected sample comprised of women who had something to say about their
experiences writing their dissertations. Although the stories of the participants present a
range of experiences, more of the stories seem to fall on the negative end of the spectrum
than the positive end. There are a number of possible explanations for this phenomenon,
such as more people have negative than positive experiences writing their dissertations,
or people who have negative experiences are more motivated to talk than people who
have positive experiences. These sources of bias will be more fully explored in the

limitations section.

50

The second section of this chapter will be organized around the women’s
experiences of their journeys. The themes that evolved out of the interviews will be
presented in the context of the women’s stories. The participants have been liberally
quoted throughout the text in order to allow their stories to emerge in their own voices.
The quotes have been edited to maintain the conﬁdentiality of the participants; all of the
names of people and places have been changed. The goal of this research project was to
explore women’s perceptions of their journey through the dissertation process,
speciﬁcally looking at the impact of relationships on their experiences. The interviews
were analyzed by ﬁrst decontextualizing, or separating the data into meaningful units,
and then recontextualizing the data by identifying categories of responses.

The participants were asked questions related to their journey through the
dissertation process. The initial part of the interview included questions that were very
concrete and direct, for example participants were asked to describe their journey,
identify critical incidents, or explain their dissertation research. Each interview ended
with four projective questions designed to encourage participants to tap into a different
way of talking about their experiences. Participants were asked: 1) If your dissertation
got dressed up, what would it wear? 2) Ifyour dissertation could speak, what would it
say? 3) What does your dissertation remind you of? and 4) What is special about your
dissertation? The analysis of these questions will be presented separately from the other
interview questions.

The Participants
Nine women were interviewed for this study, however only 8 of the interviews

were used in the ﬁnal analysis due to recording problems encountered during one

51

interview. The tape recording of the interview could not be transcribed and therefore
could not be coded along with the other interviews. The information presented on the
participants refers only to the eight women whose interviews were transcribed, coded,
and analyzed. Although the participants were at different points in the dissertation
writing process, all of them had successfully defended their dissertation proposal
(prospectus) at the time of the interview. Five of the participants had successfully
defended their dissertations. The participants ranged in age from 24 to 45 years old, with
a mean age of 33 years. Five of the participants identiﬁed as White or Caucasian, one
identiﬁed as multiracial, one as Native American and Latina, and one as Asian American.
Three of the participants had completed a master’s thesis and six of them reported having
at least one publication. Each of the participants has been given a pseudonym and all
information regarding their academic institutions has been changed to maintain privacy
and conﬁdentiality.
Angela

At the time of the interview, Angela was completing her doctoral internship at a
university counseling center. She was beginning the job search and indicated she hoped
to work as a psychologist in a rural area She related that for her master’s degree, an
MSW, she had opted out of completing a thesis, instead she completed comprehensive
examinations. She said she was very anxious about having to do a dissertation and found
the process to be very frustrating. “I was very lost and everybody else in my program had
done a thesis of some sort. I’m the only one feeling like a ﬁsh ﬂopping around going, ‘I
have no idea what I’m doing.’” Angela referred to her experience as “A nightmare, it

wasn’t even a journey.”

52

Angela identiﬁed as Native American and Latina. She related her culture was a
signiﬁcant factor in her decision to attend graduate school. “My advisor is the reason I
went to (this) University, because she’s Native American.” In addition, her dissertation
research had a very personal, cultural meaning. Her dissertation was a qualitative study
of tribal members’ views of mental health and wellness. She said she always wanted to
work with Native people and after writing her dissertation she felt she had a much better
understanding of her own tribe. The centrality and importance of culture in her
experience is best illustrated by her description of what her dissertation would wear.

It’s like 3 rings put together and it’s got all the colors of the rainbow, very bright

colors. What I see it wearing is this linked belt that’s very colorful and is

intertwined because that’s how Tribal people are, they’re very intertwined, you
can’t separate them out. I see it being this very colorful thing because of the
emotion that was expressed during the research, some was sadness and some was
excitement.

Angela was married and the mother of a young child. She talked about the
challenges she experienced attempting to balance all of her responsibilities at home, work
full time at internship, and complete her dissertation. In spite of these challenges, Angela
successfully completed and defended her dissertation a couple of months before
participating in this project. Angela said completing her dissertation allowed her to view
her experience differently. She related that because she was able to work through her
struggles with the dissertation successfully, she is now ‘Vvilling to ﬁght for the fact that I

have something to offer. . .. I am somebody and I have learned something.”

53

Britt

Britt identiﬁed as Asian American. She was all but dissertation (ABD) and
employed as a staff psychologist at a university counseling center. She was working on
completing her dissertation and at the time of the interview, she had just received Internal
Review Board (IRB) approval. At the time of the interview, she planned to start her data
collection in the next couple of weeks. She described her experience as a “very, very
long arduous experience” and related this was actually her second dissertation project.
Problems with the university administration system led to a reorganization of her
university and eventual merger with a second institution. As a result, she was forced to
completely reconstitute her committee with members from the new institution. She also
had to adjust her topic to meet the requirements of the new program and receive approval
ﬁom the new committee members. Her frustration with these setbacks and challenges
was apparent in her description of her journey as “very long, anxiety provoking, and
arduous, to say the least.”

Her dissertation research explores the impact of group interventions on problem
solving, self efﬁcacy, and career decision making. She revealed the personal nature of
her topic when she was asked what was special about her dissertation.

If you want to ﬁnd out what somebody’s neurosis is, ask them what their research

topic is and for me that’s deﬁnitely it. I had a very difﬁcult process in terms of

my own career decision making process and this is now my way of giving back to

others something I never had when I was going through.

54

Although she had experienced a number of setbacks in her journey, Britt talked about
feeling “very optimistic about it. I’m very energized... It’s been a long process and since
this committee has come together it’s renewed my sense of hope and energy.”
Carmen

At the time of this interview, Carmen was ﬁnishing her last year of coursework
and looking forward to going on internship in the fall. She had successfully completed
and defended her dissertation a few weeks before participating in this project. She
identiﬁed her career goals after internship as combining “practice and academia.”

Carmen was 24, identiﬁed as Caucasian, and in her 4m year of doctoral study.
Although she had ﬁnished her dissertation before leaving for internship, she described the
process as “long” and indicated her experiences had been so bad that she actually
“wanted to quit” after completing her master’s thesis. When asked about critical
incidents along the way which contributed to these feelings, she took a long sigh and
stated that with her advisor “every process is an incident.” She said she loved research
and at one time had considered a future career in a “research one institution”, however
she no longer felt comfortable or conﬁdent in her writing “because it’s never been
acceptable” and her experience “may keep me from researching because I’m afraid that I
wouldn’t be able to write it up.” She described her experiences as molding versus
mentoring.

Carmen related she had chosen her dissertation topic as an extension of her
master’s thesis work on attitudes toward suicide. Although she had not been especially
interested in doing research on suicide, she had decided to come to this particular

university to work with her advisor and this was her advisor’s area of research. Despite

55

wanting to work with this particular professor, she described their relationship as “rocky
all along.”
Deva

Deva was completing her doctoral internship at the time of the interview. She
was 27, identiﬁed as white, and had recently secured a post-doctoral position at a
university counseling center. Deva was ﬁnishing up her data collection and related she
was feeling some pressure to complete her dissertation before she started her post-
doctoral position. She was excited about ﬁnishing her project and said she felt she could
not “go wrong completely because there isn’t necessarily that much out there studying
courage.” Despite her enthusiasm, Deva indicated that she struggled with a lack of
conﬁdence in her abilities and in the project. She said this presented her with a challenge
when she was interviewing for post-docs and jobs because she felt she needed to appear
conﬁdent about the dissertation whether or not she was really feeling that way, “It’s like
a real dichotomy. You can feel not very conﬁdent about it but you have to say something
or project something different.”

Deva described her journey as “a really collaborative process with my advisor.”
She said her advisor had been instrumental both in helping her choose a topic for her
dissertation as well as determining the overall direction of the project. She talked about
her relationship with her advisor as “open”, “congenial”, and “comfortable.”
Ellie

Ellie was completing her doctoral internship at the time of the interview. She
identiﬁed her career goals as “to be rich and famous,” however when we met she was in

the process of doing a job search for a clinical position. She had defended her

56

dissertation before starting her internship and fell just within the one year cut oﬁ‘ limit.
Ellie was 32 and identiﬁed as multiracial.

Ellie had completed a master’s thesis and felt like this helped her through the
dissertation journey. “I think the start of my dissertation wasn’t that hard because I had
already gone through my thesis and my dissertation was a continuation of that.” She said
she learned a lot about negotiating the process indirectly and through “trial and error.”
Her biggest source of frustration was, “Paperwork. Mountains and mountains of
paperwork and the inability of the professors in the psychology department to come to a
consensus on what I was supposed to be doing.” The one thing that motivated her
through all this paperwork and frustration was her “wife”, who’s “foot reaches just butt
high and she kicked me through the program.” Ellie felt she did not receive much
guidance from her faculty in negotiating the dissertation process, “I didn’t ﬁnd a lot of
help in deciding what to do or how to do it or how to schedule my time. . .. I ﬁgured out
with my thesis that I was going to have to do it myself.”

Ellie has a long history with her dissertation topic dating back to her
undergraduate work. She completed an undergraduate research project on social learning
and American Indian adolescents and was able to continue this line of research through
her master’s thesis and dissertation.

Fiona

Fiona was 45, married, and identiﬁed as Caucasian. She indicated she would like

to work in community mental health after completing her internship. At the time of the

interview, she had defended her proposal and completed one IRB application and was in

57

the process of completing a second. She hoped to start collecting data in a month to six
weeks.

Although she had “tried on several dissertations,” including a study on spirituality
and one that was qualitative in design, Fiona had settled on doing a neuropsychological
dissertation on physician competency. She related there were a number of factors that
intervened and brought her to this topic, including access to an available data set,
personal investment in the topic, and an interest in pursuing a career in neuropsychology.

Fiona revealed she had experienced a number of challenges with her committee
during her dissertation journey. She addressed the emotional sequelae of these issues and
related that she “got pretty depressed and couldn’t work” on her dissertation. She
acknowledged, in addition to the external sources of stress, she was her own worst enemy
during the process. “Well, my own inertia and my own fear just get in the way. Fear of
failure gets in my way.” When asked about factors which delayed her in her journey,
Fiona identiﬁed, “myself’ and “psycho committee members.”

Gina

Gina was 31 and identiﬁed as Caucasian. She was completing her doctoral
internship at the time of the interview and had just secured a post-doc position combining
both clinical and research responsibilities. She had successfully defended her dissertation
on dating violence and attachment a couple of months prior to our meeting.

Gina’s interest in this topic started during her master’s program and was
inﬂuenced by her clinical work with teens experiencing dating violence. Gina identiﬁed
several programmatic strengths that helped her get through her journey. She was

required to complete a pre-dissertation project and an oral exam which “consisted of

58

writing our literature review and defending it.” She described the process as being cut up
into manageable “little chunks.” However, she described her journey as “long,” “hard,”
and “challenging.” Despite the scaffolding provided by her program, Gina said there were
many times when “I felt like I was kind of out on my own in the process.” During her
journey, Gina was forced to replace one committee member and deal with her chair going
on sabbatical the year she was writing her dissertation. Her chair suggested she replace
him with another faculty member. Gina’s reaction to this was, “I was so livid. I was like,
‘you are not dropping me now, I’m sorry if you are going on sabbatical’ . . .He had gone
this far and I felt like, who could I get to help me out with this process?” Her advisor,
ultimately, did continue on as her dissertation chair, however Gina felt like “it was kinda
like he wasn’t really with me that year.” She got the most support and guidance in the
writing process from her boyfriend, who is also in counseling psychology. After having a
kind of “break down” one day, Gina asked her boyfriend for help and he, “just kind of
talked to me, asked me questions. We just came up with an outline in about 20 minutes
of how I was going to write it.”
Hannah

Hannah had successfully defended her dissertation during the fall of her
internship year. At the time of our meeting, her plans were to complete internship, secure
an adjunct position at a university and work in private practice. Hannah was 28 and
identiﬁed as White.

Her dissertation was a qualitative study of mentoring relationships of women in
Christian academia. Her interest in this topic grew out her participation in a woman

oriented research group during her doctoral study. Ironically, she chose to study

59

mentoring relationships “primarily because I didn’t have them.” Through this group, she
was able to connect with another student who was interested in a similar topic and they
were able to collaborate on data collection. She described the research group as “a big
support but also a big accountability” because she had to make progress reports at the
meetings.

She identiﬁed navigating relationships in graduate school as challenging during
her journey. After becoming involved in this research group, she changed advisors to one
of the faculty members facilitating the group. Hannah said this was an uncomfortable
process to undertake. In addition, she had to learn to negotiate her relationship with her
new advisor. As she put it, “We’re working closely, but we’re not ﬁiends because you’re
my dissertation chair and you’re a faculty member. . .so there kind of is that power
differential, but we’re in this very collegial discussion all the time.”

Hannah expressed mixed emotions related to her journey. At one point she
described her journey as “deﬁnitely a collaborative effort. I did not feel isolated doing
this project.” She described her experience of the research group as “a very safe place to
explore.” However, when asked to describe what her dissertation reminded her of,
Hannah described being “isolated. . .. in my little dark cave with the only light coming
from my little laptop screen.” She said she found the experience “ironic” given that in
order to complete this project about relationships she had to “cut myself off to get it
done.”

Themes
This section presents the themes which emerged ﬁ'om data analysis. The

interview questions were designed to explore one or more of the three research questions:

60

(1) What are students’ perceptions of their journey through the dissertation writing
process? (2) What are students’ perceptions of the relationships (or lack of relationships)
they have with faculty, advisors, and mentors? and (3) What are the implications of
students’ perceptions on their choice of future career paths? The answers to these
questions will be analyzed utilizing the lens of self-in-relation theory as discussed in the
review of literature.

The organization of this section is driven by the women’s descriptions of their
journeys through the dissertation process. Some of the women overtly described their
journey as positive or negative, whereas others have been placed in a particular category
based on phrases or descriptors that connoted a positive or negative experience. This
section will begin by presenting the participants who had a positive experience and
identifying factors that contributed to their experience. Next it will present women who
had a mid-range experiences and identify factors contributing to their experiences. These
experiences do not fall neatly into the category of ‘neutral,’ rather there are two subsets
of the mid-range experiences: 1) women who experienced an upswing or positive change
over time in their journey, and 2) women who had combination or ambivalent
experiences, neither purely positive nor purely negative. Next this section will present
women who had negative or damaging experiences during their journey, as well as the
factors that contributed to these experiences. Finally, this section will explore the factors
that contributed to the unique experiences of each woman, as well as commonalities and
differences in these stories as they contribute to creating more positive or more negative

experience.

61

Positive Experiences
“Oh my goodness, I know how to research. ” —Hannah, 28
Hannah, who completed a qualitative dissertation on mentoring relationships
among women in Christian academia, described a mostly positive writing experience.
Hannah’s response to the question regarding how her journey through the dissertation
process inﬂuenced the way she felt about research exempliﬁes the qualities that set her
experience apart ﬁom that of the other participants. She had this to say,
I actually had a really overall positive experience. That’s one of the reasons I
chose this group and why I chose this topic. I had to have something that would
capture my attention and that I wouldn’t hate when I was done, otherwise I i
wouldn’t have ﬁnished it. I had a very good experience and would do it again,
maybe not something of that magnitude, but I would be excited to teach other
pe0ple how to do it. I remember at my oral defense thinking, “Oh my goodness, I
know how to do research.” You know it was very validating, like all this work
has paid off.
At the end of her journey, Hannah articulated feelings of efﬁcacy and validation. In
addition, she expressed interest in completing future research projects as well as sharing
her experiences with others through teaching. Hannah felt her participation in a research
group contributed to her positive experience during her dissertation journey. She related,
I really attribute my success in getting it done to my research group and my
committee members [who lead the research group]. They had done a qualitative
project, so they really taught me about qualitative methodology and had me read

different things. I learned a lot just from talking to them and then participating in

62

 

other projects before I got to mine. I would also bring interview transcripts to the

group and we would talk about them and look at themes. A lot of dialogue

happened with this project. It was deﬁnitely a collaborative effort. I did not feel

isolated doing this project, which was good.
Hannah’s comments point to two facilitative factors provided by membership in the
research group. The ﬁrst factor is the relational aspect of the research group and the
second factor is the scaffolding or structure provided by the group. Hannah referred to
her journey as collaborative and she emphasized the importance of her relationships with
her fellow group members as well as the leaders of the research group. She even went so
far as to attribute her success to her membership in the group. Her descriptions
demonstrated a real investment in and connection to the group. Cook states, “Women
experience a sense of empowerment or ‘zest’ that derives from relational connection and
provides energy to act in the world” (Cook, 1993, p. 17).

As discussed previously in the review of literature, feminist perspectives on
women’s development have offered a new frame for exploring the centrality of
connection to development (Gilligan, 1982; Jordan, Kaplan, Miller, Stiver, & Surrey,
1991; Miller, 1986a). A number of feminist scholars have used the words ‘connection’
and ‘disconnection’ to refer to ways of knowing or gaining knowledge (Balenky,
Clinchy, Goldberg, and Tarule, 1986; Gilligan, 1982; Miller, 1986a, 1991; and Jordan,
1991). Balenky and her colleagues (1986) describe connected learning as having an
intimacy or relationship between the knower and what is known and suggest that
“connected knowers learn through empathy” (p.115). They suggest that in connected-

knowing groups members feel free to bring ideas that aren’t fully formed to the group

63

 

and trust other members to help nurture and grow their ideas (Balenky, et al., 1986).
Hannah described a process very similar to this “connected way of knowing.”
Speciﬁcally, Hannah identiﬁed having constant feedback from and connection with her
committee and her research group as important to her process.
Having other people read it that were distant from the project was helpful and
then talking to my committee members. We talked a lot about the process in the
group, in terms of how it as going and what I was feeling about it, what the next
step was, all of that. I think just getting some, not even really feedback, but
afﬁrmation was very helpful. Often I was on the right track and I was doing
ﬁne, but I just needed to hear that I was.
Another factor Hannah identiﬁed as helpful was the scaffolding or structure provided by
her research group and her program. Hannah previously described scaffolding in her
research group, where she was ﬁrst encouraged to listen and read, then to participate on
other research projects before ﬁnally embarking on her own research project. In
addition, her program included a step between the proposal and the oral defense called
the “data colloquium.” During this meeting, Hannah was able to present her analysis and
ﬁndings to her committee and get feedback from them which allowed her to “revamp”
and “reorganize” in preparation for her oral defense.
I feel so lucky to have had that structure in place. I didn’t have to create it, it was
already there and I just had to become a part of it I think that’s what students
need. . . .The research group was huge. I wouldn’t be done, I’m sure, because I

don’t know that I’m that self motivated to get it done.

At ﬁrst glance, the subtlety of Hannah’s statement about structure being “what students
need” belies its incisiveness. Although it seems obvious that breaking a larger task down
into smaller more manageable “chunks” would facilitate progress through a project, many
of the students who were interviewed for the current project did not have the beneﬁt of an
existing structure within their program or the guidance of faculty to provide necessary
scaffolding. Hannah’s observation becomes that much more signiﬁcant in contrast to the
descriptions of other participants who lacked the structure she credits with facilitating her
journey. Many of the descriptions of other participants contain allusions to feeling lost,
confused, insecure, or alone.

Hannah described her process as collaborative, however she also acknowledged a
feeling of isolation inherent to her process. She addressed the importance of her
connections to community in remediating these feelings of isolation. Relational theory
posits that “connection involves the respectful negotiation of diﬁerence that facilitates
growth and the emergence of something new (Walker, 2004, p. 9).” This connection
creates a mutually empowering dynamic that facilitates mobilization of energy, resources,
and strengths. The relationship is both the motivation and the vehicle for growth and
development (Jordan, et al., 1991). In this case, Hannah’s relationship with her research
group allowed her to overcome her feelings of isolation and insecurity and to develop a
sense of efﬁcacy and integration into a community.

Getting pretty consistent feedback was very helpful on at least my ﬁrst three

chapters... .It was so helpful to have my committee say, “0k, focus here. You

don’t need to look at all these other extra things.” I think writing a dissertation

can feel so isolating, you know? I’m in my little oﬁice, with my little laptop for

65

hours with all these papers surrounding me and trying to make sense of all this
research that’s already been done. . .So consistent feedback was huge because I
felt pretty insecure that I was totally not on the right track. I had no idea what I
was doing.
Hannah initially joined her research group because she had a colleague in the group who
was having a fun time and this piqued her interest. Additionally, she was unhappy with
her assigned advisor and wanted to transfer to a faculty member who was a better match
for her. Hannah was assigned to her initial advisor during orientation week. The
assignments were made without student input on the process and this was problematic for
Hannah. She related,
I knew going into it I would not do my research under my advisor. That’s kind of
how it works at my school is that you’re assigned to someone but you don’t have
to stay with that person. Once you pick someone new you transfer advisorship.
.. .I knew from our initial interaction that this probably was not going to work
And I didn’t like being put in the position, as a student. . .to explain to one advisor
this is why I’m switching. That just didn’t feel good. It didn’t feel like it should
have been my responsibility. I should have been able to choose what a good ﬁt
was.
Hannah succinctly addressed the paradox many students face; students are often expected
to perform tasks as mature and independent professionals even though they are in
subordinate and dependent positions (Lovitts, 1996). The issue of negotiating advising
relationships is a complex one because of the inherent power dynamics and Hannah was

expected to negotiate the subtle politics of these relationships without the beneﬁt of a

66

safety net, assistance or guidance from others. Female students’ educational needs often
go unmet when they experience a mismatch in learning or teaching style with a mentor or
advisor’s teaching style (Leibenluﬁ, Dial, Haviland, & Pincus, 1993). Although a sub-par
academic experience is an unappealing prospect, addressing the issue of ﬁt with a faculty
member who may continue to be in an evaluative position over the student may seem
equally unappealing. Hannah eventually found a good ﬁt with one of the faculty
members who led the research group she joined, ﬁrmly cementing her membership
within an interconnected academic community. Hannah described her relationship with
new advisor as inseparable from that of the research group.
Part of that relationship [with her advisor] is also the relationship with the
research group as a whole. They were very open to looking at women’s issues
and there was a lot of freedom and dialogue in the group. It was a very safe space
to explore and my dissertation chair was just so knowledgeable and had so much
to offer.
Although Hannah described her advisor/chair as very supportive, respectful, and
empowering, she also acknowledged that their relationship was not immediately smooth
or well deﬁned.
It was interesting and kind of difficult at times to try to know how to navigate that
relationship because we were working closely, but we’re not like friends because
you’re my dissertation chair and you’re a faculty member at my school. So, there
is kind of that power differential but we’re in this very collegial discussion all the

time. We’re not friends, but we kind of interact that way. Then as I progressed

67

through the program and I’m becoming closer and closer to her level, like right

now on internship, the relationship looks different again.
Hannah identiﬁed that it was not just her relationship with her advisor/chair she had to
learn how to negotiate and re-negotiate over time, but her relationship with her research
group. Schramm (2000) refers to this as being “betwixt and between,” or a kind of
marginalization wherein a person experiences a sense of not belonging, or feeling
isolated or alienated from the mainstream (p. 5). However, mentors can facilitate a
meaningful connection within the academic community by creating a participatory space
for students to cultivate their skills and identity (Schramm, 2000). Hannah, was able to
move from this place of “betwixt and between” to a place of self-actualization through
the guidance of her advisor and participation in her research group.

When I started, one of my really good friends was in it, so it was nice to have

someone to ask, how does this work? What are we doing? And to see her go

through the process. . . .When I started I was kind of the underdog, just learning.

I felt like I was just sitting there observing everything and at the end I really could

give my experience to the second years we had coming in to the group.
Hannah began investigating her dissertation research on mentoring, because she had
never had a mentor.

I chose mentoring relationships primarily because I didn’t have them, so it really

intrigued me. It’s something I thought I would have when I started graduate

school and it didn’t happen. I was a little bafﬂed by that and it kind of piqued my

interests. ...I guess I had this ideal that someone would pursue me and say, “Oh, I

want you to further this research” or whatever. That didn’t happen and I didn’t

68

know what to do. I knew there was this aspect of academic life missing and so I
wanted to educate myself about what it looks like. I had ideas about what
mentoring looks like, but I deﬁnitely learned a lot. So it was a kind of void that it
grew out of, this void of something that I didn’t have that I wanted.
Although Hannah described a collaborative experience and good relationships with her
advisor, her committee and her research group, she was still looking for this ‘mentorship’
experience that she called a ‘Void” in her journey.
My hope is that there is a mentor out there for me. I thought about it recently, I
know that I can always touch base with my chair and that she will be available,
but we live 1000 miles apart now and that makes it a little harder... .My
conﬁdence is higher than it was a year and half ago and I learned a ton, but I still
want some guidance.
Summary
On the one hand, Hannah described a nearly ideal journey through her
dissertation. Looking at her journey through the lens of self-in-relation theory, we can
see that Hannah experienced “the ﬁve good things” Miller (1986b) identiﬁed as the
positive outcomes associated with connection. She articulated a feeling of energy or zest
after her defense, an increased sense of efﬁcacy or ability to act, as well as a better sense
of her identity and worth as a researcher and a member of her research group. She
enjoyed supportive relationships with faculty members and peers and had regular
communication with and feedback from her advisor, other committee members and her
research group. In addition, Hannah acknowledged feelings of validation and

competency which resulted ﬁom the completion of the project. On the other hand,

69

Hannah gave voice to feelings of isolation, self-doubt, and insecurity. She identiﬁed that
her own insecurity and lack of motivation might have undermined her ability to complete
her project if she had not had the structure and connection of the research group to use as
a sounding board, support group, and source of accountability during her journey.
Integration is “the extent to which the individual shares the normative attitudes and
values of peers and faculty in the institution and abides by the formal and informal
structural requirements for membership in the community or in the subgroups of which
the individual is a part” (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, p. 53). Integration within a
community is a result of positive or satisfying experiences. Although Hannah did not get
the kind of mentorship that she was looking for during her journey, she did have positive
and satisfying experiences and she was able to ﬁnd connection and integration within the
community provided by the research group. This membership enhanced the quality of her
journey and presents a contrast to many of the other journeys that will follow.
Mid-Range Experiences

This section will present women who had a mid-range experience and will
identify signiﬁcant contributing factors. These experiences do not fall neatly into the
category of ‘neutral,’ rather there are two subsets of the mid-range experiences: 1)
women who experienced an upswing or positive change over time in their journey, and 2)
women who had combination or ambivalent experiences, neither purely positive nor
purely negative. The categories of positive experiences and negative experiences were
identiﬁed by analyzing differences between participants’ descriptions of their journey,
these categories were identiﬁed by also analyzing the differences in descriptions that

evolved within individual interviews. Whereas the women who fell into the categories at

70

the extremes of the spectrum expressed fairly consistent positive or negative feelings, the
women who fell into the midrange category expressed more equivocal or ambivalent
feelings. These women appeared to move ﬁom one end of the spectrum to the other, as
with the women who were identiﬁed as experiencing an upswing, or they jumped back
and forth expressing simultaneous positive, negative, or uncertain feelings.

Upswing Experiences

“Since this committee has come together it ’s kind of renewed my sense of hope
and energy ” — Britt, 34.

Britt began by describing a fairly traumatizing experience. Problems with the
university administration system led to a reorganization of her university and eventual
merger with a second institution. As a result, she was forced to completely reconstitute
her committee with members from the new institution. Prior to these programmatic
changes, Britt had received approval of her dissertation proposal. After the reorganization
she was told her original project would not be acceptable under the guidelines of the new
institution and she would have to re-conceive her entire project. In her own words, she
described this as, “a very, very long, arduous process,” “difﬁcult,” “frustrating,” and
“disappointing.” The introduction and review of literature enumerated the many ways
changes in higher education from “. . .downsizing and underfunding to increased
corporatization” (Lovitts & Nelson, 2000, p. 44) were impacting graduate student’s
experiences, here Britt related the impact the these events had on her,

If I had known the kind of ﬁnancial difﬁculties and administrative problems that

would have occurred, 1 would have chosen a different university. The ﬁrst critical

incident was the bankruptcy and the turmoil and trickle down effect that it had.

71

Even though our department did nothing wrong and our faculty did nothing
wrong, our resources were depressed. We couldn’t make phone calls and we
couldn’t get photocopy paper because we ran out of money. . . to the point where
our machines, our computers, would break down and we couldn’t call service
people to come service them. It had a large trickle down effect and the morale of
the staff and faculty was signiﬁcantly compromised and students who are on the
lowest end of the hierarchy got the brunt of it.
Britt’s description of the instability in her program and her university is a stark contrast to
the order and structure described by Hannah. Not only did Britt not experience
integration into an academic community, she witnessed the complete disintegration of her
program. At the same time the university was going through this turmoil, Britt’s
research mentor and advisor left the university. “She pretty much told me I was on my
own. That meant I couldn’t use any of the data she and I had collected together as part of
our research team.” Britt explained that it was particularly stressful to lose her research
mentor because she had worked with her for four years. In addition, her mentor was part
of the reason Britt had chosen to attend this particular university. Britt described her
mentor as, “very inviting, very open, very energetic. She was wonderful in what she did,
very astute, very knowledgeable.” Britt’s use of favorable terms to describe her mentor
is contradicted by her description of her advisor’s behavior towards her and the eventual
deterioration of their relationship.
A mentee, by deﬁnition, is in a position of less power because mentoring
relationships are “inherently unequal and non-reciprocal” (Schramm, 2000, p.5).

Therefore entering into a mentoring relationship requires more trust on the part of the

72

mentee (Schramm, 2000). Mentoring has frequently been identiﬁed as a strategy for
women to overcome barriers and learn how to negotiate systems, however a closer
examination of mentoring brings these assumptions into question. Research indicates
that when mentoring relationships are available to women, they may not be as signiﬁcant
or useful as they could be (Egan, 1994; Hansman, Mott, Ellinger, & Guy, 2002).
Mentoring is often assumed to be a positive experience and there is some hesitation to
explore the damaging consequences of a negative mentoring experience. As alluded to in
the review of literature, traditional mentoring relationships tend to be hierarchically
structured and this may lead to paternalistic exchanges where the mentor assumes to
know better than their mentees and denies or distorts the lived experience of the mentee.
Additionally, there may be the implied notion that the mentee will uncritically accept the
values and norms modeled for them and become replicas of their mentors (Hansman, et
al., 2002). These negative exchanges effectively serve to silence the mentee.

Power issues are inherent to mentoring relationships, however creating an
awareness and addressing these dynamics can facilitate the mentoring relationship. Britt
described a mentoring experience where these power dynamics were ignored and she was
silenced. She related that her advisor “instilled a sense of competitiveness and
competition among her students.” This competition created conﬂict and resentment
between Britt and the other members of her research group. Britt described working in
an unfunded position on the research team, but being expected to commit the same time
and energy to the project as her funded counterparts. Britt was clearly marginalized in
this research group, however she may have had difﬁculty voicing her ﬁ'ustration or

advocating for herself with someone she held in high esteem or prestige, like her mentor.

73

Many female students tend to underestimate their actual abilities (Alder, 1976; Ekstrom,
Beir, Davis, & Gruenberg, 1981; Hanson, 1992; Hite, 1985). Fear of ridicule and failure
may act as barriers keeping women from achieving at their potential within the academy
(Conners & Franklin, 1999). Tiny mistakes may be used as evidence of their
incOmpetence and they may fear saying ‘no’ to a request from faculty because they want
to avoid the perception that they are unhelpful or unwilling to participate (Conners &
Franklin, 1999). Although she does not identify fears of failure, ridicule, or rejection as
motivation for her actions, Britt clearly felt as though she could not say ‘no’ to her
advisor without feeling some negative repercussions. “Many students come to feel
inadequate and, therefore, may reify and attribute this inadequacy to themselves instead
of the structure of the situation” (Lovitts, 1996).

Although the circumstances are diﬂ'erent, this situation bears some resemblance to
one that Hannah described. Hannah became frustrated when she was put in the position
to negotiate the politics of changing advisorship, however she located her frustration
within a dysfunctional system. Britt appeared to have internalized the conﬂict with her
research group because her response was to work twice as hard in order to be seen as
good enough.

Because of the competitiveness of the group, they started feeling that I wasn’t

pulling my load or wasn’t doing what I needed to so they would tell her things.

She [Britt’s mentor] pretty much took their side of it even though I was getting

my work done. Eventually she said, “Well, you just have to put in your time and

show up just so other people can see that you’re doing work, even if you’re doing

it at another time.” That was the bottom line and I tried to do what I could but it

74

was difﬁcult because they were getting paid to do what they needed to do and I
still had the responsibility to do the work, but I was unpaid. I was expected to be
there above and beyond what I was supposed to be doing and that didn’t sit well
with me. And so, I did less and less work with her and as a result our relationship
deteriorated more and more.
Although Britt was able to articulate that she had been treated unfairly by her advisor, she
continued to work for her because she had invested time and energy into this research
group and she thought she would eventually beneﬁt by being able to use the data from
their research. Britt was in a tenuous position. Regardless of whether or not her mentor
was treating her fairly, Britt was obliged to go along and become complicit in her own
oppression or risk losing access to the research project in which she had already invested
several years of her time and energy. Unfortunately, Britt’s experience with her advisor
was not that unusual. Ervin (1995) found that women graduate students’ mentoring
experiences were often characterized by “ﬁerce negotiation,” infantilization, prejudicial
grading, and silencing resulting from mentors lording “their authority over their subjects”
(p. 447). Students are socialized in programs that emphasize independence and they are
not immune to internalizing messages that they must do things on their own to be seen as
competent. Having to ask for help may be perceived as a sign of vulnerability or
incompetence and therefore students may not reach out for help. Britt was not able to get
the guidance and support she needed from her research mentor and she did not ask for
help ﬁ'om other faculty members. Her negative experiences led to a feeling of
marginalization within the group and as a result she began to withdraw. In previous

chapters, it was asserted that encounters that reduce integration can result in individuals

75

 

distancing themselves from the both the academic and social communities of their
academic programs (Johnson, et al., 1995). Although Britt did distance herself from her
research group and her mentor, she was able to ﬁnd connection outside of her academic
program. Britt related that as her relationship with her research mentor deteriorated, she
began to seek out support and mentorship from other people.
I ended up working in different practicum settings and people understood what
was going on with the school, so when I shared some of my frustrations and
difﬁculties with my supervisors, they took me under their wing and provided
some extra help and support. They said, “Whatever we can do to help you get
through this, we will.” And so, they provided me with resources and emotional
support that I needed. I developed relationships with the supervisors that I
worked with and they kind of served as different types of mentors along the way.
Britt was able to ﬁnd the “resources and emotional support” she needed from her clinical
supervisors during her practica. The signiﬁcance of these connections to Britt’s emotional
health as well as her dissertation journey can not be overstated, as her dissertation topic
resulted from a connection she made with a practicum supervisor. This should not be
seen as a criticism of the academic faculty, rather Britt’s experiences may point to
another facet for understanding counseling psychology students’ journeys. It is important
to consider and understand the implications of clinical work and clinical faculty on the
direction and quality of students’ journeys.
As outlined in the review of literature, the expectations for development of
clinical and research skills in counseling psychology graduate programs are vastly

different, with more emphasis placed on learning clinical skills (Frank, 1984). Because of

76

 

the extensive requirements for supervision of and training in clinical skills, students may
have more frequent and in-depth contact with clinical faculty. Therefore clearly
understanding the role that clinical faculty have along students’ journeys may facilitate
our understanding of how to improve their experiences. Britt described how having the
support of and connection to the counseling center facilitated her journey developing her
research topic.
At that time, I started branching off and working at the counseling center.
Through my work there, I was involved in career exploration workshops, which I
really truly like and believe in. . . .I thought this would make a great research topic
because as I started looking into the area there was very little research or program
evaluations done on career interventions. . .. I got the support of the director of the
counseling center there. We had been running the workshops together, so I knew
that I had a base of subjects and I knew that I had administrative support and
that’s how I came up with the topic.
Although Britt’s story began by describing the deleterious effects of deteriorating
relationships: the deterioration of her relationships with her university, her program, her
dissertation committee, her research mentor, and her research team, she ended the
interview on a much more positive or hopeful note. The upswing in her story occurred
after the reorganization of her university and it was characterized by a re-integration into
the academic community of her new department.
I actually am very optimistic about it. I’m very energized. Like I said, it’s been a
long process but since this committee has come together it’s kind of renewed my

sense of hope and energy. The players are different and the setting is different

77

and it’s just a whole different ballpark and so everything seems like it’s moving at

warp speed, which makes me feel good.

Britt identiﬁed several factors that helped her continue her journey despite the many
challenges she encountered.

I think the main thing is the drive and perseverance to get through... I had an idea

that grad school was not going to be an idealistic experience and that it was going

to be pretty arduous at times and disillusioning and so I came in with low
expectations. I think that helped a lot. It also helped that I really love what I do.

I knew that no matter what it took, I was going to get through it one way or

another, so the perseverance, the drive was also a major factor. Another thing is

that I was resourceful and was able to ﬁnd people who would be supportive, who
had the resources, who would be able to help me. So, utilizing resources and the
support of other people was extremely helpful and the support of friends and
family. I don’t think I could have done it without them.

Summary.

Britt’s story epitomized the idea of positive change over time or an upswing in the
dissertation journey. Although she ended her journey on a positive note, describing
feelings of hope and optimism with her new committee, it does not negate the damaging
. effects of the chaos caused by her university declaring bankruptcy and her mentor
abandoning her. To honor Britt’s lived experience and allow her to give voice to her
story, both the positive and negative aspects must be addressed as both shaped her
journey. Britt’s resiliency and perseverance in seeking out relationships highlighted the

importance of relationships to her journey. Her story also pointed to the importance of

78

understanding power dynamics in relationships at the university level. Many students
who experience negative encounters, marginalization, disconnection, and a lack of
integration into the academic and social community withdraw (Johnson, et al., 1995;
Pascarella &Terenzini, 1991; Tinto, 1993). The factors that might have contributed to
Britt’s withdrawal from her program are obvious and numerous, however it is equally
important to identify the individual, relational, and systems level factors that contributed
to her retention despite her negative experiences. She identiﬁed relationships with her
clinical supervisors as an important facilitating factor on her journey.

The upswing in Britt’s journey did not occur until aﬁer the reorganization of her
university, when she was able to re-constitute her dissertation committee. When asked to
identify factors that facilitated her journey, Britt referred to a number of individual
factors: perseverance, resourcefulness, motivation, and networking skills. These
descriptors are all related to the umbrella concept of resilience, or the ability to bounce
back or recover strength. There is very little doubt that these skills were necessary to
persist in a system as chaotic as the one Britt experienced. However, these skills only
allowed her to maintain the status quo, it was only when her program was re—constituted
under the new university system and she was able to create working relationships with
new committee members that Britt was able to move forward on her journey. These
individual or person-centered factors necessitate the existence of relational and systems
factors to be fully actualized.

The concept of relational resilience may help to shed light on how the individual
and relational come together to facilitate transformation of disconnections. Britt had

experienced a number of disconnections within important relationships, however she was

79

able to transform her experiences and re-connect with the members of her new committee
to form a strong working alliance. Britt began to identify some of the “ﬁve good things,”
feeling energized and having a sense of movement or action, after her committee was
reconstituted (Miller, 1986b). Britt’s description of her work with her original mentor
highlighted the opposite of these feelings, she described feeling confused, disempowered,
and withdrawing from her research group. Britt’s journey reinforced the notion that
relationships were central to the dissertation process and it highlighted the distinction
between the effects of damaging and healing relationships on the process.

“I look at things very diﬂerently now. ” ——Angela, 33.

The second participant who falls into this category is Angela. Angela described
her journey as “a nightmare, it wasn’t even a journey.” There were a number of parallels
between Angela’s and Britt’s journeys. Angela also completed two dissertation projects,
lost her research mentor and had to replace her dissertation chair. Her description of her
journey vacillated between “thoughts of dropping out” and being able to express the
beneﬁts of her experience, “I have a lot to offer. ..this is where my interests are and I feel
like I could be a change agent. I think without writing this dissertation I wouldn’t feel
like I could be a change agent.”

In the end, Angela was able to reframe her experience and focus on the positive
outcome, however during her journey she described feelings of insecurity, abandonment
and isolation that were compounded by her lack of prior research experience. Angela
expressed her frustration regarding a perceived lack of guidance on the part of her

program and her advisor. She related,

80

Just hearing that you had to do a dissertation almost made me not go to graduate
school for a second time. When I got my Master’s degree, I did the option not to
do a thesis because I hate research and so I did comprehensive exams. Then I
found out I had to do a dissertation to get my Ph.D. Because I hate research, I
think I was more scared. So, as I started, I just remember being very anxious
about having to do a dissertation, asking people what it means, what does a
proposal look like? Ihad absolutely no idea. And it was a little frustrating
because not until my third year in the program did we have a research class where
someone ﬁnally showed me a proposal. I’m sitting here going, “Ok, I’m
supposed to be writing what?” So, I have no proposal, no idea ...and I’m like,
“And I write what?” So I was very lost. Everybody else in my program had done
a thesis of some sort, so I’m the only one feeling like a ﬁsh ﬂopping around

going, “I have no idea what I’m doing.”

Angela’s feelings of confusion and insecurity were likely compounded by several factors.

In addition to Angela’s self-identiﬁed fear and hatred of research, her limited previous

experience, and the lack of perceived guidance provided by her program, Angela’s

mentor and advisor left the university as she was getting ready to propose. Angela had

initially decided to attend this particular university because of her connection to her

advisor. She and her advisor both identiﬁed as Native American; however, Angela points

out that some of the challenges she experienced in her relationship with her advisor were

related to cultural differences.

My advisor, she was the reason I went to the university, because she’s Native

American. She is very scattered, very unorganized, and it’s tough because there is

81

some cultural stuff there, as far as time frames. She often ran on what we call
Indian time, which means there was no time. It was tough. I couldn’t pin point
anything down with her. She never gave me a copy of her own dissertation or her
proposal or anything. It was like pulling teeth. At that point, I went to a
colleague and said, “Hey, I know that you’re done with your proposal, can I see
your proposal? Because I don’t know what I need to put in there.” That’s when I
realized that my advisor wasn’t doing everything she needed to be doing.
Austin (2002) noted that students often receive insufﬁcient feedback and mentoring from
faculty related to the fundamental requirements of negotiating their graduate programs,
including “rules, processes, and expectations about comprehensive exams, dissertation
proposals, and doctoral committees” (pp. 105-106). In the absence of this guidance,
students are often forced to rely on their peers for support, as in Angela’s situation. After
consulting with her colleague, Angela began researching her literature review and writing
up her proposal. Angela’s relationship with her advisor continued to disintegrate,
however, which had a signiﬁcant impact on her dissertation journey.
When I actually got a format, I started doing my write up and did all the research
on my instruments and did my lit review and ﬁgured out my methods. I basically
had my ﬁrst three chapters written and I was ready to propose and I didn’t get
feedback on the chapters at all. I was still feeling like I was in the dark. At that
time, I was sitting down with the boxes of data and I realized there was no
standardized testing. They were all done by different people and they were all
scored differently. I felt like this wasn’t going to work. I went and explained to

my advisor what happened and she said, “Oh, I didn’t know that.” The next

82

week after that happened, I found out she was leaving. The only reason I found
out was because I went to her ofﬁce. There were boxes everywhere and I was
like, “What are all these boxes for?” And she said, “Oh, I took a job somewhere
else.” I said, “Now what do I do?” and her comment was, “Well, I could still be
on your committee.” I never heard from her again.

This relational disconnection impacted Angela’s feelings of self-worth, as well as her

progress through her program.
I didn’t know what I was doing with research and knowing that I was depending
on her and to have her just walk out on me, I felt totally abandoned. I felt that I
wasn’t worth the time to sit down and talk to, to even say, “you know I’m having
a really hard time here and I need to look for another job and I have a couple of
offers, but I hate to leave you.” It took about six to nine months before I went
to another advisor. I was just so burned out and so frustrated. . . .I just couldn’t
go there again. Emotionally I was a wreck. I was taking 18-21 credits as it was,
and I said, “I don’t want to redo this.” I thought about dropping out, I’ll just be
ABD and I just won’t do it. It took me six to nine months before I would even
face the tune of having to start all over.

Angela ﬁnally approached the training director of the program to discuss her dilemma.

Angela initially attributed her struggles in graduate school to internal factors, her lack of

prior experience and training in research and low self-efficacy. If she had continued to

blame herself and had not recognized the more complex interaction of institutional and

individual factors, Angela might not have been able to express her concerns. Lovitts

83

(1996) found that students who were able to “give voice to their discontent” (p. 11) were
more likely to persist in their programs than students who remained silent.

I felt like I could go to him and be able to say, “I’m really pissed that this

happened to me. I need to get through this program. You’re the training director,

and you know what? You need to help me.” I put it more on someone else to help
me because I got screwed in this deal. At that point, I think he realized, “Wow.

We have someone that’s going to be in their fourth year and hasn’t done

anything.” The heat was on. It happened to be an opportune time that we were

having this discussion as he’d been working on designing his research that he was
going to be doing when he was on sabbatical. Which was a whole ‘nother thing,
he was going on sabbatical.

Angela’s journey to this point was a struggle, she described feeling isolated,
abandoned, and frustrated. She felt as though she was the “only one” who was struggling
with the research requirements and she lacked guidance ﬁ'om her advisor or any other
faculty in the department. Angela not only failed to experience integration into or
connection to the academic community of her department, she felt her advisor had
rejected her. The literature suggests integration or membership in the academic
community is important to persistence and by Angela’s own admission, she contemplated
dropping out of her program (Lovitts & Nelson, 2000; Tinto, 1993). Angela did persist,
though; she was able to positively reframe her initial struggles and give meaning to her
experiences. Angela identiﬁed several factors which contributed to persistence and
eventual success in her journey to complete her dissertation. One factor was connecting

with the people who became the co-chairs of her dissertation committee, her training

84

director, Dr. X, and a Native American faculty member from another department, Dr. Y.

Angela related that she relied heavily on Dr. Y during this process because Dr. X was on

sabbatical.
She gave me so much feedback. It usually took about a week, but she was on it as
soon as I turned something in. She wrote it all up and sent it back to me with
examples... .I mean very concrete examples and I think having that encouraged
me that I could make this happen. . .I was very, very tight with Dr. Y. I was her
research assistant, so we talked a lot about culture, about deadlines, about how it’s
hard to ﬁgure out how to be respectful to your Native culture and work in a
Western world with these deadlines. That was probably the most beneﬁcial thing,
having that relationship with her and being able to talk about how my culture
doesn’t really push me to have certain deadlines, and how to approach my culture
from a research perspective. . ...Dr Y was wonderful. She gave me a lot of help
about talking to elders ﬁrst before I go to the tribal committee. She did a lot of
that type of mentoring. There were times when we went to dinner or we would
meet for coffee or something. She made herself available to me no matter how
busy she was. She would always get back to me. I could call her and I would
know I would have a call back within 24 hours, even if it was just her saying
“Angela, I’m really busy, I’ll give you a call tomorrow.” There was something,
some sort of contact. That was pivotal.

Tinto (1993) suggests that frequent contact with faculty is important to student’s

academic persistence. Although classroom contact is important, “encounters which go

beyond the mere formalities of academic work to broader intellectual and social issues

85

and which are seen by students to be warm and rewarding appear to be strongly
associated with continued persistence” (Tinto, 1993, p. 57).

In addition to her relationship with Dr. Y, Angela also identiﬁed relationships
with other signiﬁcant people in her environment as critical. Angela related that she
became very close with two of her colleagues and they created a safe space where they
could all support each other. She also got support from her clinical supervisor during her
practicum.

I had two very, very close colleagues in my cohort. We had a group we called the

“Bitch Group” where we could just come together and scream and yell and

whatever and talk about, “Ok, this is what I attempted to do and this is how I fell

on my face.” It was really nice to have somebody else going through the process
to get feedback from... .My supervisor at the counseling center always checked in,
every single week, asking, “How’s the dissertation going? How’s your research
going? How can I be helpful?” ...It was a really supportive environment like
that. . .It all comes back to relationships and it comes back to respect and it was
inside my program and outside.
A second factor Angela identiﬁed as helpful was creating a structure for herself to guide
her journey through the writing process. Unlike Hannah, who was able to utilize the
existing structure of her program and research groups, Angela had to create her own
structure.

Once I got the template from my girlﬁ'iend, it was pretty much outlined. I went

and I looked up some old dissertations from different departments at our

university on this style and how they wrote. I was one of the only qualitative ones

86

in our department, so I didn’t have much to look at from our department What I
did was just kind of mush all that together.. . .I outlined it and then with each
article I read, I put them on a 6x9 ﬂashcard and I would write the title, the topics,
and how I want to use it in my dissertation. I had things organized by headings
and then I would go to my cards and I would ﬁnd the article that it related to and I
just kept writing. . .I felt very organized in the process. Doing the analysis was
very difﬁcult. That was very diﬂemnt because I didn’t have a lot of help on the
analysis part as far as ﬁguring out how I was going to set it up. While I was on
internship I went and talked with somebody who was the qualitative guru and he
gave me a copy of one of the dissertations be chaired and sat down with me and
talked about how I could make it ﬂow. That was so helpful because from that I
got a structure of what I needed to do, so once again I had a template.
Much like Britt’s description of her journey from chaos to optimism, we see a vacillation
between two extremes with Angela. Unlike Britt, though, Angela was able to give voice
to her frustrations and locate some of the responsibility for her problems within the
university system. While Britt may have had many reasons to withdraw from her
program, Angela actually gave voice to this issue. Her negative experiences, isolation,
abandonment, confusion, insecurity, and lack of integration or connection culminated in
Angela actively considering dropping out of her program. Half of all doctoral students
who leave the university without completing their dissertation do so because of poor
relationships with their advisors or another committee member (J acks, Chubin, Portoer,

& Connolly, 1983).

87

Although she recognized her advisor was not “doing everything she needed to be
doing,” it was not until her advisor actually left the university and “abandoned” her that
Angela began to contemplate leaving. Angela’s relationship with her ﬁrst advisor had
been damaging as a result of processes and outcomes that were “power laden, frequently
unexamined, and uncritically applied” (Mott, 2002, p. 10). Angela was able to give
meaning to her experience and connect with a community, which allowed her to move
from a point of fatigue, disempowerment, confusion, low-self worth, and withdrawal to a
point of experiencing the “5 good things” (Miller, 1986b).

Angela’s resilience enabled her to seek connections with Dr. Y and Dr. X, and
connecting with them enabled her to experience feelings of increased energy,
productiveness, efﬁcacy, self-worth, and clarity. This distinction can be seen in the
contrast between the descriptions Angela gave of her emotional state when she found out
her mentor was leaving the university and her emotional state when she was working
with Dr. Y. The upswing in Angela’s journey is most clearly highlighted in her
description of her current view of herself as a researcher.

I look at things very differently now... I recognize that I have a lot to offer and I

didn’t realize the knowledge that I had actually gained about research in ﬁve

years. I realize I have a lot of knowledge that I can give to people...

Summary.

Angela’s story of her journey, much like Britt’s, centralized the need to examine
power dynamics in faculty/student relationships. Both of these women indicated their
decision for attending their particular university was inﬂuenced by the opportunity to

work with their advisor. Clearly these advising relationships carried enormous power

88

and enormous potential for abuse. Relational theory posits self esteem is related to “the
degree of emotional sharing, openness, and shared sense of understanding and regar ”
and that guilt and shame result from failed mutual relationships (Surrey, 1991, p. 57).
These failures in mutual relationships can be re-mediated and re-integrated as “challenges
for further relational growth” if women are able to connect with other growth promoting
relationships (Surrey, 1991, p. 57). Both Britt and Angela were able to make meaning
out of the challenges they experienced during their journeys once they were able to
connect with other signiﬁcant relationships.

In addition, Angela repeatedly articulated a need for structure and guidance.
“Many doctoral students ﬁnd it difﬁcult to make the transition from the structure of the
classroom environment to the lack of structure of the dissertation” (Williams, 1997, p.
16). Angela clearly found this transition difﬁcult, however she was dogged in seeking out
organizing structures ﬁ'om peers or outside faculty when she could not get what she
needed from within her program. This pattern was repeated in Gina’s journey, which will
be examined next.

“I feel like I could win that award for most improved” — Gina, 31.

Gina is the third, and ﬁnal, participant who described an upswing in her journey.
Gina’s dissertation explored the question of why young people who are not married stay
in violent relationships. Using longitudinal data, she applied two theoretical perspectives,
investment model and attachment theory, to examine her question. When asked to
describe her journey though the dissertation process, Gina had this to say,

It was a hard journey. I mean it was a long journey.... I found the journey to be

challenging because, in my program, I felt like my advisor was helpful in a

89

number of ways and then he wasn’t helpful in a number of ways. There were
times when I felt like I was kind of out on my own in the process. He was helpful
in that we would meet and talk about, where are you going with that, what are
your steps, setting goals, that kind of thing. .. But I felt like he wasn’t available
very often to meet with me.
Unlike Angela, Gina did have prior research experience and she compared her journey
through the dissertation to experience she had while she was an undergraduate.
I thought back to my undergrad and I did an undergrad research project and I had
an advisor and we met one hour each week. I mean we had a time the whole year,
my senior year, and the project went beautifully. She really worked through the
process with me and I felt like he was pretty unavailable for that kind of stuﬂ', in
terms of thinking through questions, the statistics of it, or how do I analyze this or
how do I get through the tougher spots. I felt like I was a little bit out on my own.
That made the process challenging but at the same time, in some ways, I think I
learned through trial by ﬁre.
The contrast between Gina’s perceptions of her undergraduate and graduate research
experiences emphasized a nuance of the research training environment that was not
explored in the previous participants’ stories. Gina’s prior research experience did not
make it easier for her to do research at the graduate level, rather it seemed to add to her
confusion and insecurity. In her study of graduate school attrition, Lovitts (1996, p.2)
found that “in all instances” non-completers “indicated that they had closer, warmer, and
more personal and intellectually exciting interactions” with their undergraduate faculty.

She suggested that undergraduate students who are more integrated into the academic

90

community may develop the expectation that they will experience the same level of
integration at the graduate level and become disillusioned when this does not occur
(Lovitts, 1996). Gina expressed this disillusionment and, similar to Angela, she gave
voice to feelings of abandonment and isolation. Women value long term relationships and
their sense of competence and effectiveness are tied to relational connections (Miller,
1991). Surrey stated this mutuality is a “fundamental aspect of learning” (1991, p.58).
This is reﬂected in Gina’s description of her undergraduate experience and Gina made it
clear that she considered her relationship with her graduate advisor to be a fundamental
aspect of her learning process and dissertation journey. She expressed hurt and
frustration when he encouraged her to get a new dissertation chair the year he went on
sabbatical. Gina remarked that she felt if she could not depend on him to help her, she
did not know who she could turn to for guidance.
In my second year I kind of started thinking through the idea and in my third year
I really started putting it to work, writing up my lit review and all that stuff. I
think it was after that year that he [her advisor] was going to go on sabbatical. He
sat me down in the ofﬁce with him and I mean we had gone through the oral
paper and all this stuff and he was saying, “I don’t know if you’d want to get a
different advisor.” I was so livid. I was like, “You are not dropping me now, I’m
sorry if you are going on sabbatical.” He had gone this far and I felt like who
could I get to help me out with this process? He stayed with me, but it was kind of
like he wasn’t with me that year.
Her sense of abandonment and isolation became a central organizing factor in Gina’s

description of her journey. It was clear that her perceived loss impacted her experience in

91

a negative way. This encounter reduced her sense of integration in the academic
community as she felt disconnected from the one person in the academy whom she relied
on to provide her access to resources, support in negotiating challenges, and guidance
through the process of writing a dissertation. Additionally, this disconnection sent the
message that she was not worth her advisor’s investment of time or resources. Women
often feel unsupported in their writing and research pursuits and have more diﬁculty
accessing mentoring experiences to prepare them for this work (Nicoloff & Forrest,
1988)
A signiﬁcant factor was when my advisor tried to dump me basically. I mean he
said, “I don’t know, you may want to get someone else.” I think at that point I
felt I was right in the middle of the process and I felt like I’d lost a lot of support.
I felt like I didn’t know who I could go to if he wasn’t going to be there and I
guess it also said to me, he’s not that interested, he’s not that invested in what I’m
doing. That was a frustrating point to me. I felt abandoned.
Recovery from damaging relational experiences requires a connection with someone who
can “bear affective witness to earlier wounds, and in so doing, to introduce a potentially
new relational outcome in the present” (Rosen, 2004, p. 53). As we saw in Britt and
Angela’s stories, they were able to heal from their damaging disconnections and reframe
their experiences by fostering mutually empathic relationships with other faculty
members. This pattern was also evident in Gina’s journey. Gina was able to connect
with a faculty member from another department who could provide her with guidance

and support she did not receive from her advisor.

92

The saving grace of this was that a guy on my committee, Dr. A, basically stepped
in the summer prior. I told him my advisor was going to be on sabbatical. Dr. A
is one of the PPS on the project that I was using their data and I was actually
working on the project. He said, “I will step in and take that role for you, of your
advisor.” Even though he wasn’t my advisor and he didn’t have to do that. That
was probably one of the biggest things in getting me through the process, him
stepping in and taking more of a role than my advisor. In some ways I almost
think of him as my advisor even though he wasn’t.
In part, Gina attributed her success in completing her dissertation to her relationship with
Dr. A. Gina’s description reinforced the signiﬁcance of connection to her experience, it
also pointed to her personal resiliency. Much like Britt and Angela, when faced with a
disconnection from one signiﬁcant relationship, Gina sought out other people in the
academic community to connect with
Gina clearly identiﬁed the structure and scaffolding provided by her program as a
facilitating factor. This is similar to the experience described by Hannah, the distinction
is that Gina lacked the relational connection to the research group that enhanced
Hannah’s experience.
The one thing I think that was an advantage about our program is they almost in
some ways, set it up so that you’re going to be doing little chunks of it. We have
an oral exam or oral defense and what that consists of was writing our literature
review and defending it. Presenting it and defending it in front of three members
of your committee. . .Then the next step is the prospectus... .You write your

proposal, which is basically like some of your introduction and your literature

93

review and then your methods and you defend that too. That ends up being what
they call a working meeting. So, really, you defend it and they’ve read it and they
kind of say, is this a good plan in terms of data collection and data analysis? And
if so, you can go for it and write up your results and discussion. . .. We had to do a
pre-dissertation proj ect. . .They have you do it, I think, to get a sense of the
dissertation and what it’s like. Basically you present and you end up with like a
20 page paper that’s sort of like a journal article. It’s just a brief study and they
don’t expect the study to be as complex as your dissertation. The ideal is to have
it on the same topic, maybe even do a pilot study or something like that.
Although Gina identiﬁed the structure of her program as an “advantage” along her
journey, she seemed to stall when it came to the actual writing process. Gina’s lack of
connection and integration into the academic community seemed to have contributed to
her inability to access necessary resources or guidance to facilitate her journey. Gina’s
difficulties along her journey culminated not in thoughts of dropping out, like Angela, but
in a “break down.” Her breakdown, however, was a pivotal incident that contributed to
the upswing in her journey.
My goal for the summer was to write my literature review. I had done a lot of
reading and research over the whole year and it got to be August and I still hadn’t
started writing. I was busy with other things, through July I was doing a
practicum. I was busy and all of a sudden it was August ﬁrst and I was like “Oh
no! I was going to write my oral this summer.” I actually wrote it in a month

because I ﬁnally just had a break down. I was like, I don’t know if I can do this.

94

The enormity of the project seemed to immobilize and overwhelm Gina She expressed
feelings of loneliness, confusion, and despair during this leg of her journey and she was
the disconnected from the necessary structures to support her through her journey. This
inability to connect with someone to process her experiences left Gina “betwixt and
between” (Schramm, 2000, p. 5). She articulated feelings of isolation or alienation from
her advisor and academic community during this process. Gina did not have the
guidance of a mentor or advisor to facilitate her connection to the academic community
or the development of her research skills or identity. However, it was connection with a
signiﬁcant relationship that allowed Gina to overcome her “stuckness” and engage in the
writing process. Much like Hannah, Gina expressed a need for validation during this
process. This validation may be especially important to female students who often
underestimate their actual abilities (Alder, 1976; Ekstrom, et al., 1981; Hanson, 1992;
Hite, 1 985).
I just kind of lost it. I felt like, I mean it’s like my cohort and I would talk about
this, you know, page one line one. You know that sort of phenomenon, like I’ve
got this whole paper to write and I haven’t started and you sit with this cursor
blinking and you haven’t started. I think my summer kind of felt like that. It’s
just this big thing sitting there and I felt really stuck, like I couldn’t get started. I
think I felt like I didn’t have a lot of help. I didn’t have someone to just sit with
me and talk me through it. My advisor was not there for me to process really and
that’s when I just kind of broke down to my boyfriend. I kinda felt like I need,
this is my process, and I need to do this by myself. He just sat down and said

would you like me to walk you through or talk you through it? ...Within 20

95

minutes we had and outline. .. He was like, you had the information, you just

needed someone to get you started. That was so critical because it felt like I had

support and someone to kind of push me to get started.
Gina identiﬁed ﬁnding someone with whom she could talk through her process as an
critical facilitating factor along her journey. Gina seemed to crave the connected
learning environment that was so readily available to Hannah In the absence of this
environment, Gina experienced the opposite of the “5 good things” (Miller, 1986b). Her
relationship with her boyfriend, who was also a counseling psychology doctoral student,
was the connection that ﬁnally allowed Gina to move toward completion of her journey.
However, even in this relationship, Gina had difﬁculty asking for help and expressed the
sentiment that because it was her project, she needed to do it by herself.

Students are socialized in programs that emphasize independence and they
internalize the message that they must do things on their own to be seen as competent.
“Many students come to feel inadequate and, therefore, may reify and attribute this
inadequacy to themselves instead of the structure of the situation” (Lovitts, 1996). Gina
seemed torn between wanting to connect with someone to talk about her project and
feeling obligated to complete the project on her own.

I actually sat down with my boyfriend, who’s actually also in counseling

psychology and research is his thing. He loves it and he’s so good at it. I just sat

down and it’s like, I feel like I don’t know where to go, what direction and he just

talked to me and asked me questions. We came up with an outline in about 20

minutes of how I was going to write it. He was like, you’ve got all the

information, you just needed someone to talk you through. ...Once you have an

96

outline and know what you’re doing, the writing seemed to just come out, almost.
I got a lot of help from my boyfriend. I always kind of joke that he’s sort of my
co-advisor or committee member or something.
Although Gina’s journey through her dissertation was not what she had expected given
her prior research experience, she was able to put her experiences into perspective.
I think, for me, I’ve learned a lot in this process. I don’t love it (research). I
couldn’t see my self being a professor, like having research as a part of my job
and as a pressure. I think if you have the right support that’s an important thing.
Gina’s perception of research doesn’t set her apart, however her perception of herself as a
result of her journey is interesting.
This is going to sound like a weird analogy, but I feel like when I was back in
junior high. I went to this volleyball camp and I was no where near the level of
most of the other people at the camp. I won the award at the end for most
improved. I kind of feel like I could win the award for most improved now
because in some ways I started out somewhat na'ive when I look back at what
information I didn’t have and I went through a lot of it kind of alone, more so than
a lot of people, I had to ﬁgure out a lot of things about myself. So, as a
researcher, I feel like I’ve learned a lot and I’ve persevered. ...There were times in
the process where I vowed I would never do research again, I will be just
perfectly honest. But, then I got to the end, to the defense, and during that
process, it was such a positive experience. It was just a great discussion and you
realize there are still so many things you’re curious about and so by the end, I

thought this is something I could do again, but deﬁnitely not full time.

97

Summary.

Much like Angela and Britt, Gina’s description of her journey ended on a much
more positive note than it began. Gina’s defense was a positive and validating
experience and seemed to contribute to a change in the way she viewed research as a
product and herself as a researcher. This reinforced the importance and signiﬁcance of
validating experiences to women’s perceptions of their journeys. Further, Gina’s journey
supports the central notion of power in advising and mentoring relationships along with
the potential for knowingly or unknowingly abusing power in these relationships. Gina
related that her advisor telling her she should consider asking someone else to chair her
dissertation indicated to her, accurately or not, that her advisor was not interested or
invested in her or her project. This event seemed to signify the beginning of Gina’s
decent toward her “breakdown.” The upswing in Gina’s journey did not occur until she
was able to make a connection with someone who could guide her and facilitate creating
a structure for her project.

The women in this section described strong emotions on both ends of the
spectrum, from abandonment, isolation, and insecurity at the beginning of their journeys
to optimism, validation, and energy at the end of their journeys. This experience is
different from the women in the next section who seem to equivocate or express
ambivalence throughout their journeys.

Ambivalent Experiences
“1 go back and forth between ﬁzeling air about it and then just being tired of it” —

Deva, 2 7.

98

Deva’s dissertation was a repertory grid evaluation of courage. Deva did not
express any strong feelings about her dissertation or her process during our interview.
Many times she seemed to hesitate or backpedal during her answers. This is most clearly
demonstrated when she was asked if she felt the positive psychology concepts she was
interested in researching related to her dissertation journey. Deva begins by saying she
thinks resiliency and courage might be related to the process but ends by saying she
hopes she can “muster up some kind of something” to get herself through. When she is
discussing the dissertation as an abstraction, something outside of her own process she is
able to use the positive psychology terminology; as soon as she begins talking about
herself, however, she drops the references to courage, resiliency or perseverance and just
refers to “something.”

Yeah, I think, I guess it takes some, I don’t know if it’s just like resiliency or

perseverance. It could be like one form of courage. I mean I guess it takes some

of that. At times, where people talk about people who haven’t ﬁnished or, you
know, who go through everything but don’t get their degree because of their
dissertation, it’s like I’ve started to understand that. Because it’s like, I can see
why that would happen. At this point I just don’t want it to drag on, so at this
point I am trying to will myself to ﬁnish it and at this point it’s like just really
trying to get myself to, I guess that hopefully I’ll be able to muster up some kind
of something to get myself through this and stick with it.

Part of Deva’s ambivalence seemed to emanate from her conﬂicting experiences between

other research projects and her dissertation.

99

I think I feel good overall. I think, I wouldn’t want, I feel ok about this, I guess,
dissertation wise. I mean I think I go back and forth between feeling ok about it
and then just being tired of it and not that happy with it. I think that wanting to
kind of separate that from any other research I do. It doesn’t have to be the same
way or the same kind of feeling, you know? I think it was good to have had an
experience before this in grad school, like a more positive experience. I feel like I
have had good opportunities to work with some of the other students in our
program and my advisor and some other people, so, just feeling more positively
about it in some other instances. Hopefully there’ve been a couple things we’ve
done this year that were good and kind of different, but it’s good to see how
research can help, you know, in a real clinical setting. So I think I feel good
about it, like I would want to continue in some ways when I’m working.
This is similar to Gina’s description, in the previous section, of the difference between
her undergraduate experience doing research and her experience completing her
dissertation. Deva described attempting to compartmentalize her dissertation journey
from other research projects she has completed. She identiﬁed instances of working with
other people, both peers and faculty, on research projects that had been more positive
experiences. This reinforced the assertion made in the review of literature that the
dissertation has not changed or evolved in the same way research or the scientiﬁc process
has changed or evolved within the academy and the larger scientiﬁc community. Peer
support and group collaboration have come to be seen as integral parts of the scientiﬁc
process in many academic communities (Krumboltz, 2002). In addition, greater research

productivity has been evidenced in training environments that “provided more

100

encouragement and supportive services for research... and were more likely to involve
students in a research experience or apprenticeship with a faculty member” (Galassi, et
al., 1987, p. 43). The dissertation, however, continues to be conceived of as an
individual, necessarily isolating endeavor.

In contrast to her vague and ambivalent description of her dissertation journey,
Deva’s description of her relationship with her advisor is much more coherent and
concrete.

He probably seemed open, you know, he was willing to take me on and have new

ideas for things to go into. I think, too, it made it easy because he’s from an area

where I come from in the South, so it was kind of like he knows about where I

come from and just those kinds of connections were sort of nice. I think overall

he was real Open and easy going and, you know, fun to be around and work with.

You know, it was just kind of fun to work with him. I didn’t feel uncomfortable.

...lt’s good. I think it’s real congenial, just like where you get along well and I

feel pretty comfortable asking for help or going to him with things. Even outside

of dissertation stuff he’s been helpful. . .I feel like he’s been real open as far as
like when I need something, you know, he makes time for it. Finding the time to
talk on the phone or I went back there in March and we got together.
Deva highlighted the importance of connection in her description of her relationship with
her advisor. Tinto (1993) has suggested that contact with faculty that goes beyond the
formalities of academic work to touch on social issues and is perceived as warm by

students contributes to continued persistence. Deva related that her advisor had been

101

open to helping her with issues outside of the dissertation, like internship and job search,
and this contributed to a comfortable, congenial relationship.

I think it was a real collaborative process with my advisor. We had been working

on courage, just in different ways, since like, I think the year that I started the

program and so you know we worked on it in different ways and then probably
last year, like last fall, I guess early in the fall, we started talking more about
dissertation and how could I do something different with courage. Really, he
initially had the idea to look into the repertory grid and personal construct
psychology. That was his idea initially and he didn’t know a lot about it. .. Based
on that suggestion, I kind of went into looking more at that, you know, what does
it involve? ...He had a big part in choosing the route, but I guess just the overall
topic.

Deva referred to her dissertation journey as a collaborative process with her
advisor. She gave her advisor credit for helping her decide on the topic and the direction
of the project. However, this support and collaboration did not appear to enhance Deva’s
sense of efﬁcacy or energy in completing the project. Deva related that she was tired of
the project and hoped she could “muster up some kind of something” to get herself
through her journey.

Despite her positive description of her connection to her advisor and the academic
community, Deva did not manifest any of Miller’s (1986b) “ﬁve good things.” Rather,
she described a drop in energy, a lowered sense of self worth and decreased ability to act.

Much of Deva’s actual writing process, however, occurred while she was on internship,

102

several states away from her advisor and her academic community. This geographic
disconnection may have contributed to Deva’s ambivalence about her journey.

Unlike the women in the previous section, Deva never experienced a change or
upswing in her perception or feelings about her journey.

I think it’s just been a challenge to ﬁnd time to devote to it. So in a way that’s

probably my fault for not making it or dedicating more time to it or making it a

higher priority. Maybe I don’t treat it like that because, you know, work takes up

so much of my time....But it’s tough to think about like with internship ﬁrst and
job search again, like as far as how to talk about it with people or especially when
you feel like frustrated with it or not conﬁdent really and the timing or where it’s
going to go but then with certain positions you need to have it done by a certain
time and you have to kind of project some kind of conﬁdence that it’ll be done.

It’s like a real dichotomy. Like you can feel not very conﬁdent about it, but you

have to say something or project something different.

Summary.

Gina highlighted a central paradox of her dissertation journey, whether or not she
felt conﬁdent in her project or her skills, as some situations, like job interviews, required
her to demonstrate a certain amount of conﬁdence in her project. As was alluded to
earlier, women students often underestimate their actual abilities which may contribute to
a diminished sense of self worth and efﬁcacy (Alder, 1976; Ekstrom, et al., 1981;
Hanson, 1995; Hite, 1985). Additionally, in their study of mentoring female graduate
students, Connors and Franklin found that women students “feel overwhelmed by all that

they must accomplish” (1999, p. 12). Gina expressed this sentiment through her

103

frustration in attempting to balance working on her dissertation with her internship
responsibilities and job search process. Gina’s geographic distance from her advisor, the
pressure of time constraints, and her lack of conﬁdence in her research project served as
disconnections and barriers along her journey.

Connors and Franklin (1999) assert that there are four levels of female-culturally-
related barriers to research, women feel disconnected: 1) ﬁ'om the research component
graduate school, 2) as a result of their perception of faculty bias against women students,
3) due to time constraints, and 4) because of a lack of conﬁdence in their research ability.
Through the lens of self-in-relation theory, Deva experienced a mutually empowering
relationship with her advisor, however she did not describe experiencing the “ﬁve good
things” that are potential outcomes of connection along her dissertation journey. It is
possible the support and comfort this relationship provided may have been overwhelmed
by the other perceived obstacles along Deva’s journey, resulting in confusion and
ambivalence about the journey. Signiﬁcantly, unlike the other women who experienced
various disconnections in their journeys, Deva did not describe reaching out and
connecting with others as a way of remediating or healing her disconnections.

My dissertation wasn ’t that hard for me because...I went through the crap with
my thesis -— Ellie, 32.

Ellie is the second and ﬁnal participant to fall into the category of ambivalent.
Ellie’s dissertation explored health compromising behaviors in American Indian
Adolescents. She attributed her ease in negotiating her journey through the dissertation
process to her prior experience with research. In part, her story reﬂected the feelings of

learning through trial by ﬁre that Gina talked about in her journey. Ellie was socialized

104

to her program’s values and expectations through her experience writing her Master’s
thesis and this taught her that there were implicit rules guiding her graduate experience.
One of the rules was that Ellie would be on her own for much of her journey and her
faculty would provide only tangential support or guidance. A second rule was that
students in the program do not have problems and if they do, they take care of the
problems on their own without help ﬁ'om the program. Ellie’s perception that these
“rules” were operating assumptions of her graduate program signiﬁcantly impacted her
journey.

Ellie simultaneously described experiencing disconnection, anger and frustration
and connection, efﬁcacy, and investment over the course of her journey. She often.
seemed to contradict herself as she told her story. Ellie described her advisor as helpful
but then speciﬁed that he was helpful with statistics and related numerous occasions
when she sought out guidance or resources and did not receive them from her advisor.
She described her mentor as family and stated that her advisor created a safe space for her
talk. However, Ellie related that her experience in her program was so frustrating and
challenging that she contemplated dropping out a number of times and her only source of
motivation for getting through the program was her wife.

Ellie described her dissertation journey as “not that bar ” but stated she felt
inadequate as a researcher at the end of the process. This equivocation, although
different from the ambivalence expressed by Deva, is the characteristic that groups her
into this category.

I think the start of my dissertation was not that hard because I had already gone

through my thesis and my dissertation was a continuation of that. Starting my

105

thesis was a pain in the ass because I didn’t know what I was doing. I’d never
been in graduate school before and no one in my family had ever been in graduate
school before, so that was kind of hard. My professors weren’t very helpful in
guiding me. They were helpful in nagging me and asking when I was going to
have it done. I started getting frustrated because I didn’t ﬁnd a lot of help in
deciding what to do or how to do it or how to schedule my time. I’d never written
a 200 page paper in my life. I kind of ﬁgured out with my thesis that I was going
to have to do it by myself and that’s part of the reason why for my dissertation I
went with the same topic because I already kind of knew what I was doing and it
would be very easy to move on. I knew how to do it myself at that point and my
chair was helpful. He especially helped with the statistics and he was very good
at my defense, at actually defending me and not having it get bigger than it had to
be.. . .School is a big game. You have to ﬁgure out the rules. You have to ﬁgure
out who you need to talk to. I always talked to the secretaries. . ..I started to ﬁgure
out who actually knows stuff and I started to ﬁgure out at that time that I didn’t
have to be perfect. My program kind of implicitly stated that psychologists don’t
have any problems and if you’re having problems, that’s your problem and you

need to ﬁx it.

Ellie’s perception that she should not have any problems or at least not express that she

was experiencing difﬁculty is not uncommon. Mistakes or vulnerabilities may provide

faculty or other students with evidence of incompetence that could be used against a

student (Connors & Franklin, 1999). Fear of ridicule or failure may prevent women

students from pursuing necessary support from their faculty (Connors & Franklin, 1999).

106

In Ellie’s case, she ended up seeking out counseling from another on campus agency.
This, however, put her in the uncomfortable position of working with her cormselor
during her practicum the next year. Ellie expressed frustration because she received no
guidance or support within her program to ﬁnd mental health services.

None of them ever said anything about, maybe you need to get into counseling

yourself, we can refer you out of the department. That was never mentioned in

the ﬁve years that I was there. So, I had to seek out my own counseling on

campus. . .then the next year I was there and worked with the guy who had been

my counselor. But I couldn’t afford anything else because I was a student.
Ellie’s desire to seek out counseling marginalized her within her program. Not only did
she admit to having a problem that she needed help with, but she violated the implicit
rules of her program in seeking out help. Ellie was in the tenuous position of choosing
between marginalizing herself in her academic community by seeking out help or
struggling through her issues without the beneﬁt of outside support and remaining
complicit in her own oppression. In previous chapters it was stated that encounters that
result in marginalization or reduce integration can result in withdrawal from the academic
and social community and may impact persistence (Johnson, et al., 1995; Tinto, 1993).
Ellie identiﬁed that there were a number of points in her program when she “seriously
considered just quitting.”

In previous sections, it has been asserted that students are often expected to
perform as mature and independent professionals even though they are in subordinate and
dependent positions (Lovitts, 1996). Ellie articulated her sense of frustration at being put

in that position. Her advisor required her to act as a professional and know what it was

107

she needed to complete her dissertation despite never having completed a project of that
magnitude previously. Ellie appreciated her advisor’s straightforward demeanor and
described her relationship with him as “cas ”. However, she appeared to have
difﬁculty getting her needs met in her relationship with her advisor as she was not able to
get the support, guidance, or resources from him that she desired.
I started talking to him about what I needed to do and he thought it was really
interesting and so he got a hold of that and he was interested in hearing what I had
to say and hearing me out and that kind of thing. . . [our relationship was] very
casual. We would meet at lunch time and he would be eating his lunch in his
ofﬁce and he told me right up front I will do whatever you want me to do, but you
need to let me know what that is and you need to do your end of it. I am not
going to come after you. I’m not going to push you. I’m not going to nag you.
You make the appointments. You get done what you need to get done. You show
up for all those and I will work my butt off for you. So he made it clear what was
expected of me and I appreciated that.
Ellie was able to tap into both formal and informal mentoring networks to get guidance
and support along her journey. She related that some of the most important advice she
received about the dissertation process was from informal contacts with faculty.
1 did get some advice and I don’t think the people who said it even know what it
meant to me. One professor said to just get something on paper to start, even if
it’s just a sentence because if it’s all in your head then you’re never going to get
anywhere. So I started. I got a general idea and then I started doing the lit review

and so I just kind of took it one piece at a time. I also got advice from another

108

professor who said “there are two kinds of dissertations, those with perfect
dissertations and those with ﬁnished dissertations. That kind of helped me to see
that it doesn’t have to be that big of a deal.
Ellie’s most signiﬁcant connection to the academic community was with her mentor.
Similar to Britt and Angela, Ellie identiﬁed that the reason she chose to attend this
particular university was because of the opportunity to work with Dr. B. There was also
a cultural component to Ellie’s interest in working with Dr. B. Ellie identiﬁed culturally
as multi-racial, White and American Indian, and her mentor was an American Indian
woman who directed the American Indian Support Project. Ellie’s relationship with her
mentor was much more than just a formal academic relationship; Dr. B demonstrated a
personal investment in students and created a safe space for them to express themselves.
My mentor, Dr. B, is the director of the American Indian Support Project. She’s
the reason I went to this university. . .She couldn’t be my chair because she’s a
clinical professor and she doesn’t really research. . .but she was on my
committee. . .She was the one that would ask how it was going. And it wasn’t in
a nagging sort of way, are you done yet? She really wanted to know. She would
have all of the members of the support project over to her house. We would meet
once a month and talk to each other about how it was going. She was Indian, so
she was a real no-nonsense kind of gal. If you were dinking around, she’d call
you a jackass and say get it done. But coming from her it was very
supportive. . ..She provided us space to talk about “I’m really frustrated with this”

if we were having trouble with a professor then she would give us advice on how

109

to talk to that professor and get moving again... .She was more like a family

member.

Tinto (1993) suggests that frequent contact with faculty is important to academic
persistence; further, encounters that go beyond the formal academic/programmatic
exchanges and are perceived as genuine and warm by students are critical to continued
persistence. Connors and Franklin (1999, p. 17) found that women students were looking
for mentoring relationships that would provide them with “a sense of comfort and
support” as they negotiate the challenges of developing their own research projects. They
are looking for someone who both challenges them to excel and provides them with
support when they make mistakes. Ellie appeared to have found this sense of security
within her relationship with her mentor.

When asked about relationships with people other than academic faculty that had
a signiﬁcant impact on her journey, Ellie had this to say:

My wife. I’m not a very organized person. I gather stacks of research and have

stacks all over the place and then stare at them. She helped me get organized

enough to be able to make sense of the research. My chair was helpful with the
statistics. Those were the hardest things for me, getting started, getting organized,
and doing the statistical analysis. I was very, very fortunate and I think everyone
in the psych department know that. They would tease me that my wife’s foot
reaches just butt high and she kicked me through the program. I would get stalled
out and I would get frustrated and I didn’t want to do it anymore. For the ﬁrst
couple of years in graduate school, each semester I seriously considered just

quitting and going back home and ﬁnding some type of job with a bachelor’s

110

degree. It sucked that bad and at a couple of points we were actually looking at

moving vans and the cost of moving back home. The only thing that kept me

there and kept me going was my family and my son. The reason I went to
graduate school in the ﬁrst place was to have some ﬂexibility and provide a better
living for my family, so I had that motivation. All of the motivation to keep going
was outside of the department.

Despite Ellie’s connection to her mentor, she does not identify this relationship as
one of the factors that contributed to her persistence. When she was faced with
challenges in her program or in her research, such as ﬁnding motivation or getting
organized, Ellie did not turn to her advisor or her mentor, rather she relied on her wife to
give her the support and help she required. The relationship that empowered her and
provided her with necessary resilience to persist through her dissertation journey was
with her family. Much like Britt’s relationship with her clinical supervisor, Ellie’s story
highlighted the importance of understanding the impact of signiﬁcant relationships
outside of the student’s academic program on their journey and ultimately, on their
persistence.

Ellie’s frustration with her journey was likely compounded by several factors.
First she experienced a mismatch in style with her advisor. Ellie clearly required more
guidance and support along her journey than her advisor was willing or able to give. Her
advisor put the onus of organizing, pacing, and evaluating her journey on Ellie. Although
he asserted that he would support her as long as she progressed in a timely fashion, he
expected Ellie to generate the structure and organization of her project, the very factors

Ellie identiﬁed as blocks along her journey.

lll

In addition, Ellie experienced a mismatch in research philosophy. Ellie would
have preferred to have completed a qualitative research dissertation, however her
program emphasized quantitative research and discouraged qualitative projects. This
mismatch had a signiﬁcant impact on how Ellie viewed herself as a researcher. At the end
of her journey, Ellie described feeling “inadequate” as a researcher.

My program emphasized quantitative research and poopoo’d qualitative research,

which is unfortunate because there’s a lot more qualitative research being done

with American Indians that’s much more helpful than quantitative. . .I feel
inadequate because I don’t work in a quantitative way. You can make statistics
say whatever the fuck you want them to say. I don’t really agree with that. I’ve
done a couple of papers that were qualitative and submitted them for publications
and that to me is exciting. I like that I like doing the lit review, I like learning
what other people have done I like writing. I’ve always loved to write so that

part is fun to me. But I was also taught that quantitative is the way to go and I

don’t really know about statistics. I don’t really like statistics. I don’t really like

whittling people down to numbers and values and alphas. . ..That’s why I say I feel
inadequate.

Ellie’s self-identiﬁed problems with organization were compounded by the
paperwork requirements within her program and a lack of consensus in her department
regarding the process of completing her dissertation and the accompanying paperwork.
Unlike Hannah, the group that Ellie met with at her mentor’s home did not provide

guidance or structure for completing her project. In addition to issues with personal

112

organization, Ellie experienced problems negotiating the structure of her academic
department because of a lack of organization within her program.

I would go to one professor and say, ‘ﬁvhat do I need to do to get this paperwork

done? Because I have the rough draft and I’m ready to submit it to the IRB” and

he would say, “Well, I don’t really know. You need to go talk to someone else.”

So I would go talk to another professor and they would say you need to do this

and this and this and why don’t you go double check with the department

secretary?. . .Even once they came to a consensus, they were wrong. That was
another are where I had to do it myself. I learned quickly that I just go to the
school of graduate studies and ask them what I should be doing.

Summary.

Ellie’s frustration with her journey was evident and clearly articulated. Her
connection to her wife and sense of responsibility to her family were the motivating
forces that allowed her to get beyond the blocks in journey. The story of Ellie’s journey
echoed many of the negative experiences of the women in the upswing category. Unlike
the women in the previous category, though, Ellie never articulated feelings of validation
or appreciation of the process. Her frustration with the process remained fairly constant
throughout the story of her journey.

Conclusions

All three of the women in the upswing category began by describing experiences
they perceived as negative along their dissertation journeys, from Britt’s university
declaring bankruptcy, to Angela’s discovery that her archival data was useless and her

mentor was leaving the university, to Gina’s advisor going on sabbatical the year she was

113

writing her dissertation. The actual incidents, however, matter less than the women’s
perceptions of how these incidents impacted them. The women used words like
“frustrating”, “isolating”, and “arduous” to describe these incidents along their journeys.
Although these three incidents are very different from one another, at the core they each
involved a disconnection from a signiﬁcant person in the academic community and each
of these incidents was experienced as a hindrance to the dissertation journey.

Self-in-relation theory suggests there are ﬁve outcomes to disconnection, less
energy, disempowerment, confusion, lowered self worth, and withdrawing from
relationships (Dooley & Fedele, 2004; Miller, 1986b). In addressing these
disconnections, each of the women gave voice to feelings of isolation and abandonment
and talked about withdrawing, to a greater or lesser extent, ﬁom relationships in their
academic community. Angela related that it took her six months before she could
approach another faculty member about her experiences and during that time she
considered dropping out. After Gina was “abandoned” by her advisor, she felt she had to
complete the project on her own and so she isolated herself and it was not until she
experienced a “break down” that she reached out to someone for help. Britt described
withdrawing from her research group as her relationship with her mentor began to
deteriorate while her university was experiencing bankruptcy. This pattern is born out in
the literature which suggests that experiences that reduce integration into the academic
community may result in students distancing themselves from the academic or social
community of their academic program (Johnson, et al., 1995; Tinto, 1993).

The factor that allowed each of these women to move out of disconnection was a

connection with someone else. Women are able to ﬁnd the power to move out of

114

disconnections and into mutual relationships when they are able to share their experience
of disconnection with another (F edele, 2004). Each of these women experienced an
upswing in their journey after they were able to re-connect with their academic
community in some way.

Both of the women the ambivalent category expressed positive and negative
feelings related to their dissertation journeys. In many ways, Ellie and Devas’ stories
resembled those of the women in the upswing category, with one major distinction,
neither of these women articulated a sense of validation, optimism, or purpose as a result
of their journey. Although Britt, Gina, and Angela all initially reported struggles along
their journeys, they ended their descriptions of their journeys describing a change in their
feelings. Britt felt optimistic and energized about working with her new committee,
Angela felt she could be a change agent as a result of her dissertation journey, and Gina
felt that her experience at her dissertation defense was positive and validating. At the end
of their journeys, Deva hoped she could “must up some kind of something” to get herself
through and Ellie stated she still felt inadequate even after successfully defending her
dissertation.

Although both Ellie and Deva reported having good relationships with their
advisors and access to formal or informal channels for mentoring, these relationships did
not facilitate development of their sense of self along their journeys. This points to a
need to critically examine what qualities of advising and mentoring relationships foster
growth and development and contribute to student’s sense of self-worth, self-efﬁcacy,

and resiliency.

115

In addition, although Deva and Ellie did not experience obvious disconnections,
like their mentors or advisors leaving the university or going on sabbatical, they both,
none the less, experienced disconnections. Deva was geographically disconnected from
her advisor and academic program during her internship year, which was experience very
diﬂ'erent ﬁ'om her experience preparing for her proposal. Deva attributed her topic and
the direction of her proj ect to her advisor and their collaborative working relationship,
however during her writing process her contact with him was much more limited.

Ellie was disconnected from her program because of the implicit rules around
being perfect and doing things on your own. She stated that all her motivation for
ﬁnishing came from outside of her department and she attributed much of her success in
completing her project to her wife. Although relationships within the academic
community appear to be important to persistence, growth, and development of students,
they do not appear to be sufﬁcient to create a positive, validating experience.

Individual and relational resilience were important factors in the women’s
journeys. Deva said she was not sure if completing the dissertation journey took
“resiliency or perseverance,” but she thought it could be a “form of courage.” Unlike
Angela, Gina, and Ellie who had ﬁnished their journeys and successfully defended their
dissertations, Deva hoped she would be able to “muster up” whatever it was she needed
to get through. Several of the women gave voice to feelings of doubt and thoughts of
dropping out of their programs; Deva alluded to understanding why people never ﬁnish
their degrees and remain all but dissertation (ABD). Regardless of the various challenges

each of these women faced on their journeys, they were all able to “muster up” the self-

116

conﬁdence, energy, action, or resourcefulness necessary to carry them along forward in
their journeys.

The common facilitating factors across both of these categories were
connection/integration, structure/organization, safe places/people, and
individual/relational resilience. Although none of these factors was present in every
journey, each factor was alluded to in at least several of the stories. The common factors
that caused blocks or contributed to hindering the women’s journeys were: disconnection,
abuses of power, lack of structure/organization, and self-doubt. In the introduction, I
introduced the model of self-in-relation theory (Jordan, et al., 1991; Jordan, et al., 2004;
Miller, 1986a, 1991) that centralized the importance of relational connection to growth
and learning. These women’s stories challenged the conception of this model by

highlighting the signiﬁcance of disconnection.

 

Self-in-Relation Theory
l Learning and Therapy 1
I development occur in occurs in I

\ /

Connection/
Mutual Relationships
, / A
i Facilitates/enhances [ Facilitates/enhanceg

/ \
1. Self- worth

2. Self-esteem Ability to engage in relationships
3. Self-knowledge

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2. Model of Self-in-Relation theory.

117

Miller’s (1986b) “ﬁve good things” which was referred to in the review of literature and
previously in the analysis does a better job of addressing the reciprocal relationship of
connection and disconnection on growth and development. As indicated in previous
sections, when connection is mutual and authentic, it contributed to positive outcomes in
relationships. Miller called these positive outcomes the ﬁve good things: zest, a better
sense of self and others, increased self-worth, increased efficacy or energy to act, and a
yearning for more connection. She also acknowledged the ﬂip side of connection,
disconnection, and its consequences on growth and development. When someone feels
cut-off or disconnected, they experience less energy, confusion, decreased self-worth,
disempowerment, and withdrawal from relationships.

Disconnections should not be viewed as inherently negative as they are part of the
ebb and ﬂow of all relationships. The stories in this section presented the natural
movement of relationships, ﬁom connection to disconnection, to new connection (Dooley
& Fedele, 2004). Several of the stories illustrated how relationships can be enhanced
when people are able to work through disconnections (ex. Angela and Britt). This
enhanced understanding of the centrality of both connections and disconnections will
become even more signiﬁcant as the next section on negative or damaging experiences is
presented.

Negative/Damaging Experiences

Much like the category of positive experiences, this group requires little by way

of introduction. The two women who will be presented in this section described

negative, even damaging, experiences along their journeys. They used words and phrases

118

like, “disempowering,” “I just gave up,” “uncomfortable,” “no conﬁdence,” “a political
thing,” “eternal,” “hellacious,” and “depressed” to describe their journeys.
“Every process is an incident” -Carmen, 24

Carmen’s dissertation was an extension of her Master’s thesis, in which she
explored attitudes of college students toward a peer who was engaging in suicidal
behavior because they are gay. She expressed that her journey through graduate school
and particularly through the dissertation impacted her long term career goals. Carmen
initially went to grad school with the intention of going into academia, however, as a
result of both discovering an interest in therapy and her traumatizing experiences writing
her dissertation she no longer considered this an option. She related,

I love research, I did a research assistantship and now it’s the furthest thing ﬁ'om

what I want. . .Part of it was me growing and changing and ﬁnding I love therapy,

but part of it is not feeling like I can do it. I have no conﬁdence that I could do
this without my advisor. . .I relied on her and that’s the way she made it. My
identity as a researcher is much worse off than it was when I got here.

As alluded to in the review of literature and previously in the analysis, the
hierarchical structure of traditional mentoring relationships may lead to paternalistic
exchanges where the mentor assumes their perspective is better than their mentees’ and
denies or distorts their mentees’ experiences. Additionally, there may be the implicit
understanding that the mentee will internalize the values and norms modeled for them
and become replicas of their mentors (Hansman, et al., 2002). In the story of her journey,
Carmen referred to her experience with her advisor as molding versus mentoring and

stated that she “hardly recognized” her project because her writing became “hers [her

119

,9

advisor’s] instead of mine. These negative exchanges effectively served to silence
Carmen (Hansman, et al., 2002).

She related that she had difﬁculty reaching out to others for help because of the
“element of shame” she felt related to her perception that she was complicit in creating
her own negative experience because she had chosen to stay with her advisor through her
dissertation against the advise of other faculty members. Power issues are inherent to
mentoring relationships, however creating an awareness and addressing these dynamics
can facilitate the mentoring relationship. Carmen described a mentoring experience
where these power dynamics were ignored and she was silenced.

A mentee, by deﬁnition, is in a position of less power because mentoring
relationships are “inherently unequal and non-reciprocal” (Schramm, 2000, p.5).
Therefore entering into a mentoring relationship requires more trust on the part of the
mentee (Schramm, 2000). Carmen, in fact, related that she was drawn to work with her
advisor because of the prestige this woman enjoyed within the larger professional
community of counseling psychology. Carmen trusted that she would be able to
complete her dissertation with her advisor, despite the knowledge that “her legacy at
school” was that she treated students badly and other faculty were reluctant to work with
her.

I thought that my advisor, which was why I came to this university, for my

advisor, I thought she just knew her stuff and she did amazing work... .I came

here because of C.. . .My relationship with her was rocky all along. After my

Master’s I wanted to quit, but I didn’t I am her ﬁrst doctoral student in a really

long time because people tend to not stick with Sandra after their Master’s, they

120

quit. I decided to stick with her because I thought my dissertation would be easy.

It was going off my thesis, I thought it would be easy, so I did it. It got more and

more strained as we went for publications. There were things she wouldn’t do.

She wouldn’t put that I had a Master’s degree. She made it like I had a

Bachelor’s in my publications, which I didn’t. She wouldn’t let me include that it

was part of my thesis, which is required by APA, or by our school at least It was

really bumpy already and I was just really pissed off by the time it came to the
ﬁnal version.

As discussed previously, mentoring and advising relationships are frequently
power laden and unless the dynamics are critically examined and addressed, the
relationships can be damaging (Mott, 2002). Carmen described a clear pattern of abuse
of power and position on the part of her advisor, however addressing these issues with
her advisor or seeking help from another faculty member was complicated by the
dynamics within her academic program. Carmen’s advisor was well respected within the
larger community of counseling psychology and Carmen was going to beneﬁt
professionally from working with her advisor through the number of publications they
co-authored; however within her own department, Carmen’s advisor had a reputation of
being a difﬁcult person with whom to work. This dynamic put Carmen in the tenuous
position of negotiating the complicated relational dynamics within her department
without any guidance.

The way it worked was the ﬁrst two chapters were accepted by my committee. I

guess that was the ﬁrst hurdle, having the committee accept it. Then, with C,

every process is an incident. There’s nothing that goes easy. It isn’t like you go

121

back and forth, like with most advisors. Everything is huge, everything is a
ﬁasco, it’s so dramatic... .She told me this was the last draft and asked me to
change a couple of things really, really small things and then she wouldn’t
respond to my email. She wouldn’t get that last draft back to me so I could send
it to my committee. She held it up for ﬁve months. I thought I was done writing,
you know, I was ready to go and then she didn’t read it....When she ﬁnally wrote
to me after ﬁve months it was only because I had to talk to the chair of the
department and cc her on the emails so that C knew who was reading them. I’d
send her really nasty emails saying if she didn’t get me back my ﬁnal draft in a
week, I was switching advisors. It’s the only way I got it read in the end... .It was
scary because I look up to her. If you go anywhere else than here, she’s very
respected.
Carmen described being caught betwixt and between (Schramm, 2000). Carmen chose to
stay with her advisor, despite being encouraged to ﬁnd someone new to direct her
dissertation, which marginalized her within her academic program. None of the other
faculty within her program would participate on her dissertation committee and Carmen
had to have an exception made through the grad school so that she could go outside of
her academic program for her remaining committee members. When she ﬁnally
approached her training director about the difﬁculties she was having with her advisor,
Carmen’s training director said to her “I hate to tell you this, but I told you so.” Carmen
identiﬁed that one of the factors that held her back from seeking help was the “element of
shame” she experienced because she had chosen to continue to work with her advisor.

Her training director’s response communicated judgment and a lack of empathy and

122

reinforced Carmen’s sense of shame. Carmen was marginalized both within her
relationship with her advisor and within her larger academic program, caught in a
dynamic she did not have the power to change. Not only did this “element of shame”
contribute to Carmen feeling disempowered to act on her own behalf, it also affected her
perceptions of her competence and ability to write.
My writing process with her [C] is a little bit different than with most because of
this electronic thing she does. She changes it all, so when it comes back to you it
doesn’t look like anything you’ve ever written. So everything I write becomes
hers instead of mine. I hardly recognized what I wrote. Like at my defense, I had
to read my paper several, many times, because I didn’t recognize it. It’s not what
I’ve written. This is a complaint she’s gotten over and over and over again, that
she changes student’s work. What that did to me is, when she would say ‘ﬁx
this,’ I would give a half-ass attempt because I knew she was going to change it
anyway. It was very disempowering because she would just change it, so why
should I even work on it? ...In the end, honestly, I gave up. I realized it’s not my
dissertation, it’s hers. It is mine, but she’s in charge of it and I just kind of gave
up and that’s what got me through, I no longer cared what the product was as long
as it was a product that was signed off by my committee. I didn’t care anymore.
It’s kind of a crappy way to get through something, but it’s what happened.
Carmen’s description of her experience writing her dissertation ﬁts with the classic
notion of learned helplessness, or a feeling that one is not able to effect change within the
environment or on one’s circumstances (Seligrnan, 1972). This sense of inability to act

or effect change can contribute to a feeling of incompetence (Seligrnan, 1972). Although

123

the original meaning of the word competence was to seek together, the understanding of
this word has changed to imply rivalry or competition (Jordan, 2004). “The competition
and mastery implicit in most models of competence create conﬂict for many people”
(Jordan, 2004, p. 12). Frequently, conﬂict or problems are situated within the individual
who has been marginalized or oppressed. The system that emphasizes competition,
dominance, and mastery over “conﬁdence, creativity, and participation in growth-
fostering relationships” reinforces marginalization and oppression (Jordan, 2004, p. 12).
As discussed in the introduction and the review of literature, current training
models tend to emphasize the qualities of independence, mastery, and dominance,
potentially at the risk of devaluing the relational aspects of training. This dynamic
clearly existed within Carmen’s program. Within her relationship with her advisor,
development of Carmen’s sense of conﬁdence or efﬁcacy was overshadowed by the
needs of her advisor. Her advisor paid little to no attention to developing a collaborative,
empowering relationship. Carmen was forced to accommodate her writing style and
sacriﬁce the development of her identity in order to successfully complete her project.
Within her program, Carmen did not receive guidance or support in resolving her
problems with her advisor, rather she was derided for making a choice that existed only
because the dysfunctional system of her program allowed it to exist The dysfunctional
system continued to employ someone they knew was unethical and abused her position as
an advisor and they continued to allow her to take on advisees. However, they put the
onus for affecting change, or switching advisors, on students, who have the least power in
the system. Carmen identiﬁed that she just “gave up” and “no longer cared” about the

process or her ﬁnal product as long as she could just get through her dissertation journey

124

successfully. This represents a signiﬁcant change ﬁom her description of herself as
someone who entered graduate school “loving research.”

Through the lens of self-in-relation theory, we see the opposite of the ‘ﬁve good
things” described by Miller (1986b). Carmen acknowledged a decrease in the energy she
put into her project, a decreased sense of self-worth, disempowerment, confusion about
her identity as a researcher, and withdrawal from connections within her program.

I like research. I like the research part of it I like ﬁnding things out, but like I

said earlier, I feel very disempowered to write. I feel like the mentoring process

didn’t happen, instead I got kind of molded into how she wanted me to write. I

feel really uncomfortable with how things happened. I don’t feel I know how to

write because it’s never been acceptable. That may keep me from researching
because I’m afraid that I wouldn’t be able to write it up.. . .I would have wanted
someone who helped me develop my style, not their style. Someone who let it be
ok that I was going to write a little bit diﬂ‘erently and maybe a little more

concisely. . .I would have wanted to become an individual and instead I became a

C-clone. ...I also would have liked to leave here feeling more conﬁdent.
Summary

Although Carmen had successfully defended her dissertation prior to participating
in this interview, she ended her journey feeling less competent and less conﬁdent in her
skills as a researcher. The dissertation project is designed to be the culminating
experience of the doctoral degree process; this is an opportunity for students to showcase
their research interests and skills as they have developed during their years in graduate

school. It is not beneﬁcial or desirable for students to complete this process feeling more

125

negatively about the research process and their identity as a researcher than when they
began.

Carmen’s story pointed to several factors that contributed to her decline in self-
efﬁcacy and self-esteem related to research, including her advisor’s abuse of power, the
complicated dynamics of the departmental politics, and her own feelings of shame. The
story of her journey reﬂects few of the facilitating factors that have been addressed in the
previous stories. Carmen did not have a mutual, empathic relationship or connection
with another faculty member or fellow student to provide her with support or guidance
through the process. Although her partner supported her journey to get her degree, he
“did not support my decision to stay with her [C]. He was very strongly against me
working with her because he saw how difficult it was and how horrendous this whole
process was.”

The factors that most strongly contributed to Carmen’s ability to persevere and
complete her journey were her individual persistence and resilience. In her own words,
Carmen related, “I think it was my worldview or whatever you want to call it. . .Part of it
was my pride. I did not want to give up because I had told so many people that I would
make it.” Despite the negative, even damaging experiences Carmen described, she did
not give up and she did successfully defend her project. Fiona, the ﬁnal participant to be
presented in this category, also described negative experiences with committee members
and departmental politics, however she had not yet defended her dissertation.

“All of a sudden, it blew up. ” — Fiona, 45.

Fiona’s dissertation looked at the neuropsychological diﬁ'erences between

physicians who have never been referred for a competency evaluation and those have

126

been referred for a competency evaluation. Fiona chose this topic for several reasons, she
had access to an available data set, completing a neuropsychology dissertation would
allow greater ﬂexibility and more options in her future career, and a personal interest in
the issue of physician competency. Despite her motivation for choosing this path,
Fiona’s experiences along her journey have left her questioning her choice. She used
words like “eternal,” “hellacious,” “political,” and “nasty” to describe her experiences
along her journey.
I just thought it was kind of a really neat opportunity and I didn’t know if I was up
to it. I still don’t... .I would say the blow up in the proposal was very critical. It
took about a month to get over that and then there was the blow up about the IRB.
After that I got pretty depressed and I couldn’t work on my dissertation. Just
recently, for some reason, I got over the depression. I’m not quite sure how it
worked, I guess by talking to people and ﬁnally deciding I’m going to go forward
with this. I’m going to give it my best shot at getting it done. It might look
impossible. It might be impossible. I kind of almost have a willingness to accept
failure so that I can go forward. Also, a kind of resignation to just do the next
step, don’t think too far ahead, just do what’s in your face... .I don’t know that I
would have done it now, on this side. I think I would have picked something
really easy to do.... I’m sad. I feel like it’s really a process that if I had been
supported through, instead of having all these psycho people going weird on me,
it could have been a really neat experience. I don’t mind the struggle, my own

internal struggle with myself that I’ve had to go through. The added stress that

127

folks have put on me, that makes me sad. I’m pretty sad and I’m kind of fried. I

kind of went away from the program, I mean it’s just a very different relationship.
Fiona expressed regret about the direction her journey through the dissertation took after
her proposal meeting. Although Fiona’s own process was ﬁll] of conﬂict, she was still
able to acknowledge that the potential for a different dissertation experience. Fiona
identiﬁed that ideally she would have like to have been supported by her committee,
rather than undermined and attacked. The “blow ups” that occurred during her proposal
meeting and her IRB application seemed to catalyze the change in F iona’s experience of
her journey ﬁom “a neat opportunity” to “eternal” and “hellacious”.

Fiona very concretely connected the negative things she experienced to her
withdrawal ﬁom her academic program. Encounters that reduce integration in the
academic or social community can result in students distancing themselves from their
academic programs (Johnson, et al., 1995). Despite her initial interest in and motivation
for completing her project, the “blow ups,” left her feeling immobilized and depressed.
These events also precipitated the deterioration of F iona’s relationship with her advisor,
other committee members, and her program. One of her committee members, whom
Fiona refers to as “Stats guy,” was particularly contentious during her proposal meeting.
Similar to Carmen’s experience with her advisor, Fiona had heard rumors that Stats guy
had a reputation for making the dissertation process difﬁcult on students but she thought
her experience with him would be different.

I had heard a rumor that he had gotten pretty nasty at some other defenses and

proposals, I mean really not nice and really inappropriate with several. I didn’t

want that to happen to me. I have a good relationship with this guy. I’m going to

128

meet with this guy ahead of time and give him my chapter three and have him edit
it. I’ll have him give me feedback, so that when I’m working on my proposal, he
and I are on the same page and we can bring everyone else along. I did that and
that was not helpful... .When it came to my proposal everything was going
swimmingly and everybody had good feedback and ideas and then all of a sudden
it blew up. The meeting ended up being two and half hours and it was hellacious.
There was a misunderstanding with Stats guy. When I said physicians who’d
been referred for competency evaluations, I didn’t realize that he thought that
therefore these folks had cognitive impairments. In the medical world you can be
referred for a competency evaluation for being drunk when you treat a patient,
you don’t have to have a cognitive impairment. . .F or whatever reason that just
made everybody crazy... .Stats guy started yelling, “This is totally meaningless.
All your hypotheses are meaningless. This makes no sense. This is useless.” My
chair, D, ﬁnally shut everybody up, because it was just getting worse and they
were all exploding. I don’t know how, but in the meeting she convinced them to

give me a conditional pass as long as I made all the changes they wanted done.

After her disastrous experience during her proposal meeting, Fiona attempted to re-

establish a healthy working relationship with her committee members by seeking

clariﬁcation of their concerns regarding her proposal. Fiona articulated an understanding

of the dynamics and politics of her program. She understood that there were subtleties,

or unspoken rules, in relationships that needed to be negotiated and she looked to her

chair for guidance in this process. As noted earlier, students often receive insuﬁ'rcient

guidance or mentoring related to negotiating the rules and expectations of negotiating the

129

various aspects of the dissertation jomney, including relationships with doctoral
committees (Austin, 2002). They are also expected to perform as a mature and
independent professional while they are still students and in subordinate and dependent
roles (Lovitts, 1996). Although Fiona sought out her chair’s advice and tried to
“politically do it right,” she was ultimately left alone to make sense of her experiences
and her understanding of the power dynamics in her program.
I called each committee member and I asked, “Could you explain this to me?
What does this mean? Is my dissertation blown?” Stats guy said it wasn’t blown,
he just didn’t think it was as interesting. I thought. . . just let me know if I can do it
or not. I’ve spent a large portion of my life on this so far and I need to know if I
need to trash it. He said I could go ahead and go forward with the project That
was helpful. I ﬁgured we re-established whatever. I made the changes and I
asked by committee chair, D, if I’ve made the changes they wanted, do I need to
check with them before I do my IRB? She said, “No, we all agreed that I would
be the one to hold you responsible.” I sent copies of the changes I made to
everybody and got no feedback. . .. “I thought, ok, I’ve double-checked with
everyone and nobody has sent me feedback, if they were concerned enough they
would have looked.” I should have called every single committee member, even
though that’s not what my committee chair told me to do. I sent my IRB in and I
get a call from my chair and she says she wants to warn me that E, who is my
advisor, and Stats guy are really angry with me I’m thinking, what did I do now?

She says E, my advisor, raked her over the coals because I’d sent my IRB in

130

without her approval ﬁrst... So, I say to my chair, “Does this blow my

dissertation?” and she says, “I don’t know.”

Fiona was told that her advisor, E, and Stats guy would both be contacting her
regarding the conﬂict over her IRB application. Fiona, however, was never contacted
and this lack of follow through created confusion and frustration. Her confusion was
compounded by the fact that prior to her dissertation proposal meeting she had been on
good terms with all of her faculty and had been thought of as a “conscientious student”
within the program.

After her proposal meeting and the IRB conﬂict, though, Fiona described her
committee members and her relationship with them as “. . .They’re insane. They have lost
their minds and I refuse to deal with crazy people.” She did, however, still recognize the
need to play by their rules and she contacted her committee members again and attempted
to smooth the IRB conﬂict. She “got a very nice note from Stats guy, ‘Thank you very
much, I appreciate it’” Fiona took this as a sign that she would be able to continue with
her project and indicated that “we’re just going to go with nice. I don’t care. As long as I
can keep going forward, I don’t care how crazy you are.” Fiona was clear, though, that
her committee and the challenges she experienced during her proposal and IRB
application were not the only factors that made her journey difﬁcult.

In addition to the external factors she struggled with, she also experienced an
internal struggle with her own fears related to issues of competency and failure. Many
female students underestimate their actual abilities (Alder, 1976; Ekstrom, et al., 1981;
Hanson, 1992; Hite, 1985). Fear of ridicule and failure may act as barriers keeping

women from achieving at their potential within the academy (Conners & Franklin 1999).

131

Tiny mistakes may be used as evidence of their incompetence and they may fear
contributing to the perception that they are unhelpful or unwilling to participate in the
process (Conners & Franklin, 1999). Fiona’s fears of failure and ridicule were likely
compounded by her experiences with Stats guy during her committee meeting.

Although Fiona owned her fears and emotional responses and acknowledged their
impact on her journey, she located the dysfrmction of her experience not within herself,
but within an unhealthy and chaotic system. Much like Carmen, Fiona’s program
emphasized individualism and competition over collaboration and mutual relationships.
Traditional models of development in psychology emphasize the separate self, in which
competition is inevitable. However, self esteem tends to be lower in competitive systems
than in c00perative systems (Deutsch, 1985). Although being individualistic, mastering
tasks, and beating others contributes to being viewed as competent, it appears to
contribute little to feelings of emcacy or esteem in the long run (Jordan, 2004).

Efﬁcacy and esteem develop out of the ability to eﬁ'ect change or make meaning
of circumstances which necessitate “being in a context that is responsive to one’s voice
and actions” (Jordan, 2004, p. 16). The environment or context of Fiona’s academic
program was not responsive to her voice or actions. Despite her early attempts to work
with Stats guy and make sure they were “on the same page” he “blew up” during her
proposal meeting. This confusion and miscommunication continued through her IRB
application process. From Fiona’s perspective, her voice was devalued and ignored.
Although she made attempts to contact her committee members by phone, none of them
responded to her and she did not receive feedback on the revised version of her proposal

that she sent electronically to her committee members. Non-responsiveness sets up a

132

power-over dynamic by creating a situation where one person refuses to be inﬂuenced by
the other (Jordan, 2004). In this dynamic, one person is set up as expert and change or
inﬂuence is unidirectional. The only feedback Fiona received was from Stats guy when
he told her that although she could continue with her project it was not longer interesting
or meaningful. Although this was Fiona’s project and she believed in the intrinsic value
of the project, Stats guy implied that her investment mattered less than his own. This
reinforced the existing power-over dynamic. Despite the disconnections, confusion, and
miscommunications, Fiona was able to ﬁnd personal meaning in her actions and in her
project and by her own description this contributed to her ability to persevere.

Like several of the other participants, Fiona indicated that structure and
organization were a challenge for her along her journey. She seemed to really struggle
with the writing process, especially in the absence of any faculty to provide her with
guidance or support through the project.

My own inertia and my own, sometimes fear gets in your way. Fear of failure

gets in my way, got in my way several times. Just I can’t do this, you’ve got to be

kidding. This is huge. The idea of it being a gigantic project that... And you
know you do a paper and you can do most of the research in a weekend and write
it the next weekend. Well, that’s easy, I can think that far ahead. The
organization of this drove me nuts. When I was writing chapter two, I would stop
and reorganize every two weeks, which would take time to do. . ..I don’t write

good. . ..writing was horrible. It was, oh god, I would probably rather be where I

am now, gooﬁng with IRB, though I still have to do writing for IRB. It was

excruciating, excruciating. I ﬁnally talked myself into throwing up on paper,

133

which is what I do. It’s sort of like I give myself permission to write like crap and
so once I gave myself permission to throw up on paper and I would also set goals
of I’ll write two pages today. I’m just going to throw up on two pages of paper
today and I’ll throw up on two pages of paper tomorrow. That got me through.
Then I’d go back and edit and switch and then I got tired of that. I got to the point
where every time I read my stuff, my stomach churned and I felt sick and I
couldn’t tell you what was right or wrong with it It was too close to me.
Fiona’s inability to gain perspective on her project echoes the sentiments Hannah
expressed about feeling insecure and unsure whether she was on the right track or doing
the right thing. Hannah, however, had the luxury of working with her research group to
check her perceptions and experiences. Fiona lacked a built in support system to provide
her with the scaffolding and validation Hannah received. Fiona did not have a close
relationship with a mentor or her advisor and she did not seek out connection with other
faculty after her experiences during her proposal and IRB; she did, however, seek out
support from other students in her program who could understand her experiences.
One is ﬁiendships of people, of other students who are doing their dissertations,
other students who are having difﬁculties. I’ve developed a very close ﬁiendship
with another person who has Stats guy on her committee and has had horrible
things happen to her too. There’s about two people that I can turn to and they’re
not my advisor and they’re not on my committee, god knows, but they’re students
and I can call and get support from them and that’s huge. I don’t know if it’s a
critical incident, but that support makes all the difference in the world when I get

low and it gets hard.

134

Fiona identiﬁed personality characteristics that contributed to her struggle along her
journey, like fear of failure and feelings of inadequacy, she also disclosed how her
personality contributed to her persistence through the chaos. She identiﬁed that her
investment, perseverance, and resilience were the factors contributed to being able to
work through her depression and ﬁnd meaning in her project.
My husband, he’d like me to just quit sometimes. There is something in me that
won’t quit come hell or high water, I will ﬁnd a way to get this done. So there is
a pretty strong drive and sometimes it’s stronger than others, but if I, even if I’m
depressed for a couple of months and can’t touch it, I know that in a couple
months I’m gonna kick back in. So there’s my obligation to my sister-in—law and
to my advisor, I feel like I’ve made a commitment to them. I’ll keep my
commitment and I’ll give it my best shot. I can’t live with myself unless I do that.
Some of that is me, some of that is I believe in honoring my commitments. The
only thing I think you need to do in this program is persevere. You don’t need
brains, you really don’t. You can study hard enough to catch up with things, but
you just have to be dogged.
When the previous participant, Carmen, was faced with a difﬁcult relationship with her
advisor and complicated political dynamics within in academic program her strategy was
to just give up in order to successfully negotiate the process. Fiona, on the other hand,
expressed nearly the opposite sentiment, she described herself as “dogged.” Despite
feeling sad and depressed about her experiences, Fiona was not ready to give up or give
in so that she could complete her journey. This individual perseverance provided a

central organizing theme for understanding Fiona’s perception of her journey.

135

Although she does not talk about her journey as lonely or isolating, terms that
other participants have used, F iona’s description of her journey lacks the supportive
relational connections salient to many of the stories. She does brieﬂy mention the
importance of connections with peers from her program who have had similar
experiences along their journey, however the comment was more like an aside to the
story of her journey, she gave no details or context, just stated ﬁiendships were
important. The relationships she spent time developing in the story of her journey were
the negative relationships with her committee and the essential quality that deﬁnes her
ability to persist in her journey and negotiate the negative relationships is her own
resilience and perseverance.

I will always check internally, you know, like when there was the

misunderstanding in the proposal meeting. I thought, ok, that would make it

clearer, I’m not writing clear enough for psychologists. prsychologists are going
to read my paper, I need to make it clear what a competency evaluation is and
how you get referred for one and who is evaluated. I’ll take that feedback but
when they start acting unprofessional and they loose it, I kind of step back. I’ve
learned to step back and talk to ﬁiends, do reality checks with friends and then

kind of ignore their behavior. I think frustration kind of turns my head around. I

think when I get ﬁ'ustrated enough and I feel like I’m being placed in a type of

victim role, and people are being silly, there is something in me that will take it to

a point and be kind of quiet and sad and then something kicks in and I won’t do it

anymore. I hold in the back of my mind, if you give me much more grief, I’m

hiring a lawyer. You have a commitment to me and you’re not following through

136

with the commitment. I’m not going to do that unless my defense comes along
and they, you know, they’re going to fail me and it’s not for reasonable stuff. I’ve
learned that no matter where you go, you kind of have to stand up for yourself and
protect yourself and you can be in with like the committee you thought would be
really supportive of you and they get into their own issues and their own
gooﬁness and at some point you have to take a stand and say no more.
Women’s identities often become organized around maintaining connections or
afﬁliations with others and the threat of disruption in a connection can create a disruption
in a women’s sense of self (Miller, 1986a). Self-in-relation theory posits that connection
is affected by emotional factors; people can be drawn to connection or withdraw from
connection as a result of their emotional states (Jordan, 2004). For example, depression
tends to create confusion and move people out of connection, where as, sadness can
create connection if people are able to reach out for support and comfort (Stiver & Miller,
1988). Anger can also lead to connection if people are able to express their hurt and get a
caring response from whoever is causing them pain (Miller, 1983). People may utilize
anger as a strategy for participating in relationships that limit connection (F edele, 2004).
Fiona clearly demonstrated anger as a reaction to disconnection from relationships
within which she had worked to foster connection. Fiona made several attempts to reach
out to her various committee members, before and after the “blow ups” at her proposal
defense and during the IRB process. Although Fiona did attempt to foster connections
and rebuild relationships with her committee members, she also talked about it being
necessary to protect herself from these same people. In the wake of her traumatizing

experience during her proposal meeting, it was unlikely that Fiona would be able to re-

137

establish mutual, growth fostering relationships with her committee members without
some acknowledgement of issues of power and vulnerability on the part of her committee
members.

Selecting committee members, much like selecting a mentor, requires more trust
on the part of the student because of the inherent power issues (Schramm, 2000). Fiona
was in a position of relatively less power and she chose her committee members because
she thought they would be supportive of her during her journey. Unfortrmately, when it
became clear that Fiona’ s expectations of support were not going to met and, beyond that,
she was going to have to deal with conﬂict with several of her members she had few
options for remediating the issue within her department. Two of her committee members
also sat on the IRB committee and she needed their approval to be able to move forward
with her project, regardless of whether they remained on her committee.

Rather than fostering a grth producing relationship, F iona’s experiences with
her committee seemed to generate a streak of anger and self-preservation. This can most
explicitly be seen in Fiona’s comments that she had contemplated contacting a lawyer if
she incurred more trouble along her journey as a result of her committee members not
following through on their commitment to facilitating her journey. Although Fiona
acknowledged her experiences contributed to her withdrawal from her academic
community and generated feelings of depression, she also addressed how her experiences
contributed to her growth and development as a researcher.

I think I feel better. I went through a period where I got really depressed after the

meeting and the nasty things that happened. I guess I feel like, you know, I got

through that. I’m applying for IRB, I’m going to apply for a certiﬁcate of

138

conﬁdentiality, and it’s like I am doing stuff that researchers do, you know like
working with government agencies and all that other stuff. So for now, I feel
kinda ok. I don’t know how I’ll feel if I don’t get my data, but right now I feel
like I’ve learned a lot and I’ll continue to learn a lot. I think my conﬁdence has
grown a little bit.
F iona’s sense of efﬁcacy and esteem came from completing activities that “researchers
do.” She was able to identify her own learning and growth as a researcher despite the
challenges she had experienced along the way. This sense of validation was generated
internally and was related to Fiona’s resilience and perseverance and it did not mitigate
her sense of indignation or resentment related to her own journey. She had this to say
about the dissertation journey,
It’s unfair. And the unfair that I’m talking about is, I know people in my program
who have gotten through with really crappy dissertations and I know people who
are being scrutinized and I don’t know why. It’s extremely unfair. How it’s done
is unfair. The support is not there and the evaluation or the consistency of my
program and who goes through and gets what done, it’s really not fair. I mean I
can deal with it, but some students get data given to them. And so, oh my god, if
I had all my data given to me, I’d be in heaven. And the idea that it has to be
rough. You’re learning to collect data, is that the way? I’ve done projects where
I’ve collected data, who cares? I’ve known students who get their data before
they ever go to the IRB, I know students whose dissertations I’ve seen and I can’t

believe they got through.

139

Summary

Fiona’s ﬁnal comments call into question the structure and purpose of the
dissertation project and bring us back to similar questions that were posited in the review
of literature related to the current structure of requirements within Ph.D. programs in
counseling psychology. Although most research articles have multiple authors, the
dissertation remains a requirement individuals must complete on their own. Krumboltz
(2002) referred to the dissertation as a rite of passage with only limited value for teaching
students about research. Fiona asked what made the dissertation special or diﬂemnt from
other research projects that she had completed prior to the dissertation. The answer to her
question may lie in one of her own comments, what distinguishes the dissertation journey
from other projects is the implicit assumption that it has to be “rough.” Although the
dissertation is held up as the benchmark of competence for the Ph. D., there is no
evidence to suggest that the project enhances research skills or identity as most students
never complete any research beyond their dissertation.

Conclusions

Much like the women in the upswing category, Carmen and Fiona began their
stories by describing experiences they perceived as negative along their journey. Both
women expressed signiﬁcant psychological eﬂ'ects as a result of their experiences,
including learned helplessness, depression, and anger. Additionally, both expressed
resentment and disappointment that things were not different on their journeys and a
longing for support that would have facilitated journey.

The stories of their journeys were distinct from the women in the upswing

category, though, because neither Carmen nor Fiona experienced a change in their

140

external circumstances or their internal perceptions of their experiences. In addition, both
of their journeys were void of descriptions of signiﬁcant relationships with faculty or
other people with power. Neither woman had a mentor or advisor who facilitated their
integration into their academic programs or helped them to negotiate the complicated
political dynamics of these programs. Their stories stood apart ﬁ'om the women in the
ambivalent category because Carmen and Fiona were both resolute in their expressions of
disappointment, anger, resentment, and ﬁ'ustration; there was no equivocation or
contradiction in their descriptions.

Although neither woman described a signiﬁcant positive relationship that
facilitated their journey, relationships were, none the less, a salient factor in both the
quality and direction of their journeys. Both of these women experienced relational
disconnections from signiﬁcant people in their academic programs. Carmen described
her struggle with an unethical advisor who attempted to mold rather than mentor. Fiona
described serious conﬂict on several occasions with both her advisor and another member
of her committee that caused her to question whether or not she would be able to continue
her journey. Although the women each responded to the relational disconnections
differently, one by giving up and one by getting powerful, their responses both point to
individual resilience as a signiﬁcant factor in their persistence.

The Dissertation Dialogues

At the end of each interview, each woman was asked four projective questions: 1)
If your dissertation got dressed up, what would it wear? 2) If your dissertation could
speak, what would it say? 3) What does your dissertation remind you of? and 4) What is

special about your dissertation? These questions were designed to encourage the

141

participants to think and talk about their dissertations differently than the standard
interview questions. Participants were required to make a paradigmatic shift in the way
they talked about their dissertation journey because the questions were framed to
challenge the standard vocabulary used to talk about the dissertation. The absurdity of
these questions overtly gave participants permission to talk about their projects and their
journeys in more free and creative ways than is normally dictated by the formality of a
research interview. This “permission” created a space that allowed a new voice and a
new perspective to emerge. Many of the women’s answers to these questions echo their
responses to the earlier questions, however what emerged as signiﬁcant was the
difference in the way they talked about their process, their product, and themselves.

If your dissertation got dressed what would it wear?

The images evoked by the women’s descriptions of what their dissertations would
wear give insight into the most salient and signiﬁcant aspects of their journeys. Their
descriptions reﬂected their conﬁdence, motivation, identity, and resilience. The style,
color, and relative comfort or utility of the clothing were telling signs of each woman’s
relationship to her dissertation.

Some of the descriptions of clothing were related to the women’s sense of what
they currently needed on their journey. Hannah seemed to want to draw attention to her
accomplishment, whereas Deva seemed to know that she needed to get down to work,
and Britt expressed a need for security or protection.

Hannah’s positive feelings about her experience are clearly reﬂected in her
description of what her dissertation would wear, “It would wear something that’s kind of

ﬂashy, like I’m a big deal and I got done. Something red and then it would have a train

142

that’s a computer cord.” Hannah was obviously proud of her accomplishments and felt
that she deserved recognition. She dressed her dissertation in something ﬂashy or
noticeable, something that emphasized that it was a “big deal.” The glamour of Hannah’s
description was contrasted by the functional, no-ﬁills image evoked by Deva’s
description. Deva had expressed ambivalence about her journey and this theme
continued in her choice of clothing for her dissertation, “I would say jeans and a t-shirt.
It’s just really a work in progress and it’s taken some hard work and it’s not going to be
the most wonderful or glamorous thing, but it’ll be something.” Deva’s description was
the opposite of Hannah’s in terms of form, fashion, and function. Her dissertation was not
glamorous or ﬂashy, it was utilitarian and comfortable, it still had work to do. Britt’s
answer most clearly highlighted the signiﬁcance of resilience and perseverance. “It
would probably want to wear a NASA suit so that it’ s waterproof, ﬁreproof, insulated,
and puncture resistant.” Her answer also alluded to a sense of vulnerability in the process
and a need for protection from the outside elements.

Carmen clearly tied her identity as a researcher to this image. During her
interview she related that she felt as though she had been molded instead of mentored,
that she had become a clone of her advisor. This image was continued in her choice of
dress, “It would wear clothes from Yugoslavia because that’s where C is ﬁ'om." Carmen
' expressed a lack of ownership over her ﬁnal product. She stated she hardly recognized
what she wrote at her defense. Her lack of choice or ownership in the process was
reﬂected in how her dissertation would dress, she continued to allow Sandra to impose

her style on the dissertation.

143

Ellie and Angela both identiﬁed that cultural factors inﬂuenced their choice of
advisors and dissertation topics and this theme carried over into their descriptions of what
their dissertations would wear. Ellie said, “It would wear a ribbon shirt and a feather
headdress.” Angela’s dissertation would wear, “A linked belt that’s very colorful, that is

intertwined in a sense, because that’s how tribal people are, you can’t separate them out.”

If your dissertation could speak, what would it say?

The answers that evolved Out of this question diﬁewd from the answers to the
previous question. The participant’s choice of dress was related to issues such as,
identity, motivation, and resilience. The answers to this question demonstrated anger,
relief and gratitude, and made requests for help. Speaking implies the existence of a
relationship between the speaker and an audience, someone who will listen to the
message. The three participants who had not yet defended their dissertations were
obviously hoping someone was listening as their dissertations spoke because all made
requests for assistance. Deva’s dissertation said, “Help me!” Britt’s demanded, “Get me
out of here! Let me be done!” And Fiona’s expressed a desire for, “Help! Help me help
me help me. It’d say help...”

The women who had defended prior to their participation expressed a wider range
of responses. Carmen’s anger over her experience came through strongly in her
dissertation’s response, “Fuck you!” Angela’s relief at completing her long, frustrating
journey was evident in her dissertations’ exuberant, “Hallelujah, I’m done!” Gina’s did

not have this level of energy for emotional expression but it was still optimistic. Her

144

dissertation said, “I’m tired. I’ve been worked over so many times and I need a break,
but I feel like I’ve got a little bit of a message to give.”

Both Ellie and Hannah’s dissertations expressed gratitude. Ellie’s said, “Ha Ho,
an intertribal word for thank you” and Hannah’s said, “I think my dissertation does speak
because it’s qualitative and those women’s stories, their voices are in my dissertation.
Hopefully it would say thank you.”

Although some of these sentiments may have been alluded to or implied in the
women’s answers to the initial interview questions, their responses to the dissertation
dialogue questions were much more open, direct, and unedited. Neither Britt, Fiona, nor
Deva directly stated that they wanted or needed assistance in their journey during the
initial part of the interview. However, this message was explicit and consistent when ‘
asked what their dissertations would say if they could speak. In previous sections it has
been presented that women students may be afraid of being perceived as incompetent or
failures and this may affect their help seeking behaviors (Connor and Franklin, 1999;
Lovitts, 1996). When presented with the opportunity, though, to distance themselves
from the request by allowing their dissertation to voice a desire for assistance, each of
these participants asked for help. Additionally, Angela’s sense of relief and Carmen’s
anger were not expressed as strongly or candidly during the initial part of the interview.
When they were able to attribute the emotions to their dissertations, however, these
women expressed strong feelings about their journeys that were not diluted by the more

formal, professional language of the initial part of the interview.

145

What does your dissertation remind you of?

The ‘dissertation dialogue’ questions were diﬁ’erent ﬁ'om the initial interview
questions in both structure and intent. As explained earlier, the ‘dissertation dialogue’
questions were less formal and direct and more projective in nature than the initial
questions. They required the participants to think and talk about their dissertations
differently than the initial questions. Additionally, these questions referred speciﬁcally to
the dissertation and not the dissertation journey, which may have opened up space to
make a distinction between the journey and the document

The current question and the next required the participants to make a slight shift
from the previous two questions. Instead of answering as though they were the
dissertation, the women were asked to talk directly about their dissertations. When asked
to reﬂect on what their dissertations reminded them of, many of the participants, had
negative associations.

It reminds me of ﬁ'ustration. Waiting by the phone, checking my email like I’m

some messed up lover. Checking it every ﬁve minutes to see if she’s written.

Frustrating. — Carmen, 24

Every time I think about it I get a headache. — Ellie, 32

Hell? It’s so different ﬁ'om anything I’ve ever done but maybe a never ending

thing that continues to grow and get bigger, like the blob. — Fiona, 45

It’s like a thing all unto itself, you know? It’s like when I think about it, I’ve done

research before but it doesn’t take all this time and energy. — Deva, 27

It sounds terrible, but the bible. Something that’s big and thick and we hate to

keep opening. — Angela, 33

146

Some of these descriptions are consistent with the participants’ descriptions of
their journeys. Carmen and Fiona both described fairly negative and traumatizing
journeys and their dissertations clearly reminded them of the challenges and frustrations
they had faced. However, this was not true for all of the participants. Hannah, who had
described her journey as validating and collaborative, was reminded of some of the less
appealing aspects of her journey, issues she had not really addressed during the initial
interview.

I had a ﬁiend who said, I think pretty perfectly, “Oh you’re out of your cave”

when I was ﬁnished. To get this done, I isolated and I was in my dark little cave

with only the light from my little laptop screen. - Hannah, 28
Britt and Gina, who both experienced upswings in their journeys, made analogies to
developmental issues when asked this question. Their answers reﬂect the upswing they
experienced along their journeys.

The struggles in life. There are good moments and bad moments. It makes me

think of that phrase, that which doesn’t kill me makes me stronger. — Britt, 34

A student who starts out with some ideals and a possible direction, but pretty

naive and ends up in a different place, but having learned a lot. -— Gina, 31

What is special about your dissertation?

The women who participated in these interviews expressed a wide range of
experiences on their journeys, from the validating to the traumatizing. However, what
was most signiﬁcant was despite the differences in their experiences, all of them were

able ﬁnd something positive to say when asked what was special about their dissertation.

147

When the women were asked about their journeys they addressed a mixture of positive
and negative aspects and when they were asked what their dissertation reminded them of,
many of them described negative associations. However when asked what was special
about their dissertation, the women focused on issues like their accomplishments, the
personal meaning their project had for them, or the contributions their project could make
to the ﬁeld. None of them referred to the challenges or difﬁculties they faced during their
journey when they identiﬁed what was special.

The other issue to note is the difference in the way the questions were phrased.
In the initial part of the interview, women were asked to describe their journeys and
identify factors that facilitated or hindered the process, without any direction, limits, or
qualiﬁers to frame their answers. Based on some of the women’s answers to the initial
part of the interview and even to the previous three ‘dissertation dialogue’ questions, it
would be easy to infer that they had no positive feelings. However, when directed to
focus on what was special about their dissertation, each of them was able to ﬁnd
something on which to comment Hannah, Angela, and Gina focused on the personal
signiﬁcance or meaning their project held for them.

It’s the longest thing I’ve ever written. I feel like it’s a piece of me in a lot of

ways. It’s such a huge accomplishment, so I think that my dissertation is just

special to me. - Hannah, 28

What’s special is my dissertation has stories that I’m honored that I heard. It has

their life in there. . . .I don’t think another book has that kind of connection. -

Angela, 33

148

I don’t’ know how special this is in terms of being unique, but I feel like I stuck to

something that I really cared deeply about and that I wanted to do. I truly wanted

to ﬁndthe answer. — Gina, 31
Although Hannah made reference to this sense of accomplishment when asked what her
dissertation would wear, this is the ﬁrst time some of the other participants gave voice to
these feelings. Both Angela and Gina had identiﬁed positive aspects of their journey
during the initial part of the interview, however neither of them had so candidly
addressed the personal meaning of their dissertation. While these three women focused
on the personal meaning of their projects, the other participants addressed the
professional or practical implications of their dissertations.

It has genuine, real applications for practice. It really could make a difference in

the way that people learn how to make career decisions and somebody once said

to me if you want to ﬁnd out what somebody’s neurosis is, ask them what their

research topic is and for me that’s deﬁnitely it — Britt, 34

What it found is important for helping in the ﬁeld of suicidology. - Carmen, 24

It has never been done before. — Ellie, 32

It challenges a profession that doesn’t like to be challenged. — Fiona, 45

I can’t go wrong completely because there isn’t necessarily that much out there

studying courage. It’s kind of special just because it’s adding to that -— Deva, 27
The value in the ‘dissertation dialogue’ questions was in allong women to construct
and talk about their experiences and memories of their dissertations and their journeys
differently than they had in the past. As a result of these questions, some of the women

were able to tap into deeper emotional responses or discuss the personal value or meaning

149

of their project. Other participants were able to frame their experiences differently, or
identify and describe aspects of their journey they had not thought to include during the
initial part of the interview. Regardless of how the women’s descriptions of their

journeys began, all of them were able to end their stories and the interview with a

positive image.

Conclusions

This chapter presented the eight women who participated in the current project.
The stories of their journeys were analyzed by ﬁrst decontextualizing, or separating the
data into meaningful units, and then recontextualizing the data by identifying categories
of responses. The participants’ stories were separated into four different response
categories (positive, negative, ambivalent, and upswing) based on the description of the
overall quality of their journey. Additionally, themes of persistence, resilience,
connection, disconnection, integration into the academic community, and structure were
addressed as they pertained to each of the participants.

The dissertation is one of the ﬁnal requirements for the Ph.D. in counseling
psychology. For years researchers have acknowledged that students at the dissertation
stage are at risk of never completing the doctoral degree (e. g. Bowen & Rudenstine,
1992; Golde, 1994, 2000; Lovitts, 1996). Many students who drop out do so after
completing all of the requirements of their degree but the dissertation (Golde, 1994).
One factor that connects the women who participated in this study together is persistence.
Although this was not a study of persistence, the issue evolved as a central theme as a

number of the women alluded to thoughts of dropping out or not completing their

150

dissertations. However, ﬁve of the eight women had successfully defended their
dissertations at the time of the interview and the three women who were still involved in
the process of completing their dissertations all talked about their journeys in terms of
ﬁnishing their projects. At the same time, many of these women expressed feelings of
self-doubt, ambivalence, disappointment, frustration, and inadequacy. The fact that these
women continued to persist on their projects despite negative perceptions of themselves,
others, or their projects creates a common path among the participants; at the same time,
this persistence may distinguish them from some of their peers. Although this poses a
signiﬁcant limitation to the generalizability of the results of this study, it does not detract
from the signiﬁcance of the conclusions as they contribute to a growing understanding of
the process of completing the doctoral degree requirement.

When this project was originally conceived, it emphasized relationships in terms
of positive and negative or present and absent. As the project evolved, though, it became
increasingly clear that these constructs did not adequately capture what the participants
were describing along their journeys. Shifting the paradigm of relational experiences to
include both connection and disconnection and exploring the positive and negative
aspects of each status facilitated a more inclusive understanding of the participants’
stories. This recognition of the dialectic inherent in relationships led to a clearer
understanding of healthy mentoring and advising relationships compared to those that
involved abuses of power, as well as the acknowledgement of the beneﬁts of working
through disconnections in relationships.

The next chapter will present the conclusions related to the analysis and examine

the implications for the ﬁndings related to resiliency, persistence, connection,

151

disconnection, integration into the academic community, and structure. Chapter ﬁve will
also address the limitations of the current study and make suggestions for areas of future

inquiry that build on the current project.

152

CHAPTER V

Discussion

Introduction

The purpose of this dissertation was to increase understanding of the meaning
female graduate students place on the structures and processes of their research-training
experiences, speciﬁcally the participants’ experiences of writing their dissertations. This
chapter will present the conclusions related to the analysis and examine the implications
for the ﬁndings related to resiliency, connection, disconnection, and structure. It will also
address the limitations of the current study and make suggestions for areas of future
inquiry that build on the current project.

Although this study did not focus on issues of retention or attrition, these issues
were evident and important in the stories the participants told. Several of the participants
made reference to wanting to quit, or feeling stalled in their journey. Because they did
not quit and they were able to gain momentum on their journeys, we can look to their
stories to increase our understanding of the factors that may contribute to persistence.

In the previous chapter, I acknowledged that the original model I proposed in the
introduction did not sufﬁciently explain the dissertation journey experiences disclosed by
the participants. The original model focused on connection to the exclusion of
disconnection, reconnection, or resiliency in women’s journeys. As my analysis evolved,
it became apparent that it would be necessary to change the model in order to more
accurately reﬂect the centrality of these concepts. The changes to the model will serve as

the organizing principles for the conclusions. See ﬁgure two for a visual explanation.

153

$0833. ecu—3.800% 05 no 5002 .m 033k

 

092.80%?“
89a 33065? .m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

etc? .200 “032 .v
:5 00e0ammmu0a commago .m
weEQSQ we coca—002 60.803380va .N
00000809 30:0 32 A 4 8 0600. eonﬁwgﬁ .«o 0.004
\ awed: 300 m me 0:00an Eouo0eeooma
E065: \
B20830 ,3 60035050.. /
00000.5
A 05—0 00.3
352% K .3 683—0030.. A. e . 0 AU
eougwmmme 30892309 H 0.50035 /
mo e052 800 :0 $5.30
330005 e . A been—888 we #05 /
/ 38038 05 05:3
Hm 5:800me
0.005230 3.8503“ 030.5 owﬁhmmwgwﬁwwm /
E8553...— 7 . \ \
/ 0B§Em
8382020“ a guts—030:0
00e0pmmme0a 088 5m 050w .m N\
we 08:200.: €03 .:0m “0000085 .v
0000083 bum—0 .m mmEmeOn£0m
eo:00\>000£0 .N 3832
H.00N A 0.00—8.20
E25850
sea 88 m

 

 

 

 

 

 

154

Self-in-Relation Theory

Self-in-relation theory was the lens utilized to analyze the participants’ responses.
This theory emphasizes relationships as the context for experience, experimentation, and
development. The self is conceptualized as emerging within the context of relationships.
This view of development challenges the reigning paradigm that emphasizes
individuation and separation as measurements of successful development Rather, Miller
(1991) contends that all growth and development occur within dynamic interactions, not
separate from them. Mutual relationships can provide meaning and motivation in
peoples’ lives; their absence can negatively impact self esteem. The review of literature
outlines the positive outcomes of connection that Miller (1986b) refers to as “the ﬁve
good things”: zest, increased ability to act, increased sense of self worth, greater clarity
regarding self and others, and a desire for more relationships. Disconnections may result
in the opposite of the ﬁve good things: less energy, disempowerment, confusion, less
self-worth, and withdrawal ﬁom relationships.

Although disconnections may contribute to less satisfying dissertation journeys
and may create barriers or hindrances to the writing process, they are not necessarily
negative things that should be avoided. All relationships ebb and ﬂow through times of
connection and disconnection. The strengthening work in relationships occurs during
times of reconnection after disconnection. The key to transforming these disconnections

and remaining open to others is resilience (Jordan, 2004).

155

Discussion of Themes
Connection and disconnection

Relationships have been identiﬁed as a key factor in the literature on women’s
development (eg., Gilligan, 1982; Jordan, 1991; Miller, 1986a, 1991; & Surrey, 1991).
Additionally, as referred to in the review of literature, research in counseling psychology
has emphasized the importance of advisory, supervisory, and mentoring relationships. In
this study, relationships also emerged as signiﬁcant aspects of the women’s journeys
through the dissertation process. The women in this study all identiﬁed their
relationships with advisors or dissertation chairs as an important factor in their journey.
Some of the women described growing and learning in a collaborative, mutual
relationship with their advisor or chair. However, some of the women described
damaging relationships that actually acted as a barrier to their journey.

There are not two neat, dichotomous groups of participants: those who
experienced connection and those who experienced disconnection. Several of the women
who identiﬁed relationships as having a facilitating effect on their journey also
experienced disconnections in signiﬁcant relationships. The participants who were able
to work through their disconnections and develop mutual, supportive relationships with
other people tended to characterize their journey as connected. Those participants who
experienced disconnection but were unable to either work through the disconnection or
foster new connections with other faculty tended to describe journeys characterized by

disconnection.

156

The participants who identiﬁed relationships as having a signiﬁcant positive or
facilitating effect on their journey talked about their experiences differently than those
who had journeys characterized by disconnection or a lack of integration into their
academic community. They described experiencing more of the “ﬁve good things”
identiﬁed by Miller (1986b) as the positive outcomes of connection. The increases in
empowerment, clarity, efficacy, self-worth, and desire for future connection could be
seen both in the way the women talked about their process and in the way they talked
about their experience of the process. These women used words like “validating,”
“empowering,” “energized,” “encouraged,” and “positive” to describe their experiences.

The participants who experienced journeys characterized by disconnection used
very different words to describe their experiences. They used words and phrases like,
“unfair,” “victim,” “molded,” “half-ass,” and “I just gave up” to describe their writing
process. These phrases are consistent with Miller’s (1986b) description of the opposite of
the “ﬁve good things.” Whether or not disconnections affected the ultimate completion
of the dissertation project, they obviously impacted the quality of the journey.

Although mutual relationships may be a necessary factor for creating a more
positive or satisfying experiences, they are not necessarily sufﬁcient. The women who
related the most positive dissertation journeys not only described a signiﬁcant
relationship, they also talked about their own resiliency and perseverance. In addition,
mutual relationships are not a necessary factor for successful completion of the
dissertation project. Several of the students who experienced signiﬁcant disconnections
or an overall lack of integration into their academic community had successfully

defended their dissertations at the time of their participation in this project. However, the

157

presence of a mutual, growth fostering relationship that promotes Millers’ (1986b) “ﬁve
good things” may have ramiﬁcations on how students view the research process and

themselves as researchers.

Integration and Isolation

Even the women who described their journeys as collaborative acknowledged a
sense of isolation inherent to the dissertation writing process. Integration is “the extent to
which the individual shares the normative attitudes and values of peers and faculty in the
institution and abides by the formal and informal structural requirements for membership
in the community or in the subgroups of which the individual is a part” (Pascarella &
Terenzini, 1991, p.53). The women who were integrated into their academic
communities appeared to be able to work through or work with this sense of isolation
because they knew they could periodically re-connect with others when they needed
support. This integration or connection to a community seemed to result in more positive
or satisfying experiences despite their sense of isolation. “Joining others in mutually
supporting and meaningful relationships most clearly allows us to move out of isolation
and powerlessness” (Jordan, 2004, p. 42).

Women who did not experience connection or integration within a community
where they could re-energize, re-focus, or re-group during their journey described less
satisfying, even damaging experiences. They identiﬁed these experiences as factors that
hindered their writing process and impacted their self-esteem. Karen Laing stated,
“Isolation is the glue that holds oppression in place” (1998, as cited in Jordan, Walker, &

Hartling, 2004). When students lack a safe place within which to give voice to their fears

158

and frustrations about the process, they are not only isolated, but silenced. In this way,
problems within the student’s academic program or with faculty, advisors, or committee
members go unexamined and unaddressed. This creates the potential for a cycle in which
the dysfunctional pattern occurs repeatedly across generations of students in a program.

The literature suggests integration or membership in the academic community is
important to persistence (Lovitts & Nelson, 2000; Tinto, 1993). The role of the academic
advisor is central to creating integration and may have a greater impact on student
persistence than their relationship with peers (Golde, 2000). Students who experience
negative encounters, marginalization, disconnections, or a lack of integration may
withdraw from the academic community (Johnson, et al., 1995; Pascarella & Terenzini,
1994; Tinto, 1993). Tinto (1993) suggests that successful completion of the dissertation
project reﬂects not only the individual abilities of students, but also the role of the faculty
advisor. He asserts that “persistence at this stage may be highly idiosyncratic in that it
may hinge largely if not entirely upon the behavior of a speciﬁc faculty member” (T into,
1993,p.237)

The current study supports both the importance and the power of the advisory
relationship in shaping the women’s dissertation journeys, both positively and negatively.
Several of the students described signiﬁcant abuses of power by their advisors, from
being asked to work in an unfunded research position or risk losing access to data to
ignoring advisees and stalling their dissertation process for an extended period of time.
Others described pervasive feelings of abandonment, real or perceived, that impacted the
direction and time to completion of their journey. Some of the participants had to replace

their advisors after the individual left for another university or went on sabbatical.

159

Several of the women who had negative or marginalizing experiences with their advisors
talked about dropping out or breaking down during their journey.

The power of the advising relationship is not just in the damage it could do,
though. Some of the participants identiﬁed the advising relationship as a safe place to
explore their ideas, vent their ﬁ'ustrations, and develop their research projects. They
described mutual, empowering relationships that enhanced their sense of efﬁcacy and

ability to create meaning out of their process.

Structure

The dissertation is one of the ﬁnal requirements for the Ph.D. in counseling
psychology. For years researchers have acknowledged that students at the dissertation
stage are at risk of dropping out and not completing the degree (eg. Bowen &
Rudenstine, 1992; Golde, 1994, 2000; Lovitts, 1996). The lack of structure during the
dissertation is an obstacle for many doctoral students (Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Cone
& Foster, 1993; Mauch & Birch, 1989). The expectations and requirements for course
work have clearly deﬁned parameters and there are limits on time to completion. This is
not the case with the dissertation and many doctoral students experience difﬁculty
making the transition from the classroom to the dissertation (Williams, 1997).

The results of the current study are consistent with this trend in the literature.
Those students who had more structure along their journeys (e. g. Hannah and Gina)
identiﬁed the scaffolding provided by their academic programs as a facilitating factor.
They indicated that it was helpful to get timely feedback on their projects throughout

their journeys. Creating more steps between the dissertation proposal meeting and the

160

defense allowed more opportunities for the student to connect with their committee
members, receive feedback on their project, and give voice to their thoughts or concerns
about the process.

Students who lacked this programmatic level of structure described variously
seeking out structure from peers, advisors, or mentors or attempting to create their own
structure. These students used words like “lost,” “confused,” “frustrated,” “scared,” and
“alone” to describe their feelings about their process of ﬁnding or creating structure for
their projects. This lack of structure seemed to intensify feelings of isolation and
confusion. It has been noted in previous sections that women students tend to
underestimate their actual abilities (Alder, 1976; Ekstrom, et al., 1981; Hanson, 1992;
Hite, 1985). Fear of ridicule and failure may act as a barrier to success in their academic
programs (Conners & Franklin, 1999). Students may not feel as though they can ask for
help without being seen as a failure and yet it is realistic that they may not have the skills
to take on a project of this magnitude without guidance. The absence of a programmatic
structure that facilitates time management, project development, and connection with the
academic community may unwittingly contribute to students’ sense of isolation by

implicitly reinforcing the notion that students should be able to do things on their own.

Resilience

Individual resiliency is the ability to bounce back after experiencing a challenge.
This concept has become a hot topic recently in the positive psychology literature. It also
emerged as signiﬁcant in the current study. Traditionally resiliency has been viewed as

an individual endeavor (Jordan, 2004). However, through the lens of self-in-relation

161

theory, the emphasis is on relational resilience or the ability to transform disconnections.
This requires a shift from “individual ‘control over’ dynamics to a model of supported
vulnerability,” from a “one directional need for support from others to mutual empathic
involvement,” from power over dynamics to empowerment” from “ﬁnding meaning... to
creating meaning” (Jordan, 2004, p. 32). For students to be able to transform
disconnections, they must be in a context that is open and responsive to their voice.
Many of the participants in this study were not able to reconnect with the individual with
whom they experienced the disconnection, and for some of them the disconnection may
have been healthy because of the nature of the relationship. However, those students who
were able to reconnect with their program by fostering a healthy relationship with another
member in the academic community described a reduction in stress and isolation.
Transforming a disconnection is not about “doing, ﬁxing, changing, or
controlling,” rather it is about dealing with the fear that contributes to separation and
isolation (Jordan, 2004, p.56). Power issues are inherent to mentoring and advising
relationships. Students are, by deﬁnition, in positions of less power and disconnections
in a signiﬁcant relationship may result in feelings of ‘Vvhat’s wrong with me?” Students’
feelings of inadequacy may lead them to attribute problems within mentoring and
advising relationships to themselves rather than the situation (Lovitts, 1996). Because of
the emphasis on independence and individual achievement within academic programs,
students may view asking for help as a sign of vulnerability or incompetence. This may
inhibit them from reaching out to either the person they have experienced the
disconnection with or other members of the academic community. Several of the

participants in the current study were clearly able to deal with their fears and reach out to

162

someone for help. It is less clear how they dealt with their fears or what contributed to

their ultimate decision to ask for help. Exploring the intersection of relational resiliency

with individual resiliency may shed light on this quandary.

Considerations

The purpose of this project was to increase understanding of the meaning female
graduate students place on the structures and process of their research training.
Speciﬁcally, this project explored the participants’ perceptions of their experience writing
their dissertations. The study was qualitative in design and although the design was
appropriate to the questions asked, it does present several limitations to the current study.

The sample for this study was comprised of a small group of women who had
successfully negotiated (nearly) all of the requirements for the Ph.D. in counseling
psychology. In addition, all of these women self-selected to take part in the study. These
are not the only factors the participants had in common, as nearly all of them expressed
some negative experience or perception related to their journey. Many of the participants
described signiﬁcant problems with advisors, dissertation chairs, or other committee
members. Only one of the participants described an overall positive and validating
experience.

This lack of balance in the sample may be explained in several ways. It is
possible that more students have negative experiences along their dissertation journeys
and the sample was actually representative of women’s experiences in counseling
psychology. It would be necessary to do a much larger scale project, likely quantitative,

to assess the frequency of positive and negative dissertation writing experiences in order

163

to make any kind of conclusive statement regarding the current sample. Another
explanation may be that people who have negative experiences have a greater need to tell
their story and were, therefore, more likely to volunteer to participate in a study of this
nature. It is also possible that because students were allowed to anonymously tell their
story without any fear of retribution from their academic program they felt more
comfortable relating both negative and positive experiences. Whereas, within their
academic programs there may be a certain amount of pressure to present a more positive
spin on their experience so that they are seen as competent and a team player by faculty
who are in a position to evaluate them. The stories were purely self-report, retrospective
memories of the participants’ perceptions of their experiences. No effort was made to
corroborate the stories. Because the interviews involved retrospective memories, the

recollections may have included some distortions.

Implications

This study has implications for doctoral programs in counseling psychology,
advisors and committee members, and female doctoral students. The implications will be
organized around two factors, relational issues and structural issues.

Relational Issues

The presence of a mutual, growth fostering relationship that promotes Millers’
(1986b) “ﬁve good things” may have ramiﬁcations on how students view the research
process and themselves as researchers. This is an important implication for the way
graduate training, advising, and the dissertation process is structured. It is not enough to

just graduate students from programs in counseling psychology if there is no

164

understanding of the factors that contribute to the quality of their experience conducting
research and the development of their identities as researchers. If mutual relationships
that foster the “ﬁve good things” produce graduates who feel more positively about
conducting research and more conﬁdent in their own research skills, then it is necessary
to understand how faculty can promote these kinds of relationships with their students.
“Simply because a faculty member has written his or her own dissertation does not mean
that he or she knows how to facilitate the process for others” (Williams, 1997, p. 190).
Mentoring and advising relationships are complex and, as evidenced by the
participants in this project, have enormous inﬂuence on students and their perceptions of
the dissertation process. In order to avoid abuses of power, intentional or unintentional,
there must be space in the relationship for an ongoing dialogue about the relational
dynamics. Providing faculty with training regarding these issues may enhance faculty
and students’ ability to work through the inherent challenges of the dissertation process.
Although mentoring has received a lot of attention in the literature of various
disciplines, including engineering, counseling psychology, and education (Conners &
Franklin, 1999; Johnson, et al., 1995; Hollingsworth & Fassinger, 2002; Schramm, 2000)
mentoring relationships did not emerge as signiﬁcant from or more important than other
relationships in the current study. Advising relationships, though, were identiﬁed by all
of the participants as having a signiﬁcant impact on their dissertation journey. It is
possible this is because not all of the women who participated experienced a mentoring
relationship, however all of them had an advisor. This also points to a gap in our
understanding of mentoring and advising relationships. Although the literature has drawn

a distinction between the two concepts (Gelso & Lent, 2000; Hollingsworth & Fassinger,

165

2002; Schlosser, et al., 2003). The utility of this distinction may have been lost on this
project. When allowed to talk freely, without being prompted to use one word or another,
the participants used mentor and advisor interchangeably. They referred to mentoring
and advising relationships both as positive and negative. The strength or power of both of
these relationships was evident in that relationships that were perceived as positive by
participants and described as positive were associated with more positive outcomes. The
reverse was also true. Relationships that were perceived as negative and described in
negative terms were associated with more negative outcomes. Because of the importance
of the advising relationship, programs may want to review their policies regarding
assigning students to an advisor. The way an advisor is assigned may impact the
relationship between the advisor and the advisee, it also “communicates the program’s

position with regard to the students having a voice” (Schlosser, et al., 2003, p. 187).

Structural Issues

Research supports the need for students to begin working on their dissertations
early in their doctoral training (Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Hanson, 1992) and the
current study echoes this idea. The fourth or ﬁfth year of many programs is considered
the dissertation year. However, participants who described programs that provided more
structure for the dissertation process, also identiﬁed starting their dissertation journey
earlier in their academic program. Providing students with steps before the dissertation
proposal and between the proposal and the defense that facilitate project management and
time management skills and allow more opportunities for feedback from faculty may

streamline the process. This step-wise approach to the dissertation allows students to

166

gain mastery over a certain skill set before moving on to the next This generates more
opportunities for students to have successes along the process which in turn may enhance
their sense of esteem and eﬂicacy regarding research.

This more collaborative approach to the dissertation process is consistent with
Gelso’s (1979, 1993, 1997) theory of the RTE. Research that has examined differences
in training programs has found that programs rated higher on (a) faculty modeling, (b)
positive reinforcement, (c) early involvement in research, and ((1) science as partly social
have a greater impact on students’ attitudes toward research (Gelso, et al., 1996). These
interpersonal factors identiﬁed by Gelso (1979, 1993, 1997) point to a model for the
dissertation that is more structured and provides students with scaffolding for acquiring
the necessary research skills. This more collaborative, relationally oriented approach
may challenge the existing research training models that emphasize independence and
individual achievement. In addition, many academic programs, faculty, and students may
be resistant to changes that appear to involve more work on their part. It will be important
to examine ways to integrate these concepts into already existing programmatic structures

in ways that are consistent with their training philosophies.

Conclusions
The reality is doing research is hard work, writing a dissertation is not an easy
process, and graduate training may be less than ideal. Many students who participated in
this project gave voice to a sense of naivety about graduate school in general and, more
speciﬁcally, the dissertation writing process. These students indicated that they thought

their experiences would be different, easier, more fair, and less lonely or isolated They

167

thought they would have more help or that they would be automatically mentored. The

responsibility for addressing these misconceptions is shared mutually by the institution,

the faculty and the student. The journey should be challenging not impossible, difﬁcult

not traumatic and this is possible if institutions, faculty, and students work together to

create a more realistic understanding of the doctoral education process. Students in this

study identiﬁed both relational and structural factors as signiﬁcant inﬂuences on their

perception of their journeys. Although this study may contribute to increasing our

understanding of relational factors and the doctoral training process, it presents a

challenge in terms of making recommendations for change. The quality of relationships

can not be legislated or mandated, however institutions have control over the way

academic programs are structured or organized. It is at the structural level that programs

may be able to make changes and impact the process of graduate training. Although the

responsibility for improving the dissertation writing process should ideally be shared by

the institution, the faculty, and the student, the reality is that institutional change is often

slow. There are factors that students can be empowered to address on their own:

1.

2.

Monitoring self talk regarding self-concept, achievement, hardship, etc.
Consulting with peers, advisors, others to create structure

Reading other people’s proposals and dissertations

Establishing social support outside of academic programs

Anticipating down times and periods of isolation

Investigating reputations of committee members and committee chair

Educating self about politics of the department

168

8. Anticipating and planning for sabbaticals and other faculty responsibilities

that might impact the dissertation journey

9. Establishing clear expectations with advisors and mentors

10. Know your own strengths and limits and anticipate how they will impact the

dissertation journey (ex. organizations skills, writing skills, ability to meet

deadlines)

In addition, there are several things that faculty can do to facilitate this process:

1.

Include deﬁnitions of and expectations for mentoring and advising in program
handbook
Implement programmatic evaluations of student’s experiences with advising

and mentoring

. Provide training and support for faculty in their roles as mentors and advisors

Establish minimal acceptable standards for advising and mentoring in terms of
time commitments, responsibility for disseminating pertinent programmatic
information, etc.

Develop programmatic philosophy of mentoring and advising

Facilitate students’ self-assessment of needs and expectations for advising and
mentoring

Give students feedback on their progress

169

Recommendations for Future Research

The intent and design of this study were exploratory in nature, as such, the current
project likely stimulated more questions than it answered. This section will make
recommendations for future inquiry.

The current study focused solely on the perceptions of graduate students
regarding their dissertation writing process. This project provided female graduate
students in counseling psychology the opportunity to share the story of their journey in
their own voice. Future research could examine the process from the perspective of the
student, as well as the advisor or dissertation chair. This would enhance the current
project by allowing the researcher to check intentions and perceptions by both the advisor
and the student Because only the student was interviewed for the current project, there
was no way to check the validity of their perceptions and so their perceptions became
their story.

Additionally, this project interviewed participants at one discreet pointin their
journey, as such the data was mostly retrospective. It is diﬂicult to estimate how this
approach may have impacted the quality of the data that was collected. For example,
students who had successfully completed their journey may have looked back on their
experiences more favorably because the struggles or challenges of the process were no
longer relevant. It would be interesting to conduct a longitudinal study, following several
women over the course of their entire dissertation journey. This approach would give
more insight into variations and changes in students’ perspectives at various points in

their journeys. It would also control for problems with retrospective memory.

170

 

The current study did not explore the impact of cultural factors, although this
emerged as a signiﬁcant point in several of the interviews. Future research could more
fully explore the impact of culture on the dissertation journey. This research could
explore culture as it contributes to the development of the dissertation topic, its
relationship to research philosophy, and as it impacts the advising relationship.

Five of the eight participants in the current study had successfully defended their
dissertations at the time of their interview and the other three participants all spoke about
their journeys as though they would complete them. These women all showed resiliency
and perseverance. Both of these concepts need to be more fully examined as they relate
to persistence through the dissertation journey. Additionally, women who decide not to
complete the dissertation and remain all but dissertation (ABD) need to be asked about
their experience and the factors that contributed to their decision not to continue to degree
completion.

Relationships of all kinds, advisory, mentoring, peer, and family emerged as
signiﬁcant to the dissertation journey. Women who experienced mutual, growth
fostering relationships with a member of their academic community described more
positive experiences along their journeys. These relationships seemed to promote the
experience of Miller’s (1986b) “ﬁve good things.” Understanding why certain
relationships facilitate empowerment, efﬁcacy, clarity, self-worth, and desire for more
connection could contribute to developing better mentor/advisor training for faculty. In
addition, exploring some of the other relationships that women identiﬁed as signiﬁcant

along their journeys, like clinical supervisors or other non-academic faculty contacts,

171

may enhance our understanding of the dissertation process for women in counseling

psychology.

Personal Reﬂections

The four major themes addressed in this section correspond with key points in the
model that emerged out of my understanding of the participants’ stories of their
dissertation journeys. Throughout the interview process, and as my own dissertation
journey evolved, I became increasingly aware of the complexity of the dissertation
process. Although everyone’s dissertation journey is unique, there are common
challenges or experiences that are universal to the process. My goal was to present the
stories of the participants so that both their uniqueness and their commonalities could be
recognized. Because of my closeness to the research, I struggled not to overwhelm the
project with my voice and I attempted to allow the participants’ stories to emerge in their
own voices. I recognize that it is impossible to be “value free” and I acknowledge that
my fears about overwhelming the project may have lead me to be more conservative with
my own observations and perspectives.

I went into this process believing that the dissertation was about learning and
growth as they contributed to moving from a trainee to a professional. I still believe this
is true, but I also believe there is a component of discovery. Not simply the discovery of
concepts or ideas as a result of analyzing the data, but discovery about the self and
relationships. Williams (1997) observed that the process of writing a dissertation is as
much about what happens within the individual as it is about the product of the

dissertation. I would expand on that observation to add that the process is as much about

172

what happens within the individual and their relationships as it is about the product of the

dissertation.

173

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Statement of Informed Consent

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this research project about graduate
research training. This research is being conducted under the direction of Michelle Pride,
a doctoral student in Counseling Psychology at Michigan State University. The purpose
of this study is to learn more about counseling psychology graduate students’ perceptions
of their research training. Participation in this study will involve completing a
demographic sheet and an in-depth interview with the primary investigator. The
interview will explore your perceptions of your experiences in your graduate training
program, your relationships with faculty, mentors, and committee members, and the
evolution of your dissertation research ideas and skills. Your participation is voluntary.
You have the right to refuse to answer demographic or interview questions and may
withdraw your consent and discontinue the interview process at any time with no penalty.
The entire process should take approximately 1 ‘/2 to 2 hours.

Your identity and all information that is provided will be kept conﬁdential and
protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Interviews will be taped and the
tapes will be kept in a secure place until they are transcribed, after which they will be
erased. Each participant will be identiﬁed by a code. No names will appear on any of the
written material (demographic sheets or transcribed interviews) and no identifying
information will be connected to any research ﬁndings. Your consent form will be kept

separate from any interview materials.

174

Your signature indicates that you have read and understood the information
provided above, that you willingly agree to participate, that you may withdraw your
consent at any time and discontinue participation without penalty, that you will receive a
copy of this form, and that you are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies. If
you have any questions or concerns related to this study, please contact Michelle Pride
(970-472-9163_Miche11'e'pr1de@aol . com)You can also contact the chairperson of
Michigan State University’s research review board if you have any questions about your

rights as a human subject of research.

 

 

signature date

175

Appendix B: Sample recruitment letter

Dear Graduate Student,

Would you give a little time to participate in my research to increase knowledge
of research training? I am a graduate student in the Counseling Psychology program at
Michigan State University. I am currently on internship at Colorado State University and
I am in the process of completing my dissertation research. I am interested in
understanding how students’ relationships with their faculty (advisors, mentors,
committee members) impact the development of their dissertation ideas and skills.

If you agree to participate, you would complete an in-depth interview with me,
which should take approximately 1 ‘/2 to 2 hours. I hope that the results of this research
will increase our understanding and awareness of the impact of relationships on the
research training process.

If you are interested in participating in this research, please contact Michelle Pride
at (970) 472-9163 or Michellepriderﬁaol.com. Please leave your name and contact
information and I will contact you to set up time to complete the interview.

Thank you!!

176

Appendix C: Demographic Sheet

1. What is your age?

 

2. How do you identify racially/ethnically?
3. What year are you in your program?

4. How large was your cohort?

5. Highest degree earned:

 

6. Year degree was earned:

7. Have you completed any of the following?

 

 

a. Master’s thesis ___NO _YES
Date of completion Topic

b. Apprenticeship project _NO _YES
Date of completion Topic

c. Other research projects ___NO _YES
Date of completion Topic

 

5. Do you have any publications? _NO _YES number of publications

6. Have you made any presentations? _NO _YES number of presentations _
7. How many required courses in statistics/research methodology have you taken?

8. How many elective courses in statistics/research methodology have you taken?

9. What are your career plans after graduation?

 

 

177

5.

6.

Appendix D: Interview Schedule

Tell me about your dissertation research
:1. Where are you in the process?
Tell me about the journey you’ve taken in completing your dissertation thus far.
a. How did you decide on a topic?
b. How did you become interested in your topic?
c. What has your writing process been like?
What are some critical incidents that exemplify your journey?
What helped you along on your journey?
Was there anything that got in the way of your journey or delayed your progress?

Is there anything you would like to add?

The dissertation dialogue questions:

7.

9.

If your dissertation got dressed, what would it wear?
If your dissertation could speak, what would it say?

What does your dissertation remind you of?

10. What is special about your dissertation?

178

REFERENCES

Alder, N. E. (1976). Women students. In J. Kutz & R. T. Hartnett (Eds), Scholars in the
making (pp. 197-225). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

American Psychological Association, Division Counseling and Guidance, Committee on
Counselor Training. (1952). Recommended standards for training counseling
psychologists at the doctorate level. American Psychologist, 7, 175-181.

American Psychological Association, Ofﬁce of Program Consultation and Accreditation.
(1996). 1995 summary of characteristics and outcomes of accredited counseling
psychology doctoral programs. Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychological Association. (1999). Far more psychology degrees are going to
women. APA Monitor online, 30(10), 1-2. Available FTP: www.a a.or monitor
/nov99 /n115. htrnl.

Aspenson, D.O., Gersh, T.L., Perot, A.R., Galassi, J .P., Schroeder, R., Kerick, S., Bulger,
J ., & Brooks, L. (1993). Graduate psychology students’ perceptions of the
scientist-practitioner model of training. Counseling Psychology Quarterly, 6(3),
201-215.

Austin, A. E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as
socialization to the academic career. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 94-
122)

Barlow, D. H., Hayes, S. C., &Nelson, R. O. (1984). The Scientist Practitioner. New
York: Pergamon.

Belar, C.D. & Perry, NW. (1992). National conference on scientist-practitioner
education and training for the professional practice of psychology. American
Psychologist, 47(1), 71-75.

Belenky, M. F ., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (Eds). (1986
Women ’s ways of knowing: The development of the self voice, and mind. New
York: Basic Books, Inc.

Betz, N. E. (1997). Increasing research involvement and interests among graduate
students in counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 25, 88-93.

Betz, N. E. & Hackett, G. (1981). The relationship of career-related self-efﬁcacy
expectations to perceived career options in college women and men. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 28(5), 399-410.

179

Bishop, R. M. & Bieschke, K. J. (1998). Applying social cognitive theory to interest in
research among counseling psychology doctoral students: A path analysis.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45(2), 182-188.

Bordin, E. S. (197 9). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of working
alliance Psychotherapy: Theory Research, and Practice, 16(3), 252-260.

Bowen, W.G. & Rudenstine, N.L. (1992). In pursuit of the PhD. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.

Bowman, S. L. (1997). Research training in counseling psychology: A former training
director’s perceptions. The Counseling Psychologist, 25(1), 82-87.

Brown, S. D., Lent, R.W., Ryan, N.E., & McPartland, E. B. (1996). Self-efﬁcacy as an
intervening mechanism between research training environments and scholarly
productivity: A theoretical and methodological extension. The Counseling
Psychologist, 24(3), 535-544.

Chalmers, A. F. (1999). What is this thing called science? (3"! ed. ),_ Indianapolis, IN:
Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.

Charmaz, K. (1983). The grounded theory method: An explication and interpretation. In
R. M. Emerson (Ed), C ontempora-ry ﬁeld research: A collection of readings (pp.
109-126). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.

Cone, J. D. & Foster, S. L. (1993). Dissertations and theses ﬁom start to ﬁnish.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Conners, N.A. & Franklin, K. K. (1999). Fostering research by female graduate students
through mentoring. Point Clear, AL: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the Mid-South Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED435757)

Cook, E. P. (1993). Women, relationships and power: Implications for counseling.
Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice: A social psychological perspective. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Dooley, C. & F edele, N. M. (2004). Mothers and sons: Raising relational boys. In .l.V.
Jordan, M. Walker, & L. M. Hartling (Eds), The complexity of connection. (pp.
220-249). New York: Guilford Press.

Durkheim, E. (193 8). The rules of sociological method. (S.A.Solovay & J. H. Mueller,
Trans.) G. E.G. Catlin, (Ed.) NY: Free Press. (Original work published 1894).

180

Egan, KS. (1994). Flexibility makes the difference in mentoring women for academic
success. Journal of the Association for Communication Administration, 2, 87-94.

Ekstrom, R.B., Beir, J .J ., Davis, E.L., & Gruenberg, CB. (1981). Career and educational
counseling implications of women’s life experience learning. The Personnel and
Guidance Journal, 60, 97-101.

Erikson, EH. (1963). Childhood and society (2” ed). New York, NY: Norton.

Ervin, E. (1995). Power, frustration, and ‘ﬁerce negotiation’ in mentoring relationships:
Four women tell their stories. Women Studies, 24(5), 447-481.

Fedele, N .M. (2004). Relationships in groups: Connections, resonance, and paradox. In
J.V. Jordan, M. Walker, & L.M. Hartling (Eds). The complexity of connection:
Writings ﬁom the Stone Center ’s Jean Baker Miller Training Institute (pp. 194-
219). New York: Guilford Press.

Fetterman, D.M. (1989). Ethnography: Step by step. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Fitzgerald, L.F. & Osipow, S. H. (1986). An occupational analysis of counseling
psychology: How special is the specialty? American Psychologist, 41(5), 535-544.

Fitzgerald, L.F. & Osipow, S. H. (1988). We have seen the future, but is it us? The
vocational aspirations of graduate students in counseling psychology.
Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 19(6), 575-5 83.

Frank, G. (1984). The Boulder Model: History, rationale, and critique. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 15, 417-435.

Galassi, J. P. (1989). Maintaining the viability of counseling psychology: The role of
research training. Counselling Psychology Quarterly 2(4), 465-4 74.

Galassi, J. P. & Brooks, L. (1992). Integrating scientist and practitioner training in
counseling psychology: Practicum in the key. Counselling Psychology Quarterly,
5(1), 57-65.

Galassi, J. P., Stoltz, R. R, Brooks, L., & Trexler, K. A. (1987). Improving research
training in doctoral counseling programs. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 66, 40-44.

Gelso, C. J. (1979). Research in counseling: Methodological and professional issues. The
Counseling Psychologist, 8(3), 7-35.

Gelso, CJ. (1993). On the making of scientist-practitioner: A theory of research training

in professional psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,
24(4), 468-476.

181

Gelso, C.J. (1997). The making of a scientist in applied psychology: An attribute by
treatment conception. The Counseling Psychologist, 25, 307-320.

Gelso, C.J., Betz, N.E., Friedlander, M.L., Helms, J .E., Hill, C.E., Patton, MJ., et al.
(1988). Research in counseling psychology: Prospects and recommendations. The
Counseling Psychologist, 16(3), 385-406.

Gelso, C.J., & Fretz, B. R. (1992). Counseling psychology. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt
Brace College Publishers.

Gelso, C. J. & Lent, R. W. (2000). Scientiﬁc training and scholarly productivity: The
person, the training environment and their interaction. In S. D. Brown & R. W.
Lent (Eds), Handbook ofcounseling psychology, (3"‘1 ed, pp. 109-139). New
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Gelso, C. J ., Mallinkrodt, B., & Judge, A. B. (1996). Research training environment,
attitudes toward research, and research self-efﬁcacy: The revised research training
environment scale. The Counseling Psychologist, 24(2), 304-322.

Genovese, Elizabeth Fox (1991). Feminism without illusions: A critique of individualism.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a diﬁerent voice: Psychological theory and women ’s development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Golde, C. (1994). Student descriptions of the doctoral student attrition process. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher
Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service Document No. 375 733).

Golde, C. (2000). Should I stay or should I go? Student descriptions of the doctoral
attrition process. The Review of Higher Education, 23(2), 199-227.

Goldman, L. (1976). A revolution in counseling research. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 23, 543-552.

Goldman, L. (1977). Toward more meaningful research. Personnel and Guidance
Journal, 55, 363-368.

Goldman, L. (1982). Deﬁning non-traditional research. The Counseling Psychologist,
10(4), 87-89.

Goodyear, R.K., Cortese, J .R., Guzzardo, C.R,. Allison, R.D., Claiborn, C., & Packard,

T. 2000). Factors, trends, and topics in the evolution of counseling psychology
training. The Counseling Psychologist, 28(5), 603-621.

182

Hansman, C.A., Mott, V.W., Ellinger, A.D., & Guy, T. (2002). Critical perspectives on
mentoring: Trends and issues. (Report No. Set-3 88). Washington, DC: Ofﬁce of
Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED465045).

Hanson, T. L. (1992). The ABD phenomenon: The “at risk” population in higher
education and the discipline of communication. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Speech Communication Association (Chicago, IL). (ERIC
Document Reproducation Service Document No. ED351732).

Hedges, L. V. (1987). How hard is hard science, how soft is soft science: The empirical
cumulativeness of research. American Psychologist, 42(2), 443-455.

Heppner, P.P. & Anderson, W. P. (1985). On the perceived non-utility of research in
counseling. Journal of Counseling and Development, 63, 545-547.

Hill, C. E. (1982). Counseling process research; Philosophical and methodological
dilemmas. The Counseling Psychologist, 10(4), 7-19.

Hill, C. E. (1997). The effects of my research training environment: Where are my
students now? The Counseling Psychologist, 25, 74-81.

Hill, C. E. & Williams, E. N. (2000). The process of individual therap . In S. D. Brown
& R. W. Lent (Eds), Handbook of counseling psychology, (3r ed., pp. 670-710).
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Hite, L.M. (1985). Female doctoral students: Their perceptions and concerns. Journal of
College Student Personnel, 26, 18-22.

Hoethersall, D. (1995). History of Psychology (3'd ed). New York, McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Hollingsworth, M. A. & Fassinger, R. E. (2002). The role of faculty mentors in the
research training of counseling psychology doctoral students. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 49(3), 324-330.

In print and on the air. (2001, December 12) Stanford Report.

Ivey, A. E. (1980). Counseling Psychology — the most broadly-based applied psychology
specialty. The Counseling Psychologist, 8(3), 3-6.

Jacks, P., Chubin, D.E., Portoer, A.L., & Connolly, T. (1983). The ABC’s of ABD’s: A
story of incomplete doctorates. Improving College and University Teaching,
31(2), 74-81.

Johnson, K.K., Goldberg, J .L., & Sedlacek, W.E. (1995). Focus groups: A method of
to increase retention of female engineering students. (Report No. UMCP-RR-14-

183

95). College Park: MD: Maryland University College Park. A. James Clark
School of Engineering. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED399875)

Johnson, W. B. (2002). The intentional mentor: Strategies and guidelines of the practice
of mentoring. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33 (1), 88-96.

Jordan, J. V. (1991). The meaning of mutuality. In J .V. Jordan, A.G. Kaplan, J.B. Miller,
I.P. Stiver, & L. Surrey (Eds), Women’s growth in connection (pp. 81-96). New
York: Guilford Press.

Jordan, J .V. (2004). Toward competence and connection. In J .V. Jordan, M. Walker, &
L.M. Hartling (Eds), The complexity of connection (pp. 11-27). New York:
Guilford Press.

Jordan, J.V., Kaplan, A. G., Miller, J. B., Stiver, I. P. & Surrey, L. (Eds). (1991).
Women ’s growth in connection. New York: Guilford Press.

Jordan, J. V., Walker, M., & Hartling, L. M. (Eds). (2004). The complexity of
connection: Writings for the Stone Center ’s Jean Baker Miller Training Institute.
New York: Guilford Press.

Kahn, J. & Scott, N. (1997). Predictors of research productivity and science-related
career goals among counseling psychology doctoral programs. The Counseling
Psychologist, 25(1), 38-67.

Kanfer, F. H. (1990). The scientist-practitioner connection: A bridge in need of constant
connection. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 21(4), 264-270.

Keyes, B. J. & Hogberg, D. K. (1990). Undergraduate psychology alumni: Gender and
cohort differences in course usefulness, postbacculaureate education and career
paths. Teaching of Psychology, 1 7(2), 101-105.

Kite, M.E., Russo, N. F ., Brehm, S. S., Fouad, N .A., Hall, C.C.I., Hyde, J.S., et al.
(2001). Women psychologists in academe: Mixed progress, unwarranted
complacency. American Psychologist, 56(12), 1080-1098.

Korman, M. (Ed.). (1976). Levels and patterns of professional training in psychology:
Conference proceedings. Vail, Colorado. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.

Krumboltz, J .D. (2002). Encouraging research: Make it collegial, enjoyable, and relevant.
American Psychologist, 5 7(11), 931-940.

Ladany, N., Ellis, M. V., & Friedlander, M. L. (1999). The supervisory working alliance,

trainee self-efficacy, and satisfaction. Journal of Counseling and Development,
77, 447-455.

184

Levinson, D. (1978). The seasons of a man ’s life. New York: Alfred A. KnOpf.

Leibenluit, E., Dial, T.H., Haviland, M.G., & Pincus, HA. (1993). Sex differences in
rank attainment and research activities among academic psychiatrists. Archives
of General Psychiatry, 50, 896-904.

Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. S. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.

Lovitts, B. (1996, April). Who is responsible for graduate student attrition — the
individual or the institution? Toward an explanation of the high and persistent

rate of attrition. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Research
Association. New York, NY.

Lovitts, B. & Nelson, C. (2000). The hidden crisis in graduate education: Attrition for
Ph.D. programs. Academe, 86(6), 44-50.

Magoon, T. M., & Holland, 1.1.. (1984). Research training and supervision. In S.D.
Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds), Handbook of Counseling Psychology (pp. 682-715).
New York: Wiley.

Mahler, MS. (1968). On human symbiosis or the vicissitudes of individuation. New
York: International Universities Press.

Marshall, C. & Rossman, GB. (1989). Designing qualitative research. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.

Mauch, J .E. & Birch, J .W. (1983). Guide to the successful thesis and dissertation: A
handbook for students and faculty (2nd ed.). New York: M. Dekker.

Maxwell, S.E. & Delaney, H. D. (1990). Designing experiments and analyzing data: A
model comparison approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. '

McF all, R. M. (1996). Making psychology incorruptible. Applied and Preventive
Psychology, 5, 9-15.

Meara, N.M., Schmidt, L. D., Carrington, C.H., Davis, K. L., Dixon, D.N., Fretz, B. R.,
Myers, R A., Ridley, C. R., & Suinn, R. M. (1988). Training and accreditation in
counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 16(3), 366-384.

Mednick, MT. (1991). Currents and futures in American feminist psychology.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 611-621.

Miles, B. M. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2“ ed). thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.

185

Miller, J .B. (1983). The necessity of conﬂict. In J .H. Robbins & R.J. Siegal (Eds),
Women Changing Therapy [Special Issue]. Women and Therapy: A Feminist
Quarterly, 2(2), 3-9.

Miller, J .B. (1986a). Toward a new psychology of women (2“d ed.). Boston: Beacon
Press.

Miller, J .B. (1986b). What do we mean by relationships? Work in Progress, No 22.
Wellesley, MA: Stone Center Working Paper Series.

Miller, J .B. (1991). The development of women’s sense of self. In J .V. Jordan, A.G.
Kaplan, J .B. Miller, I.P. Stiver, & L. Surrey (Eds), Women’s growth in
connection (pp. 11-26). New York: Guilford Press.

Mott, V. W. (2002). Emerging perspectives on mentoring: Fostering adult learning and
development. In C. A. Hansman, W.V. Mott, A.D. Ellinger, & T. Guy (Eds).
Critical perspectives on mentoring: Trends and issues. (Report No. Ser-388).
Washington, DC: Ofﬁce of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED465045)

Murray, J .M. & Williams, S. (1999). Analysis of data from graduate study in psychology:
1997-98. APA Research Ofﬁce. From:
http://research.apa.orglgad98contentshtml.

National Science Foundation (1990). Women and minorities in science and engineering.
Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

Neumann, A. & Peterson, PL. (1997). Learning from our lives: Women, research and
autobiography in education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Nicoloff, L.K. & Forrest, L. (1988). Gender issues in research and publication. Journal of
College Student Development, 29, 521-528.

Norcross, J. C., Sayette, M. A., Mayne, T.J., Karg, R. S., & Turkson, M. A. (1998).
Selecting a doctoral program in professional psychology: Some comparisons
among Ph.D. counseling, Ph.D. clinical, and Psy.D. clinical psychology programs.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 29, 609-614.

Nyquist, J. D., Manning, L, Wolff, D. H., Austin, A. E., Sprague, J., Fraser, P. K.,
Calcagno, C., & Woodford, B. (1999). On the road to becoming a professor: The
graduate student experience. Change, 31(3), 18-27.

Ostertag, P.A. & McNamara, J. R. (1991). “Feminization” of psychology. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 15, 349-369.

Pascarella, E.T. & Terenzini, RT. (1991). How college effects students: Findings and

186

insights ﬁom 20 years of research. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Patton, M. J. (2000). Counseling psychology training: A matter of good teaching. The
Counseling Psychologist, 28(5), 701-711.

Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (2“d ed). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.

Peterson, D. R. (1996). Making psychology indispensable. Applied and Preventive
Psychology, 5, 1-8.

Phillips, .l.C. & Russell, R. K. (I 994). Research self-efﬁcacy, the research training
environment, and research productivity among graduate students in counseling
psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 22(4), 628-641.

Pride, M. (2002). Graduate students ’ perceptions of the research training environment.
Unpublished manuscript. Michigan State University.

Rosen, W.B. (2004). Making great memories: Empathy, derailment, and growth. In M.W.
Walker & W.B. Rosen (Eds), How connections heal: Stories ﬁom relational
cultural therapy. New York: Guilford Press.

Ross, A. O. (1981). Of rigor and relevance. Professional Psychology, 12, 318-327.

Schramm, S. (2000). Thinking thrice: A feminist response to “mentoring” that
marginal izes. (Opinion paper No. HE033217). Columbia, SC: Wardlaw College
of Education Department of Educational Leadership and Policies. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED446463)

Sechrest, L. (1992). The past future of clinical psychology: A reﬂection on Woodworth
(1937). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(1), 18-23.

Seligman, M. (1972). Learned helplessness. Annual Review of Medicine, 23, 407-412.

Sentell, T., Pingitore, D., Scheﬁ'ler, R., Schwalm, D., & Haley, M. (2001). Gender
differences in practice patterns and income among psychologists in professional
practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 32(6), 607-617.

Schlosser, L.Z., Knox, S., Moskovitz, A. R., & Hill, C. E. (2003). A qualitative
examination of graduate advising relationships: The advisee perspective. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 5 0(2), 178-188.

Solomon, A. (2001). The noonday demon: An atlas of depression. New York: Scribner.

Smith, J. A. (1995). Semi-structured interviewing and qualitative analysis. In J. A.

187

Smith, R. Harre, & L. Van Langenhove (Eds), Rethinking methods in psychology.
(pp. 9-49). London.

Stiver, I.P. & Miller, J .B. (1988). From depression to sadness in women’s
psychotherapy. Work in Progress, No. 36. Wellesley, MA: Stone Center Working
Paper Series.

Stoltenberg, C.D., Pace, T.M., Kashubeck-West, S., Biever, J .L., Patterson, T., & Welch,
1D. (2000). Training models in comsehng psychology: Scientist-practitioner
versus practitioner-scholar. The Counseling Psychologist, 28(5), 622-640.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
\procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Strupp, H.H. (1981). Clinical research, practice, and the crisis of conﬁdence. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49(2), 216-219.

Surrey, J. L. (1991). The “Self-in-relation”: A theory of women’s development. In J .V.
Jordan, A.G. Kaplan, J .B. Miller, I.P. Stiver, & L. Surrey (Eds), Women ’s growth
in connection (pp. 51-67). New York: Guilford Press.

Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Tannen, D. (1986). That ’s not what I meant!: How conversational style makes or breaks
your relations with others. New York: Morrow.

Tannen, D. (1990). You just don ’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New
York: Ballantine Books.

Taylor, S. J ., & Bogdan, R. (1998). Introduction to qualitative research methods: A
guidebook and resource (3" ed). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and soﬂware tools. New York:
Falmer.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition
(2” ed). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Tyler, LE. (1992). C0tmseling psychology - why? Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice, 23(5), 342-344.

Van Manen, M. (1979). Reclaiming qualitative methods for organizational research.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 520-526.

Walker, M. (2004). How relationships heal. In Walker, M., & Rosen, W.B. (Eds). How

188

connections heal: Stories ﬁom relational-cultural therapy (pp. 3-21). New York:
Guilford Press.

Watkins, C.E., Lopez, F. 6., Campbell, V.L., & Himmell, CD. (1986). Contemporary
counseling psychology: Results of a national survey. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 33(3), 301-309.

Williams, J .M. (1997). The dissertation experience of female: Implications for counselor
educators. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of New Orleans.

Woodworth, R S. (1937). The future of clinical psychology. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 1, 4-5.

189

”limitllliliililvilli"