Even though the faculty advisor matching process differed in the Education and Engineering fields, both groups of women said that their individual faculty advisor could “make or break” their doctoral experience and degree progress – those who had good faculty advisors perceived it was a matter of “luck.” The quality
of each woman's doctoral experience and degree progress varied as a function of the individual faculty advisor (for the Education women) or primary investigator (PI) in the research lab (for the Engineering women). Overall, the Education women reported that they had fewer positive doctoral experiences than the Engineering women, and this was often due to the quality of their relationship with the faculty advisor. Those women who had positive doctoral experiences and progressed quickly through program reported having advisors who were available and supportive of their professional and personal success. Specifically these same women expressed how “lucky” they were to have a good advisor, since having a good advisor certainly was not the norm for doctoral students in
their respective departments. In contrast, those women who had more negative doctoral experiences said their advisors were too busy to provide them with much guidance and were less invested in their doctoral advisees’ professional success.
Theme 2A: It was common for the Education women to switch faculty advisors throughout the course of their doctoral programs because the advising relationship was not tied to their funding, whereas the Engineering women did not switch advisors because the advising relationship was directly tied to their funding.
All of the 10 Education doctoral women said they currently had worked with at least one faculty advisor throughout their time in the doctoral program at NUES. The Education women selected their faculty advisors from a designated list on their
applications for admission to NUES, and typically the doctoral women were assigned to one faculty advisor from the group they originally chose. About half of the women reported meeting with their advisors on a regular basis, usually weekly or bi-weekly, and the other half met with their advisors more sporadically, usually two or three times each semester. The focus of these advising meetings depended upon their doctoral program phase. Five of the women who were in their second and third-year of their doctoral program met with their advisors for guidance on coursework selection, honing research interests, and writing the qualifying paper. The five women who were either working on their dissertation proposal, data collection, or data analysis used their advising meeting as an avenue to review dissertation writing or ask specific questions related to dissertation development. In addition to the faculty advisor, the Education women worked with other faculty as paid research or teaching assistants, and this faculty supervisor was often a
different faculty member than their dissertation advisor, particularly if the paid
assistantship or project did not align with the individual student’s dissertation research. Most of the 11 Engineering women worked with advisors performing research related to their dissertations under the supervision of primary investigators (PIs) in their research lab. Even though most of the contracts they signed as part of the research assistantship required them to work 20 hours per week, that was the minimum number of hours expected of them as research assistants. Most of the Engineering women said their advisors didn’t care how many hours per week they worked in the lab, as long as they met the expectations for producing the data output. The nature of the meetings between the Engineering women and their advisors seemed more “formal” than what the
Education women described. The NIES doctoral women often prepared PowerPoint slides of data results and an agenda for each meeting prior to sitting down with their advisor. Most of the Engineering women met with their advisor on a monthly basis because their advisors supervised many doctoral students in the lab.
Many of the Education women were happy with their current advisors but indicated that they initially started off with a different advisor. It was common for the NUES women to switch advisors because the advising relationship is rarely tied to the funding arrangement such as a research or teaching assistantship. This advising structure in Education is an asset because it allowed the women more flexibility when choosing a dissertation advisor. Upon beginning the doctoral program, the Education women were assigned one advisor for assisting them with their class selections, research, and
professional interests but had the freedom to work with any faculty member they wanted either within or outside NUES to pursue research, teaching, and even consulting
opportunities. Michelle shared, “We’re free kind of like to work with whomever, change advisors if we want to and so it’s not coincidental like I have the structural freedom to like talk to whoever I want to about whatever it’s encouraged, so I think that’s
interesting.”
Since many of the incoming doctoral women were unsure of their specific research interests, it was common for the Education women to switch advisors after completing their second year of coursework and beginning the qualifying paper stage of the doctoral program. Louisa, a third-year doctoral student is starting to hone her research interests and as she begins to write her qualifying paper over the summer, she is
contemplating switching her advisor because she realizes that their research interests do not align.
They say that student should feel that they have free access to all of the advisors and if we mismatch you, you can change. . . Part of what I’m doing this summer is thinking about whether it makes sense to change [advisors]… as I’m becoming more clear about what my research interests are, things are getting honed down. So the first two years with my advisor has been great in terms of the general orientation towards the institution . . . courses, helping me explore like what my ideas were . . . now becomes an issue that is she the best person when things have gotten narrowed down or would I prefer to be with someone who does more sociology of education stuff? – Louisa, NUES Doctoral Student
At the time of the second interview, Louisa said she was in conversations with another professor whom she worked for as research assistant this past year, to see if this professor
would be her dissertation advisor due to their mutual research interests in the sociology of education.
In contrast to Education, the student-advisor matching process in Engineering is much more structured and intentional, partially because the faculty-student advising relationship is tied to the paid research assistantship. Many NIES doctoral students get to choose their advisor soon after beginning their doctoral programs and meeting the faculty in person. Departmental faculty who are seeking new doctoral students to work as RAs on their funded research projects will present to the first-year doctoral students. The faculty advisor matching process is a mutual one, in which the advisor and the doctoral student must both choose each other to work together. Maureen, a Chemical Engineering doctoral student, said that she considered personality when choosing her advisor, with whom she has a very positive relationship. She shared, “Yeah, I like working with [my advisor]. I mean, people have varied opinions on whether or not you should consider personality a lot when you pick your advisor but I did.” For Amie, a Material Science doctoral student, the advisor’s work style was the most important for Amie when choosing her advisor.
I chose my advisor; I would say maybe two or three months after I joined
Northeast Institute, I was – I kind of knew in which or where I wanted to be. But I still have the choice between a couple of advisors and after a meeting with couple of them; I could see the difference of style. The style was very important for me to choose my advisor.
It was common for NIES doctoral students to “match” with their first choice advisor, whom they had the opportunity to meet in person before deciding to work together. Few
of the NIES women changed advisors during their doctoral program, only because their research funding was tied to their advisor/PI in the research lab so it was a more difficult process to change advisors. However, one woman, Elaine, worked with her first advisor for her first three years at NIES and mentioned that her degree progress was stalled because her advisor gave her absolutely no direction in the research lab. Elaine finally switched advisors in her fourth year but only after her advisor left for a job at another university. She shared,
I wish I had switched advisors earlier, because I feel like the, I think that he is a great advisor for some people, but I don’t think that his skills were match for my needs, because he is very kind of hands-off, and he is very kind of like a big picture person and when I came to NIES I didn’t have a lot of experience like directly working in labs. So I needed help with like how do you do this technique, like how do you use this piece of equipment effectively. And I was never really going to get that kind of help from him.
For Elaine, the mismatch between her advisor’s work style and her own was the main reason why she did not get a lot out of the advising and research lab experience. Elaine said she basically had to start over with her new advisor in a new research lab, but Elaine says she is much happier because her new advisor had a more hands-on work style which she says she prefers.
In sum, the doctoral student - advisor matching process is much more intentional in Engineering at NIES because doctoral students commit to both a faculty advisor and a research project for the next five years of their doctoral program. Because Engineering doctoral students do not switch advisors during their doctoral program, the faculty-
student advising relationship represents a long-term commitment. The faculty advisor/PI is committing to funding the doctoral student for five years, and the doctoral student is committing to work on a particular research project with the same faculty advisor until they complete the dissertation. This long-term commitment is conducive for building a quality relationship of frequent interaction, guidance, and mentorship which in turn translates into a positive doctoral experience and more timely degree progress and completion. In contrast, the matching process in Education is less structured –doctoral students have more freedom to switch advisors because the advising relationship is independent of paid work opportunities as RAs and TAs. Thus, the Education women do not choose a dissertation faculty advisor until they have settled on their dissertation research topic. Because they don’t often choose their dissertation research topic until after the coursework phage of the doctoral program, this means the Education women have less time to build that long-term commitment with their faculty advisor. The nature of the Education women’s commitment to their dissertation advisor is limited to formal meetings, virtual feedback on dissertation drafts, and the interaction is isolated to
dissertation-related activities. The relatively superficial nature of the Education women’s relationship with their dissertation advisor may in part explain the Education women’s fewer positive doctoral experience and more challenges to degree progress.
Theme 2B: The quality of the doctoral experience and degree progress was entirely dependent upon personality, work style, and research interests of their advisor. Those women who had the most positive experiences and timely degree progress said it was a matter of “luck” to find an advisor who provided all three types of support – technical guidance, emotional support, and career-related advice.
The 10 Education women and the 11 Engineering women discussed how one’s faculty advisor could “make or break” the doctoral experience and one’s degree progress, and how the faculty-advisor relationship varied widely, depending upon the individual personality, work style, and research interests of the faculty advisor. One woman in the Engineering focus group confirmed this sentiment among the NIES Engineering women.
It is like your experience is almost entirely dependent on what the personality of your advisor is like and you – I mean if you have a good advisor or you have someone who matches with your personality and your research talent, that’s great. If you don’t, that can be really problematic, but it’s really, really dependent on who your professor is. – NIES Focus Group
Rachel, a 6th-year NUES doctoral student, also talked about how “lucky” she was to find
an advisor who truly supported her professional and personal success, but Rachel switched to this advisor after experiencing an advisor whom she did not consider a mentor.
So my [first] advisor was a very famous professor, and while a very nice person but completely incompetent when it comes to supporting mentoring and all that kind of stuff. So I switched to my current professor, like my research guide, who I do research with in my fourth year. . . She is amazing. . . I would say that she is a true mentor. . . I feel really lucky, really, really lucky. . . . I have received a lot of support and I think my relationship with her [advisor] and also my other
committee member . . . has been so good to me. So I’ve been really lucky, I don’t
Rachel is just one example of a woman who had a very positive experience with her advisor and thinks that her positive experience is not the norm. There were a few other women who were highly satisfied with their advisor relationship who used the word “lucky” to have an advisor who provided the three types of support – technical/academic guidance, emotional support, and career-related advice – that are considered necessary for quality faculty advising (Tenenbaum, Crosby, & Gliner, 2001). Rachel felt like her advisor provided her the technical, emotional, and career-support that she needed. Rachel’s perceived that her advisor treated her as a colleague, and this mentorship was the encouragement Rachel needed to complete her degree in six years, one year before her peers in her cohort.
Both the Education and Engineering women mentioned feeling “lucky” to have a supportive advisor who provides not only technical, but also emotional encouragement for completing the dissertation. Madelyn, an Aeronautics and Astronautics Engineering student shared,
I mean because I want to finish and so it helps to have someone who is prudent and who wants me to finish the remaining things, administrating and who is helping me do all that, encouraging me and is not presenting obstacles that would stop me from graduating. So yeah, I guess I would say I’ve been lucky to have an advisor who’s been supportive like pretty much every step of the way.
Receiving that emotional support was especially important for Nicole, a fifth-year NUES student at the dissertation proposal stage of her doctoral program. Nicole said she needs both academic and emotional support, sharing,
[My advisor], she is wonderful in that I have needed a lot of emotional support as well as academic support, I’m not very good at separating the two . . . she has been really good at providing emotional support and academic support . . . she is very good at the politics of NUES . . . she gives me a lot of good advice around picking the committee members…. how I would structure research, what kind of methods would be the most fruitful as well as be the most palatable.
The career guidance and support received from advisors was a major difference between the Education and Engineering fields. The Education women I interviewed said their faculty advisors treated them very differently depending upon whether they planned to pursue a career in academia. Those Education women who didn’t plan to pursue a career in academia felt their advisors couldn’t or didn’t provide them with career guidance about the alternatives to a traditional academic career. Brenda, a sixth year NUES doctoral student studying Human Development, said she felt she didn’t have anyone who could help her career-wise, sharing:
Well technically on paper I did [have an advisor], but it was somebody who had clearly had no interest in putting much effort into talking to me . . . So, it left me in this position, where I really didn’t have anybody to go to. . . . I had people that I was talking to, but nobody felt obligated to find me jobs and sort of support me in certain ways.
Brenda eventually did find an advisor who was the PI on the research project she became involved with. While she is now satisfied with the type of relationship she has with her advisor, she realized she needed to change her expectations about the kind of career guidance and support she would receive, given that she did not wish to pursue and