Doctoral Programs: Changing High Rates of Attrition

Journal of HUMANISTIC COUNSELING, EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT Spring 2006 Volume 45 17

PRacticE AND APPLICATION

© 2006 by the American Counseling Association. All rights reserved.

Doctoral Programs:Changing High Rates of Attrition

Robert L. SmithKenneth Maroney

Kaye W. NelsonAnnette L. Abel

Holly S. Abel

Attrition of doctoral students is costly to society. This study examines organizational

and personal factors that contribute to the number of graduate students leaving their

program of study prior to receiving the terminal degree. The authors make suggestions

for program modification and present results from a stress-management intervention

program implemented for doctoral students.

The doctoral program is considered the preeminent level of study through-out the United States and internationally. Despite its status, graduate edu-cation in the United States is far from ideal, considering that only about halfof all entering PhD students obtain doctorates (Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992).Recent publications indicate a need to examine how graduate programs them-selves contribute to the high attrition rates of their students and what can bedone to reduce the number of students who drop out. Some publications haveaddressed this specific issue (Brannock, Litten, & Smith, 2000; Kelly &Schweitzer, 1999; Lawson & Fuehrer, 2001; National Science Foundation,1998; N. G. Nelson, Dell’Oliver, Koch, & Buckler, 2001; Ross, Niebling, &Heckert, 1999; Tenenbaum, Crosby, & Gliner, 2001). Lovitts (2001) analyzedfactors that influence a graduate student’s decision to complete a doctoralprogram, such as accessibility to faculty, acceptable research topics, the abil-ity of the dissertation committee chair to secure grants, relationships with sig-nificant others, employment demands, time constraints, and family issues.

Robert L. Smith, Kenneth Maroney, and Kaye W. Nelson, Department of Counseling and Edu-cational Psychology, Texas A&M University–Corpus Christi; Annette L. Abel, Department ofHuman Sciences and Counseling, Lindsey Wilson College; Holly S. Abel, Department of HumanServices, Stephen F. Austin University. Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-dressed to Robert L. Smith, TAMU-CC, ECDC 224, 6300 Ocean Drive, Corpus Christi, TX78412 (e-mail: [email protected]).

18 Journal of HUMANISTIC COUNSELING, EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT Spring 2006 Volume 45

Our study examined in depth a select group of factors that have an impacton doctoral students (see Figure 1). Organizational factors examined in-cluded student selection process, program structure, ineffective advisers,ineffective mentors, program flexibility, and the community of the program.Personal factors examined included relationships with significant others,family responsibilities, support systems, employment responsibilities,financial strains, time constraints, and overload. In addition, a stress man-agement course for doctoral students is discussed. The stress-managementcourse included materials from sources such as The Relaxation & StressReduction Workbook (Davis, Eshelman, & McKay, 2000).

ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO HIGHATTRITION RATES

Lipschutz (1993) reported that the organizational environment of gradu-ate programs, including those in laboratory sciences, humanities, and so-cial sciences, contributes to high attrition rates among doctoral students.Related factors include (a) student selection process, (b) program structureor lack thereof, (c) ineffective or noncaring advisers/mentors, (d) lack ofprogram flexibility, and (e) lack of community within the program itself(Boes, Ullery, Millner, & Cobia, 1999; Gumport & Snydman, 2002; Lipschutz,1993; Lovitts, 2001).

FIGURE 1

Organizational and Personal Factors: Stressors on Doctoral Students


The Selection Process

Before faculty begin the selection process, students should be made awareof the challenges and demands of doctoral study through material on theprogram such as course requirements, policies, and procedures (Boes et al.,1999). Applicants then know the rigorous course of study they are selectingbefore beginning the application process. Graduate programs vary as to howthey select students, depending on the nature of the program, the number ofapplicants seeking admission, and the number of students who are allowedto enter the program. Some doctoral programs have become extremely selec-tive, with a limited number of spaces available for new students, whereasothers have a more open admissions policy. Admission committees use anapplicant’s references and interview information to assess the student’s abilityto complete the program successfully. The interview with a student is thefirst opportunity to find out what are the needs that must be met in order forhim or her to graduate, as well as any obstacles that he or she is facing.Unfortunately, graduate programs may be more focused on the applicant’sacademic background than on discerning the needs and expectations of stu-dents (Salvatori, 2001). Attention is not usually directed toward the applicant’spersonal needs, available resources, or support system during the interviewprocess (Lipschutz, 1993; Lovitts, 2001). In this article, we suggest that theinterview in the graduate program selection process be examined and redi-rected to include more productive queries that elicit useful information aboutgraduate applicants’ needs. Program faculty need to be cautioned not toinvade an applicant’s privacy when asking questions during the interview.Open-ended questions are suggested: (a) What will you need to be success-ful in this graduate program? (b) What support programs at the universitywould help you complete this degree? (c) What are your expectations of theprogram? and (d) How can this be a successful experience for you? Studentresponses can assist in reorganization of the program.

The Program Structure

The structure of a graduate program can contribute to confusion and frustra-tion among students (Lipschutz, 1993). In discerning the structure, one mustlook at the different units, such as departmental objectives, faculty hierarchy,budget considerations, and course requirements and sequences, that make upthe system (Gumport & Snydman, 2002). Students must learn the flow of thisstructure to ensure that they fulfill all the requirements to complete the doctor-ate. Graduate students are often characterized as “obsessive-compulsive” and“perfectionistic” and have little patience with a poorly organized program.Although these characteristics are considered desirable when embarking ona dissertation, such student traits can be detrimental at the beginning of graduatestudy. The resulting stress may lead students to rethink their decision to pur-sue doctoral study (Boes et al., 1999; Lipschutz, 1993; Lovitts, 2001). Some stu-


dents may decide to leave their program in their second, or even their first,semester on campus. When students matriculate in a program that fails to sat-isfactorily answer their questions or respond to their expressed needs, theybecome frustrated. The student may feel that he or she is wasting time andthat no one really cares. The program may not have a beginning, middle, orend to which the student can relate or understand. Under these circumstances,students feel helpless and become disconnected from their studies. If facultymembers or mentors fail to recognize, encourage, and reach out to students atthis time, many may leave the program.

It is also possible for doctoral programs to err on the side of too much struc-ture (Lipschutz, 1993; Schellekens, Paas, & Van Merrienboer, 2003). In ahighly structured environment, students may feel that their creative ener-gies are suppressed in favor of keeping the organization running smoothlyand without interruption (Lovitts, 2001). Traditional programs often includea number of bureaucratic obstacles for students. This can be frustrating to astudent who is already feeling overloaded, perhaps including holding a full-time job. Students experiencing this may say “I don’t need to put up withthis” and subsequently leave the program.

A structural balance that provides each student with a road map for success-ful completion of his or her studies is recommended in doctoral programs. Unnec-essary obstacles that stifle a student’s creativity and chance to completethe program need to be eliminated. The structure of a doctoral program, aswell as how that structure is communicated to the student, affects theprogram’s rate of attrition.

Doctoral Student Adviser

The adviser is the central person, and an influential one, during the earlypart of a doctoral student’s program. She or he is the first person the studentmeets with to discuss a program of study. An adviser typically reviews thedegree plan, suggests classes, and explains requirements of the program.Questions pertinent to a beginning doctoral student are asked at this junc-ture. New to the program, the beginning doctoral student often exhibits anxietyduring this experience, forgetting what was said but not how it was said(Boes et al., 1999). The adviser may, or may not, become the chair of the student’sdissertation committee. Most programs allow the student to select his or herchair, which in itself creates anxiety. Some students feel they need to havetheir adviser chair the dissertation committee and may be fearful of askinganother faculty member to assume that responsibility. Once the adviser isselected as the student’s dissertation committee chair, this person becomesthe student’s guide through graduate school (Lovitts, 2001). It is widely rec-ognized that the relationship between the student and his or her adviser andchair, if someone other than the adviser, can spell the difference betweencompleting and not completing a doctoral program (Baird, 1992; Girves &Wemmerus, 1988; Lovitts, 2001; Weiss, l981).


According to Lovitts (2001), individuals who failed to complete their doc-toral program were often assigned a particular adviser and were unawarethey could change or were afraid to change from their assigned adviser toanother adviser. Those who did not complete their doctoral programs alsohad quantitatively less interaction with their advisers than did those whodid complete the programs, and they were more likely to have different ex-periences compared with those who completed their degrees. It is importantfor the student to play a major role in the selection of an adviser and chair(Echterling et al., 2002).

The attitude and perception set by the initial adviser are critical vari-ables (Association of American Universities Committee on Graduate Edu-cation, 1998; Heinrich, 1991; Lovitts, 2001). We suggest that doctoral ad-visers be more than information givers about comprehensive examinationtime lines, dissertation proposal due dates, procedures for the dissertationdefense, and so forth (Clark, Harden, & Johnson, 2000). Although the abovetasks are important, greater effort needs to be devoted to the working re-lationship between the student and the adviser. A mentoring relationshipthat assists the student in his or her intellectual and professional develop-ment is recommended (Thomas, 1994). Unfortunately, there is little, if any,training on how to be an effective doctoral adviser. Faculty members maysimply be repeating the same advising process that was modeled for themduring their studies (Clark et al., 2000; Price & Money, 2002). Even thoughlevels of experience and expertise vary, a training program or seminar fordoctoral advisers is recommended. In general terms, such a program mightinclude (a) how to establish a professional relationship, (b) how to em-power others, (c) how to mentor students in professional organizations(presenting, attending conferences, holding an organizational office orboard position), (d) collaborating on research projects, (e) writing forpublication and grants, and (f) obtaining professional positions aftergraduation. Graduate programs with advisers who actively mentor theirstudents in these ways will significantly reduce student attrition (Boeset al., 1999; LaPidus, 1995; Lipschutz, 1993).

Lack of Graduate Program Flexibility

Lack of flexibility in the doctoral program can be a deterrent to gradua-tion. Programs need to explore creative methods in (a) graduate courseofferings, (b) course scheduling, (c) acceptable research topics, (d) ac-ceptable research paradigms, (e) accessibility to faculty, and (f) use ofcampus resources such as computer laboratories and the library(Lipschutz, 1993; Schellekens et al., 2003). Despite a lack of program flex-ibility and the presence of obstacles, many students will succeed. Others,however, will find that a program’s rigidity becomes a serious obstacle tograduation and will perceive the program as noncaring, give up, and leavebefore receiving their degree.


Lack of Community in the Program

The formation of a social bond by students in a graduate program can pro-mote completion of degrees (Lawson & Fuehrer, 2001). The absence of a senseof community in a doctoral program has the effect of isolating students fromone another and from faculty. Without a sense of community, doctoral stu-dents gain less support from their peers and experience greater competitionamong students. This milieu deters students from sharing their feelings,thoughts, and experiences about the program. Doctoral programs characterizedby a sense of community provide a cooperative and supportive environmentthat allows students to learn from one another (K. W. Nelson & Jackson, 2001).Students strongly bonded to their academic communities tend to interact morewith others in their discipline. Doctoral programs without a sense of com-munity are more likely to experience higher attrition, according to Lovitts(2001). The graduate school experience of individuals who do not completetheir programs is best characterized by an absence of community.

PERSONAL FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO ATTRITION

Doctoral students today are far different from individuals who successfullycompleted degrees in past years (Anderson, Gumport, Rowan, & Schneider,2000). The lives of these students and the society in which they live are morecomplex. Family concerns, employment, finances, community issues, demandsfrom friends, responsibility as a parent, and responsibility to aging parentsare some of the demands on today’s doctoral students. These demands chal-lenge the individual who is working on a doctorate, and they drasticallyincrease their level of stress. Saunders and Balinsky (1993) stated that doc-toral students’ personal lives can be, and usually are, as complicated as thelives of others in society. When the demands of obtaining the doctorate areadded, their stress level can increase, which may compromise coping skillsand self-efficacy. Personal and interpersonal factors that can become over-powering and lead a student to abandon doctoral study include (a) relation-ships (or the lack thereof) with significant others, (b) family responsibilities,(c) support systems, (d) employment responsibilities/financial strain, and(e) time constraints and overload (Boes et al., 1999; Daniel, Schwarz, & Teichler,1999; Lipschutz, 1993).

Relationships With Significant Others

A major personal issue that challenges students while they are completing adoctorate involves balancing time for significant relationships with indi-viduals both outside their family and within their family. Doctoral studentswho are involved in intimate relationships face a constant time problem. Thereis only a limited amount of time to maintain a healthy relationship withanother person during this period. Complaints are often heard that the doc-


toral student does not seem to have enough time to meet someone else’s needs.Brannock et al. (2000) reported that when only one spouse attends graduateschool, the level of marital satisfaction decreases. A similar relationship is-sue is the pressure of finding or thinking that one needs to find a life partnerduring or soon after pursuing doctoral studies. This concern is exacerbatedif the student believes that an additional degree or level of education maydramatically limit available partners. Men also experience this phenomenon,which has been traditionally associated with women. In any event, relation-ships with significant others, or the lack of such during a student’s doctoralprogram, are a source of tension, generalized anxiety, and stress for gradu-ate students (Ross et al., 1999).

Family Responsibilities

Relationships with family members, involving but not limited to parentingand multiple extended families, are a source of enormous stress. Doctoralstudents, as do others in society, find themselves in multiple family roles,such as sibling, son or daughter, aunt or uncle, grandchild, stepparent, andparent. Family duties can be overwhelming to the doctoral student whendegree requirements are combined with being married or single with chil-dren and the source of financial support for the household (Saunders &Balinsky, 1993).

Time and guilt are two factors associated with managing family responsi-bilities and doctoral studies. Time devoted to classes, study, and researchtakes away time usually available to family members. Decisions are constantlymade on how to balance study time with family time. Guilt, worry, anxiety,and anger are symptoms as students try to balance the limited amount ofavailable time for family and school (Boes et al., 1999; Lipschutz, 1993; Lovitts,2001). The student frequently questions whether she or he is spendingenough time with children, spouse, parents, or his or her studies. For mostdoctoral students, the challenges and pressure of time continue through-out their program of study and beyond. Stress becomes a constant, and toooften a destructive, force.

Support Systems

Having a support system can provide students with a secure base from whichthey derive self-efficacy (Torres & Solberg, 2001). These systems provideimportant environments of acceptance and understanding for students, whichin turn allow them to have confidence in their abilities. They serve as a bufferagainst student stressors (Lawson & Fuehrer, 2001; Malaney, 1987). Studentswith a support system have an advantage over students who are far awayfrom friends and family. Without a support system, the student is left to handledifficult issues on his or her own. Minor setbacks in a doctoral program canbecome major issues without the support of others to listen to concerns and


to buffer them. Without a support system, the student feels alone and is, infact, alone. In some cases, the student may prematurely leave a program be-fore finding support or receiving guidance.

Employment Responsibilities and Financial Strain

When doctoral students are employed outside of the academic setting, de-mands on time, energy, and commitment intensify (Stoeva, Chiu, &Greenhaus, 2002). Time that a student spends on supporting himself or her-self financially equals less time spent on the demands of his or her academicprogram. Yet the majority of today’s doctoral students need employmentoutside of the academic setting to support themselves and family members.The financial strain of the doctoral program takes its toll as the tuition atcolleges and universities continues to soar (Daniel et al., 1999; Epperson,2001). The Free Application for Federal Student Aid program, which pro-vides for Pell and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, does notcover graduate students, leaving them to rely on loans, assistantships, orfellowships as a means of financing their degree (Wong, 1992). The deci-sion to seek financial assistance and the acquisition of the ensuing debtare potential sources of stress for the student. If the stress and sacrifice aretoo high, the student will not continue with his or her doctoral work.

Time Constraints and Overload

The many challenges facing doctoral students create competing demandson their time. The need to balance relationships with significant others, ful-fill family responsibilities, secure a support system, cope with employmentdemands, and meet financial obligations, in addition to the academic pres-sures of graduate school, represents a dismal picture for the student. Timeconstraints and overload are most frequently mentioned as major stressorsfor doctoral students (N. G. Nelson et al., 2001). Overload becomes part ofthe student’s life. It is up to the student to handle a large number of personalissues while completing multiple tasks required by his or her doctoral pro-gram. Juggling these simultaneous concerns becomes the doctoral student’sway of life. Sometimes the pressures seem endless and unbearable, leadingto high rates of student attrition.

STRESS: THE RESULT OF PROGRAM AND PERSONAL FACTORSIMPINGING ON THE STUDENT

Doctoral students’ process of balancing personal and academic issues cancause both physical and psychological stress. Some known consequencesof psychological stress are frustrated learning, inhibited concentration, andreduced motivation and perseverance (Polson & Nida, 1998). Consequencesof physical stress can include insomnia/poor sleep, weakened immune sys-


tem, and greater susceptibility to illness (Torres & Solberg, 2001). An anal-ogy for understanding the personal and organizational issues affecting thedoctoral student is the student as a rope in a tug -of-war game, pulled on oneend by personal issues and the other by academic issues. One wonders whenthe rope will eventually snap. The known realities of student attrition indoctoral programs demonstrates that the rope can and does snap, with researchshowing that fewer than half of all entering students in doctoral programsactually complete their program of study (Lovitts, 2001). Perhaps stress-management programs can provide doctoral students with some of the toolsto cope more effectively.

Coping With Stress

Research findings indicate that it is not just the stress that is problematic forindividuals but that it also is the inability to cope with stress that is prob-lematic. Coping with stress has received attention in the literature for de-cades, and researchers have identified a number of techniques and programsthat introduce successful coping methods for people of all ages and in allsituations (Davis, Eshelman, & McKay, 2000). N. G. Nelson et al. (2001) main-tained that “how people cope with a stressful situation such as a graduateprogram appears to mediate outcome” (p. 759). Their sample of clinical psy-chology graduate students reported that relationships with friends/peersand participation in personal spirituality helped moderate their stress lev-els (N. G. Nelson et al., 2001). Brannock et al. (2000) recommended that seminarsand workshops on how to cope effectively with stress should be included asan integral part of each phase of a doctoral program. They went on to say,“The purpose would be to acknowledge anticipated problems, areas of con-cern and to offer coping techniques in dealing with inevitable stress” (p. 127).Itasca (2001) found that some individuals were able to positively cope withstress by using personal resources such as religion and friendship.Mallinckrodt (1983), concerned about personal development of collegestudents in general, included coping strategies in a comprehensive stress-management manual that is used with students. There seems to be generalagreement that providing a personal development component within a graduateprogram may enhance the student’s ability to cope with stress more resourcefully.

Stress-Management Programs

Stress-management programs have been widely used in many venues out-side of academia. Often the benefits of these programs are substantial. Vander Klink, Blonk, Schene, and van Dijk (2001) presented a quantitative re-view of 48 experimental studies in stress management with a total sampleof 3,736 participants. This investigation attempted to answer two questions:(a) Are stress-management programs effective in treating identified stres-sors? and (b) What are the most effective stress-management techniques?


Findings have indicated that overall stress-management programs are ef-fective in reducing individual sources of stress, such as quality of worklife (e.g., job demands and social support), psychological resources andresponses (e.g., beliefs and coping skills), physiology complaints (e.g., ten-sion and body pains), and absenteeism (van der Klink et al., 2001). It wasalso determined that cognitive-behavioral techniques were generally ef-fective by modifying thinking processes and strengthening effective cop-ing skills. Stanley, Feldman, and Kaplan (1999) surveyed job-related stres-sors of mental health care providers and developed a stress-managementprogram aimed at the reduction of stress. Job satisfaction, burnout, absen-teeism, somatic complaints, anxiety, and depression were some of the is-sues targeted by this stress management program.

In academia, Murphy and Claridge (2000) researched stressors of teach-ers in order to develop a stress-management seminar. After surveying teach-ers on their exact sources of stress, they designed training seminars to addressthe identified stressors. A group of 53 teachers subsequently participated inthe training seminars over 4 years. Murphy and Claridge concluded that as aresult of the stress-management training, teachers acquired interventionsto cope better with and reduce stressors. A similar research project wascompleted by Antai-Otong (2001). After surveying the stress-managementliterature, she designed a stress-management program that included as-sertive communication, anger management, conflict management, andself-renewal.

Walker and Frazier (1993) studied a sample of 132 undergraduate collegestudents who completed a 6-hour stress-management program over 2 weeks.Results included an increase in the students’ knowledge of stress, an increasein attitudes of self-efficacy, and more frequent use of learned coping behav-iors. Walker and Frazier suggested the use of stress-management educationalprograms in the college curriculum. Considering the findings and recom-mendations from the above studies, we believe a comprehensive stress-management program can benefit doctoral students experiencing the rigorof a program while coping with a multitude of life stressors.

A STRESS-MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR DOCTORAL STUDENTS

The fifth edition of The Relaxation & Stress Reduction Workbook (Davis et al.,2000) was selected to serve as the framework for the stress-management pro-gram in this project. This resource includes the major concepts and tech-niques that are the mainstay of many stress-management programs used inbusiness and education. The participants in this project were 12 doctoralstudents in the Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology at auniversity in the southwestern United States. There were 9 female and 3 maleparticipants, and they formed a close-knit cohort. The stress-managementcourse was offered as an elective in the fall of 2003. The instructor (the sec-ond author of this article) customized recommended techniques (Davis et


al., 2000) that could be used by students during and after matriculatingin their area of study. Organized in three modules, the stress manage-ment program is displayed in Table 1.

Module 1 of this program, Stress Identification, follows a format advocatedby Davis et al. (2000) and proceeds with the identification of stressors thatgraduate students face. As advocated by Lazarus and Folkman (1984), theprocess begins with an appraisal of the situation. Students identify sourcesof stress, their body’s response to stress, cognitions creating stress, and anybehaviors and emotions related to stress. During this 4-week module, stu-dents are asked to keep records of stressors and their reactions to them.Baselines are taken during the first 2 weeks.

Module 2, Intervention Development, emphasizes learning and practic-ing recommended stress-management techniques (Davis et al., 2000) se-lected by the instructor. Table 1 displays the breakdown of this module inthree areas: physical, cognitive, and behavioral strategies. The studentslearn a variety of techniques, including thought stopping, refuting irratio-nal thoughts, thought mantras, and visualization (Girdano, Everly, & Dusek,

TABLE 1

A Stress-Management Program

Module 1: Stress Identification

Module 2: Intervention Development

Module 3: Reporting Results

Module Description

A. Identify sources of stressB. Identify stress symptomsC. Identify common responses to stress

Body awarenessCognitionsBehavior patternsEmotions

D. Record baseline

A. Physical strategiesBreathing techniquesBody awarenessProgressive relaxation

B. Cognitive strategiesThought stoppingRefuting irrational ideas and beliefsAffirmations and thought mantrasVisualization

C. Behavioral strategiesGoal settingTime managementMeditationExercise

D. Record intervention and response

A. LogsB. Baselines and graphingC. StoriesD. Self-awareness


2001). Students practice these techniques as methods of coping with stressduring this 6-week module.

Module 3 provides opportunities for students to record the effectivenessof using stress-management techniques and to discuss stress-reduction re-sults. Logs, baselines, stories, graphs, and so forth are shared as affirmationsof their successful actions (Greenberg, 2002). Positive reinforcement is em-phasized during this 2-week module. Students contract to continue usingeffective stress-coping techniques with their current problem and with stress-related problems that may surface in the future. They celebrate success withone another and plan follow-up meetings as a support system.

SOME ANECDOTAL DATA

Research indicates that stress-management programs work in a num-ber of settings, including the college environment. Results of a stress-management program for doctoral students are promising and have shownstudents gaining control of a number of manifest problems caused by stressin their lives. Through this study, students were able to eliminate many oftheir stress-related behaviors and continue to use stress-management tech-niques when confronted with new stressors. Students measured the effec-tiveness of eliminating their stress-related behaviors by comparing resultswith their original self-reported baselines. In addition, students discussedprogress at the beginning of each class session; as a result of these discus-sions, students would periodically set new goals based on their progressat that point.

Table 2 provides a synopsis of changes that occurred in one group (n = 8)of students during the stress-management program. One example of a changein stress manifestation is presented for each participant in the group. Stress-

TABLE 2

Stress-Management Program Results

Caffeine addictionSleep disturbanceBlood pressureClenching jaws/teeth grindingPain (neck/shoulder)Nail bitingHeadachesPain (back)

Identified StressManifestation Baseline

9 cups per day1–3 times per evening140 over 808.0 average per week10.0 average per week20.0 average per week3.0 average per day9.0 average per week

1 cup per day1–2 times per evening127 over 783.0 average per week0 per week0 per week0 per day2.0 average per week

Outcome

Note. n = 8. The stress-management program is 12 weeks in duration, with the first 2 weeksand the last 2 weeks used to obtain baselines. One example of a change in stress mani-festation provided for each participant in the group.


related behaviors and problems ranged from sleep disturbance and high bloodpressure to caffeine addiction and nail biting. Many of the stress-related be-haviors related to pressures of graduate studies and the juggling of personaland professional responsibilities. In many cases, the symptoms of stresscompletely disappeared, whereas in others there was a noticeable drop inthe occurrence of the symptoms.

In addition to reporting changes in many stress-related symptoms, doc-toral students praised the program, describing it as a lifesaver during a par-ticularly difficult semester. Some stated that they did not know what to ex-pect at the beginning or thought it would be a waste of their time when theyhad little time for “frills.” However, students identified their own stres-sors and symptoms of stress and almost immediately began to use stress-management techniques to reduce or eliminate stress-related behaviors. Somedoctoral students who were teachers implemented stress-management pro-grams with their students in the school setting. All students recommendedthat a stress-management program be a permanent part of graduate studiesat the doctoral level.

CONCLUSION

Although the rewards are great, most doctoral programs are demanding andtime-consuming and require sacrifice. Many successful graduates go on to teacha new generation of students and direct doctoral programs at other universi-ties. It is hoped this new generation of professors will implement what hasworked during their own course of study and will change practices and re-move obstacles that have caused others to leave programs without a degree.We believe the waste of time, resources, and energy can be reduced with a greatersensitivity to the plight of today’s graduate student and an awareness of howprogram structure contributes to high rates of attrition.

Although organizational structures and processes can be changed to makea difference for doctoral students, personal as well as organizational factorsshould be considered when developing programs to reduce the attrition ratesof doctoral students. The combination of both types of stressors can be over-whelming. Interventions such as stress-management programs are suggestedto further increase graduate student success rates and reduce costly attri-tion. Stress-management programs have been used successfully in businessand educational settings (Murphy & Claridge, 2000; van der Klink et al., 2001;Walker & Frazier, 1993) and are recommended as one method of respondingto stressors that students face while completing their doctoral studies.

REFERENCES

Anderson, G. L., Gumport, P. J., Rowan, B., & Schneider, G. (2000, April). The organizationalstructure of the university: Its impact on epistemological diversity. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.


Antai-Otong, D. (2001). Creative stress-management techniques for self-renewal. Der-matology Nursing, 13, 31–38.

Association of American Universities Committee on Graduate Education. (1998). Re-port and recommendations. Retrieved August 2, 2005, from http://www.aau.edu/reports/GradEdRpt.html

Baird, L. L. (1992, April). The stages of the doctoral career: Socialization and its consequences.Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association,San Francisco.

Boes, S. R., Ullery, E. K., Millner, V. S., & Cobia, D. C. (1999). Meeting the challenges ofcompleting a counseling doctoral program. Journal of Humanistic Education and De-velopment, 3, 130–144.

Bowen, G. W., & Rudenstine, N. L. (with Sosa, J. A., Lord, G., Witte, M. L., & Turner, S. E.).(1992). In pursuit of the PhD. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Brannock, R. G., Litten, M. J., & Smith, J. (2000). The impact of doctoral study on mari-tal satisfaction. Journal of College Counseling, 3, 123–131.

Clark, R., Harden, S. L., & Johnson, W. B. (2000). Mentor relationships in clinical psychologydoctoral training: Results of a national survey. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 262–269.

Daniel, H., Schwarz, S., & Teichler, U. (1999). Study costs, student income and publicpolicy in Europe. European Journal of Education, 34, 7–21.

Davis, M., Eshelman, E. R., & McKay, M. (2000). The relaxation & stress reduction work-book (5th ed.). Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.

Echterling, L. G., Cowan, E., Evans, W. F., Staton, A. R., Viere, G., Mckee, J. E., et al.(2002). Thriving. Boston: Lahaska Press.

Epperson, S. (2001). A new way to shop for a college. Time, 158(22), 146.Girdano, D. A., Everly, G. S., & Dusek, D. E. (2001). Controlling stress and tension (6th

ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Girves, J. E., & Wemmerus, V. (1988). Developing models of graduate student degree

progress. Journal of Higher Education, 59, 163–189.Greenberg, J. S. (2002). Comprehensive stress management. New York: McGraw-Hill.Gumport, P. J., & Snydman, S. K. (2002). The formal organization of knowledge. The

Journal of Higher Education, 73, 375–408.Heinrich, K. T. (1991). Loving partnerships: Dealing with sexual attraction and power in

doctoral advisement relationships. Journal of Higher Education, 62, 514–538.Itasca, Y. (2001). Contributions of leisure to coping with daily hassles in university stu-

dents’ lives. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 33, 128–142.Kelly, S., & Schweitzer, J. H. (1999). Mentoring within a graduate school setting. College

Student Journal, 33, 130–149.LaPidus, J. B. (1995). Doctoral education and student career needs. New Directions for

Student Services, 72, 33–41.Lawson, T. J., & Fuehrer, A. (2001). The role of social support in moderating the stress

that first-year graduate students experience. Education, 110, 186–193.Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.Lipschutz, S. S. (1993). Enhancing success in doctoral education: From policy to prac-

tice. New Directions for Institutional Research, 80, 69–80.Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Malaney, G. D. (1987, November). A decade of research on graduate students: A review of the

literature in academic journals. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Study ofHigher Education, Baltimore.

Mallinckrodt, B. S. (1983). Stress management, support and resource groups for graduate stu-dents (Report No. CG017255). Greensboro, NC: Counseling and Student Services.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED240426)

Murphy, A., & Claridge, S. (2000). The educational psychologist’s role in stress man-agement training within a local authority. Educational Psychology in Practice, 16,191–202.


National Science Foundation. (1998). Summary on graduate student attrition (NSF Publi-cation No. 99-314). Arlington, VA: Author.

Nelson, K. W., & Jackson, S. (2001). Factors affecting the learning environment of doctoralstudents in counselor education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. (ERICDocument Reproduction Services No. ED451440)

Nelson, N. G., Dell’Oliver, C., Koch, C., & Buckler, R. (2001). Stress, coping, and successamong graduate students in clinical psychology. Psychological Report, 88, 759–767.

Polson, M., & Nida, R. (1998). Program and trainee lifestyle stress: A survey of AAMFTstudent members. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 24, 95–112.

Price, D. C., & Money, A. H. (2002). Alternative models for doctoral mentor organiza-tion and research supervision. Mentoring & Tutoring, 10, 127–135.

Ross, S. E., Niebling, B. C., & Heckert, T. M. (1999). Sources of stress among collegestudents. College Student Journal, 33, 312–318.

Salvatori, P. (2001) Reliability and validity of admissions tools used to select studentsfor the health professions. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 6, 159–175.

Saunders, R. P., & Balinsky, S. E. (1993). Assessing the cognitive stress of graduate stu-dents. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 26, 192–203.

Schellekens, A., Paas, F., & Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2003). Flexibility in higher profes-sional education: A survey in business administration programs in the Netherlands.Higher Education, 45, 281–305.

Stanley, R., Feldman, D., & Kaplan, Z. (1999). Stress and intervention strategies in men-tal health professionals. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 72, 159–165.

Stoeva, A. Z., Chiu, R. K., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2002). Negative affectivity, role stress,and work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 1–16.

Tenenbaum, H. R., Crosby, F. J., & Gliner, M. D. (2001). Mentoring relationships in graduateschool. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 326–341.

Thomas, E. P. (1994). Taking the first steps toward graduate education: A report on the RonaldE. McNair post baccalaureate achievement program. Report presented at Rutgers, TheState University of New Jersey.

Torres, J. B., & Solberg, V. S. (2001). Role of self-efficacy, stress, social integration, andfamily support in Latino college student persistence and health. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 59, 53–63.

van der Klink, J. J. L., Blonk, R. W. B., Schene, A. H., & van Dijk, F. J. H. (2001). Thebenefits of interventions for work-related stress. American Journal of Public Health, 91,270–276.

Walker, R., & Frazier, A. (1993). The effect of a stress management educational programon the knowledge, attitude, behavior, and stress level of college students. WellnessPerspectives, 10, 52–61.

Weiss, C. S. (1981). The development of professional role commitment among graduatestudents. Human Relations, 34, 13–31.

Wong, G. (1992). Getting into graduate school. Black Collegian, 23, 112–121.

Doctoral Programs: Changing High Rates of Attrition

Documents

Transcript of Doctoral Programs: Changing High Rates of Attrition