This article was downloaded by: [University of Birmingham]On: 16 November 2014, At: 19:07Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Educational ForumPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utef20

Facilitating Research and WritingAmong Doctoral StudentsMary Clare HeraldPublished online: 30 Jan 2008.

To cite this article: Mary Clare Herald (1968) Facilitating Research and Writing AmongDoctoral Students, The Educational Forum, 33:1, 31-38, DOI: 10.1080/00131726809338797

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131726809338797

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. Theaccuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Facilitating Research and Writing Among Doctoral Students

MARY CLARE HERALD

ARZUN’S “quiet, self-indulgent schol- B ar” is a rapidly disappearing species in the academic world. In his stead stands the new breed of faculty, quite free of the old fears that research might militate against good teaching-ambiti- ous, prolific, worldly-wise, and in a hurry.

Academic man has become an educa- tional entrepreneur who must get wher- ever he is going, or very near to it, by t te time he is forty because his profes- sional mobility is sharply reduced after age fifty. This reduced mobility coupled with the “lag time” between the B.A. and Ph.D. (6.5 years in Chemistry, 9.9 years in Foreign Language and 12.5 years in Education)’ can only mean that for the new breed an early start in publishing is a sine p a non. Within a scant ten to twenty years he must have established himself. The lesson is not lost upon the current group of doctoral students. They appear in increasing numbers at the speaker’s table of M- tional conventions.

‘Robert H. Knapp, The OFigins of Am&can Humanistic Scholars (Englewood Cliff4 N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964), p. 76.

MARY CLARE HERALD iZ Rssociatc Professor of Education at Jacksonvilk in Jacksonv2le, Fkz. The study on which this mticlc i s based was con- ducted at Kent State University in Kent, Ohio. She took her Ed.D. degree from Columbia Teach- ors College and is working on a book on teacher education.

It is commonly recognized that spe- cific universities, departments, and pro- fessors differ in the degree to which they “encourage” early research and writing among their doctoral students. The community of scholars may derive general impressions of university and disciplinal emphases upon predegree re- search but little is known about the spe- cifics. Which kinds of universities en- courage it? Which disciplines? What are the rationale, techniques, problems?

I n an effort to learn some of these specifics, letters were sent to 205 depart- ment chairmen asking them to nominate two faculty members and two doctoral students who had been involved (not necessarily as a team) in research and writing done apart from and prior t o doctoral dissertations by pre-degree doc- toral students. On the assumption that attitudes and practices might reflect differences originating in university ori- entation (quality: support), disciplinal orientation (word versus data) and geo- graphic orientation (East, Midwest, West), letters were sent to chairmen representative of such orientations.

The fact that approximately thirty percent of the department chairmen re- sponded to the letter-and about half of them indicated they could nominate no

’ Bernard Berelson, Graduate Education in the United States (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1960), p. 96.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

9:07

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

32 FACILITATING RESEARCH AND WRITING [November

faculty nor doctoral students-suggests the possibility that this kind of prede- gree research, while growing, is not really commonplace yet. Quite a few ex- pressed regret that some current efforts in their department were not reportable since the research was just getting started; several indicated their doctoral program was in a state of recent reacti- vation. Some faculty, of course, disap- proved of such extra-dissertation re- search and writing, as did their chair- men. They apparently share Koefod’s concern that graduate students will be turned into “either opportunists or syco- phants.”s

The forty-six faculty members (sev- enty-one percent) and forty-four doc- toral students ( forty-two percent) who ultimately responded, anonymously, to the two separate questionnaires, it might be inferred, were people who not only approve of an early start for doctoral students but know how to effect it. They represented private and government- supported universities j five academic areas: biological sciences, physical sci- ences, social sciences, professional fields, and humanities as well as three major geographic areas: East, Midwest, West.

The faculty questionnaire consisted of twelve questions which explored in de- tail the specific kinds of help provided by faculty for doctoral students, as well as faculty perception of the problems, advantages, and disadvantages inherent in their modzcs operandi. The student questionnaire consisted of fifteen ques tions which sought to explore many of

’ Paul E. Koefod, The Writing Rcquirementr for Graduate Degrees (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964), p. 155.

the same facets of extradissertation writing, permitting student perceptions to be placed in juxtaposition to faculty perceptions.

The present description will concern itself with the general responses from faculty and students. Later descriptions d . l show differences reflecting univer- sity, disciplinal, and geographic orienta- tions.

The faculty group which responded to the questionnaire was involved in a combination of graduate and undergrad- uate teaching; only about one-third of them were oriented toward “mainly graduate teaching.” Obviously such a faculty sample could be expected to have a broad outlook and generally to view graduate students in relation to un- dergraduate students.

They were experienced in providing help to doctoral students in their extra- dissertation research and writing since most of them reported helping more than eight students, About three quar- ters of the faculty indicated their univer- sities require predegree research from students and about two-thirds indicated writing for publication was encouraged.

Students reported that about half of them had four or more experiences with research execution, slightly fewer had four or more experiences with research reporting or writing. The priority of re- search over writing for publication which was apparent in the faculty data was borne out in the student data; only one-third reported having four or more experiences with writing for publication. It is apparent that these universities rep- resented in the sample-so clearly sup- portive of pre-degree, extradissertation

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

9:07

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

19681 MARY CLARE HERALD 33

activity-believe research activity to be a better preparation for doctoral students than writing for publication.

Data from student responses suggest that there may be some breakdown in faculty communication as to what is “re- quired” and what is “encouraged.” While the faculty only twice reported that their department “requires” writing for publication, about one-third of the students got the impression that it was required; the others believed writing was “encouraged” or “suggested.” Per- haps the students were over zealous in reading between their professor’s lines.

There was general agreement among faculty that heavy work loads consti- tuted the major problem in providing the right kind of help to doctoral stu- dents. There was further general agree- ment that I ) students ought to be better prepared (this complaint must start at first grade), 2) faculty members were under considerable pressure to do their own research, 3) standards for research and publication did not seem unduly rig- orous.

Both students and faculty viewed the extra-dissertation effort as worthwhile. While about half the students reported receiving academic credit for their ef- forts, neither they nor the faculty be- lieved academic credit to be the prime reward. Instead, they both agreed that for students the greatest reward was the opportunity to learn and get an early start in building one’s professional pres- tige and reputation within the discipline. Thus it appears that the “young-man- in-a-hurry” image of doctoral students is one which is consciously created.

On the other hand, the faculty felt

motivated by much the same attraction they feel exists in teaching: the satisfac- tion of helping minds develop. Indeed, many faculty might have perceived this kind of publishing/research help to be simply a tutorial kind of teaching.

While helping minds develop was quite clearly differentiated as a motiva- tion by the faculty, they were aware of the less altruistic but realistically human advantages that accrue to them when they provide such help to doctoral stu- dents. They appreciated the opportunity to test out ideas, to “hear myself say it,” which rapt and apt graduate students make possible. They also increased their own efficiency and satisfied all kinds of small curiosities through student investi- gations of topics. The charge of exploi- tation, when made by students, is often directed to this practice; however, in those cases where both the faculty mem- ber and the student are interested in the topic, there would seem to have been less likelihood of exploitation. A great deal depends upon the ultimate destina- tion of the student investigation, of course. It may be presumed that the oft-heard charge of faculty exploitation was not applicable to this sample, since the faculty did not claim the advantage of being able to increase the range and number of their publications as the re- sult of helping doctoral students and since students most frequently reported their contribution to cooperative endeav- ors was correctly acknowledged.

Certainly the problems of how much help to give students and what kind of help to give them are of first concern to most faculty. The way help is given is an equally important problem but one

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

9:07

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

34 FACILITATING RESEARCH AND WRITING [November

riot explored in this study. I t is surely more difficult to assess in oneself and to report.

The heart of the study lay in the at- tempt to learn of specific activities in which faculty engage. Individual uni- versities, individual departments, and individual professors build up their own traditions of appropriate boundaries of help. Certain universities build informal reputations as universities “with a heart”; certain departments and dis- ciplines create images of themselves as scholarly models whom students may safety, but distantly, emulate; certain professors are said to coddle their stu- dents.

Clearly, those helping activities in which most faculty engage may be in- ferred to be considered most appropriate by those faculty members. I t is equally clear that there is a wide range of opin- ion regarding the appropriateness of specific kinds of help. T o some faculty “suggesting leads to data interpretation” lies within the instructing realm while “interpreting findings of study” borders on over-protection of the student.

I n the area of writing for publication,

some faculty believe their best teaching is done as they revise their student’s rough draft in the presence of the stu- dent in order that he might learn the ra- tionale underlying the changes. They would never rewrite the student’s rough draft for him nor actually write the arti- cle using the student’s data, because they would consider such help impeditive to a student% growth.

expressed themselves as being in favor of helping in ways which permitted them to encourage early independence while also speeding a student’s progress through the program. These twin goals are happily joined, since a faculty who succeeds at both can be expected to be pleasing to both the university and to the academic community. Certainly the awarding of academic credit for student research and writing directly contributes to progress through the program.

Both the student and faculty question- naires contained the same question de- signed to reveal specific helping activi- ties related to four kinds of scholarly en- deavor: studies, reports, publication material, and grant proposals.

The faculty members in this sample *

THE STUDY Most Common Help Least Common Help

suggesting and approving topics helping with the outline instructing in techniques concerned with

data processing interpreting findings

supervising experimental work selecting and obtaining instruments

THE REPORT revising outlines revising rough drafts helping students outline report

outlining report for student writing rough draft of report

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

9:07

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

19681 MARY CLARE HERALD

THE PUBLICATION revising student’s rough draft suggesting outlets for publishing revising student’s outline contacting outlets for student

rewriting rough draft writing article for student

THE GRANT

35

helping students outline proposal write proposal based on student information

The previously noted faculty faith in research as desirable preparation was re- stated in the students’ reports of getting most help in connection with studies rather than with reports, publications, and proposals. Few of them complained of overprotection from the faculty; rather they reported wanting closer con- tact with faculty and more involvement from them in research activities. On the other hand, faculty considered the major disadvantage to their way of helping students to be that it required far too much time.

Joint research endeavors The heightened pressure on faculty to

publish and be awarded grants as well as the new team approach to research has meant that for many individual faculty members the way of the scholar is less likely to be a solitary way. Increasingly, colleagues in a discipline join together in their research or writing efforts, and increasingly doctoral students are in- vited to participate with a fuller com-

mitment. Ethical problems relating to criteria for establishing senior author- ship and acknowledging others’ contri- butions necessarily arise more fre- quently.

The faculty and students in the sam- ple shared quite common views of the ideal criteria for senior authorship and of ethical procedures for recognizing contributions made by others. However, it may be cause for professional concern that only two-thirds of so experienced a faculty were willing to commit them- selves to moral guidelines for determin- ing ideal/common/undesirable criteria for senior authorship. All but two of the students expressed their views.

The cause of truth would hardly be served if this faculty reluctance to deal with the issue of giving credit to others were simply explained away by refer- ring to faculty preoccupation with big- ger issues or even to faculty ennui. The students obviously care, and it is they who are being prepared. And it is the faculty who are serving as models.

CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SENIOR AUTHORSHIP Faculty Opinion Ideal Student Opinion

origination of idea (approx. 50%) (approx. 65 % 1 collection (approx. 30 % ) (approx. 40% )

participation in data

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

9:07

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

36 FACILITATING RESEARCH AND WRITING [November

writing of rough and final drafts (approx. 30 % 1 (approx. 5 0 % 1

writing of final drafts (approx. 20%) (approx. 35 % 1 experience and reputation 1 supervision of research

and writing ” revision or other’s writing J

Common But Not Ideal rank, title experience and reputation in field (students don’t mind) supervision of research and writing (students don’t mind)

The data do reveal that students be- lieved that more work should accom- pany the senior author rank; perhaps this explains why the students were so willing to express their view of these criteria and why a third of the faculty were so chary of revealing theirs.

Moral judgments among faculty themselves regarding the ethical ac- knowledgment by professors of contri- butions made by students or colleagues are not particularly convergent. Two practices apparently need to be exposed to professional deliberation by virtue of the lack of agreement regarding their probity: using student papers or theses as understructure for chapters in a pro- fessor‘s book and publishing a relation- ship conceptualized and developed by a student when the idea originated through a professor’s lectures (both groups disapproved of this practice when the idea originated through re- quired work in the professor’s course).

It is quite clear that the absence of professional consensus regarding these two practices, along with the aforemen- tioned problems of senior authorship, could serve as major basis for charges of

faculty exploitation, And it is equally clear that the greater the pressure on faculty to produce despite those heavy work loads, the greater the assaults upon ethical behavior will become.

I n general, the most acceptable ways to acknowledge contributions by stu- dents or colleagues were considered to be these:

Use footnotes when using student re- views of literature. (Students agree).

Use footnotes when using an idea gener- ated and partially delineated by an- other during conference. It is not con- sidered acceptable without footnote. (Students agree).

The least acceptable practices are these:

Adapting and publishing a relationship conceptualized and developed by a student if idea originated through re- quired work in a professor’s course. (Students agree but are not quite so disapproving).

Using wording of another writer or re- phrasing thoughts of another without footnote. (Students agree).

Requesting or requiring a student to sign an agreement. (Students agree).

Professors and their students were in pleasant agreement regarding all of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

9:07

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

19681 MARY CLARE HERALD 37

these practices except for “adapting and pLblishing a relationship conceptualized by a student if the idea originated through professor’s lectures.”

Like the faculty, the students seldom indicated they had had any personal or vicarious experience with these practices. The two practices which about one- fourth of the students indicated had “happened to others” are: Using stu- dent papers as understructure for chap- ters in professor’s book and adapting and publishing a relationship concept- ualized and developed by a student if the idea originated through required work in professor’s course.

Career witing advice While the moral fabric of profes-

sional behavior may have undergone some wear and tear in response to in- creased pressures, predilections in professional writing showed little change. One should still shun practice and court theory. Writing preference are these: books directed to professionals in the discipline, monographs on origi- nal theory, and essay type of articles on original theory. The least favored writ- ing is that directed toward implementa- tion, although universities differ in their tolerances, as will be seen in a later de- scription.

Clearly this group of faculty and doc- toral students must believe wholeheart- edly in the value of an early start for the young academic careerist. It makes a great deal of sense for the graduate stu- dent to push himself, as he must, to per- form such extra-dissertation feats of scholarship; he is, after all, often get-

ting academic credit and always getting experience.

The faculty member who devotes so much of his energy and time to launch- ing others’ careers is less obviously re- warded. While he complains of student demands upon his time and regrets that students aren’t well prepared, he none- theless persists in helping candidate after candidate. By his own reporting he is getting some rewards over and above fulfilling his obligation to his university and his discipline. And he would need to feel rewarded, if he is expected to continue .

Certainly there are satisfactions in feeling one has helped another, in know- ing that colleagues and graduate stu- dents perceive one as being on the grow- ing edge of research and publishing, in “placing,’ researchers throughout the country trained in one’s own way. But for some faculty members these very real satisfactions are not enough reward for their often exhausting and generous help.

These data from students and faculty imply that for some faculty the facilita- tion of pre-degree research and writing appeals to the entrepreneurial dimen- sion of academic man. Like an enterpris- ing junior executive, the faculty mem- ber with his “staff 77 of at least partially handpicked doctoral students-eager to learn, eager to please, eager to get ahead-can ccsuggest77 topics for investi- gation which further his own research or writing and, depending upon his ethics, he can list himself as senior author with- out much participation in data collection or much writing.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

9:07

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14

38 FACILITATING RESEARCH AND WRITING

There is also the implication that for other faculty the way of the scholar is a lonely way and he needs thinking com- pany. His colleagues are busy with their projects, and he can’t “get into it all” with family listeners. The perceptive/ readinglclass-attending graduate stu- dent is frequently a fine intellectual companion and sounding board.

I n retrospect, the study provides ample evidence that those minority doc- toral students fortunate enough to be in- ducted into professional scholarship prior to receiving their degrees achieve the experience at great price. The work entailed, within the current framework of real but few rewards, serves to limit the experience to those faculty and stu- dents possessed of some proportion of sturdy ambition, strong work orienta- tion, and unending intellectual curiosity.

The faculty in particular seem to pay a great price since, unlike the students who frequently report receiving aca- demic credit for their research and writ-

ing, faculty “credit” is of a less formal nature. The informality of the reward system represents an area of potential danger to both the intellectual and ethi- cal integrity of academic man. And as his integrity wanes so also will that of his students, for whom he serves as model.

The expensive and obvious remedy lies in reducing faculty loads. A practical and partial compromise lies in increasing the number of occasions which afford students academic credit for research and writing. The labor involved for fac- ulty would more readily and more ap- propriately appear as formal work load; class size and course responsibilities could be more objectively adjusted. Under these conditions of more formal- ized credit for the work entailed in in- ducting doctoral students into profes- sional scholarship, academic man could be free to pursue his own research, free from any taint of exploitation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

9:07

16

Nov

embe

r 20

14