Colleagues in Training

Abstract

A survey of 241 full professors in journalism and mass communication were asked their views on doctoral education. Results indicated that the expected number of publications students should generate from their dissertations was positively correlated with the number of publications professors produced from their own dissertations, supporting the notion that mentoring involves passing on the behaviors that professors learned as graduate students themselves. The data also revealed that respondents tended to think of students as “colleagues in training” rather than simply as graduate assistants to help with the professors’ own work. Results also showed that those with a PhD believed a terminal degree was more important for journalism faculty than significant work experience in journalism, which further supports the idea of mentees following in their mentors’ footsteps.

Keywords

graduate education dissertation PhD graduate students full professors mentoring

In 2008, Christ and Broyles, commissioned by the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC), set out to investigate the health of graduate education with the goal of creating a set of metrics to better assess doctoral programs within AEJMC schools. The study attempted to discover what graduate programs required for students in regard to teaching, service, and research. Christ and Broyles (2008) reported that of the 38 programs included in the study, nearly half (49%) encouraged its students to present research papers, and 16% required journal publications before graduation. More importantly, their findings uncovered the importance of mentoring in the success of graduate students. Christ and Broyles found that mentoring was the second most popular suggestion for preparing students to conduct research. Furthermore, mentoring was reported as the most important way to prepare students to teach as well as to become successful public servants. However, although their study was welcomed as heralding a new era for graduate programs, there is little published evidence that doctoral programs have adopted the suggestions put forth in their report.

Since the Christ and Broyles (2008) report, most journalism and mass communication programs have remained focused on undergraduate education. Several researchers have simultaneously called for undergraduate curriculum reform and lamented the slow pace of change that the typical university culture supports (Massé & Popovich, 2007; Mensing, 2010). Recently, however, academics have again begun to consider the state of graduate education. Indeed, doctoral students are just a few years removed from the role of college professor. Intuitively, we understand that how we are taught (and what we are taught) as doctoral students can affect the way we view the role of a faculty member in future students’ pursuit toward the doctoral degree.

The purpose of this project, then, is to heed the call of Christ and Broyles’s (2008) report and try to better understand our journalism and mass communication doctoral programs. Under the lens of Kalbfleisch’s (2002) mentoring enactment theory, we examine how senior professors relate to their doctoral students. By conducting a survey investigating full professors’ (n = 241) beliefs about what is important for students pursuing the PhD, we provide additional insight to Christ and Broyles’s call for better understanding of graduate education within journalism and mass communication programs.

Literature Review

Mentoring Enactment Theory

Mentoring has long been viewed as important in students’ academic success. In the oft quoted Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses, Arum and Roska (2011) paint a depressing picture of the lack of learning occurring on today’s campuses. One of the few positive findings from their study is that students who have contact with their professors outside of classes do better than those who do not. Mentoring is one well-established way that this “contact” can occur. While Arum and Roska focus on undergraduates, the concept is clear: Mentoring is one key to students’ success. The process of mentoring can be better understood by exploring mentoring enactment theory. Mentoring enactment theory is based on the premise that the mentor “has achieved personal or professional success and is willing and able to share covert and overt practices that have assisted him or her in becoming successful” (Kalbfleisch, 2002, p. 63). Senior professors are often deemed “successful” simply by their title, which usually implies success in teaching, research, and service, resulting in tenure and subsequent promotion to full professor.

Mansson and Myers (2012) have used mentoring enactment theory to better understand the relationship between dissertation adviser and advisee, arguing that many scholars have viewed this relationship as one of mentoring. They posit that one of the roles of the advisee is to protect the adviser’s reputation, to complete tasks assigned by the adviser and to discuss future goals. From the perspective of the adviser, this relates to graduate success as interpreted by time to degree completion as well as dissertation completion. For tenure-track faculty, success in doctoral-granting institutions is almost always defined (at least in part) by successful publication productivity. It is reasonable to conclude, then, that how a faculty member views the productivity (or potential for productivity) of his or her advisee is related to the faculty member’s own success.

The Mentoring Relationship Between Student and Adviser

One of the issues that influence doctoral students and their future career paths and possible publication records is the mentoring relationship with their adviser. Ehrenberg, Jakubson, Groen, So, and Price (2007) found that a student’s success rate at graduation was determined in part by the student adviser’s view toward the importance of publication before graduation as well as the culture of the particular department. Using data from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation’s Graduate Education Initiative (GEI), which experimented with initiatives to help graduate students complete their degrees more quickly (such as by providing extra funding), the researchers saw only minimal improvements in programs with additional funding. Of interest to the current study, the data from the GEI showed that advising is an important factor in determining the probability of students graduating. In addition, the nature of dissertation expectations also has an impact on when and whether doctoral students complete their degrees.

More specifically, the programs that expect students to publish while in graduate school had a significantly lower cumulative probability of graduation, while those that stress to students “the importance of promptly finishing dissertations” (Ehrenberg et al., 2007, p. 145) have higher cumulative graduation probabilities and are more likely to finish in 4 years (rather than in 6, 8, or 10 years). The authors concluded that improving advising, clarifying departmental expectations on progress toward the PhD, and clarifying expectations on the nature of dissertations could reduce attrition and improve rates of graduation in PhD programs. Also focusing on graduation versus attrition rates in PhD programs, Golde (2005) conducted ethnographic observations and conducted in-depth interviews with 58 doctoral students from four departments at one research-oriented university in the Midwest. According to Golde, at least 40% of the students who begin a doctoral program failed to graduate. Based on the extensive interviews, the author reported on a number of themes underlying reasons for attrition rates in PhD programs. Among other reasons, such as a mismatch of programs or disciplines, or being academically underprepared by their undergraduate education, Golde (2005) cites “incompatible advising relationships, marked by a lack of interaction, trust, and intellectual support” as the cause of much attrition in science departments, in particular (p. 686).

Indeed, Grant and McKinley (2011) have argued that “pedagogical relations” between the student and his or her supervisor are complex. While looking at the unique population of Maori students, they argued for a broader bridge in graduate education, contending that regardless of background, the gulf between the student and adviser needs to be addressed. Howard and Turner-Nash (2011) also argued for a more compassionate relationship between advisers and students, developing the idea of what they call “alimentar,” from the Spanish word meaning to feed or nurture. They argued that this approach in pedagogy, curriculum, and mentoring leads to higher completion rates and a more productive publication record for the student. They emphasized the importance of learning as something that occurs for both the student and the adviser.

Blackburn, Chapman, and Cameron (1981) surveyed 62 professors to discover how senior faculty determined which graduate students had the most potential. The results indicated that the senior faculty viewed “clones,” or students who most resembled the faculty member’s own approaches to higher education, as the ones with the most potential. In an attempt to understand graduate school as a socialization process in preparation for academic careers, Austin (2002) conducted a longitudinal, 4-year study of graduate students in various programs (including communications). Views of the success of the socialization process were mixed, with many of the students interviewed reporting that they did not receive proper mentorship from their adviser and they did not feel that serving as a teaching assistant was adequate preparation for a faculty position.

Similarly, Gardner (2010) conducted qualitative interviews with 16 doctoral faculty in five different academic areas at one university and found that although professors tended to discount their role in socialization for their graduate students, it was actually an important part of the students’ development and, ultimately, success as a graduate student. Gardner recommended that doctoral faculty become more purposeful in the role of mentoring and influencing the socialization of doctoral students for a career in academia. While much of the research summarized here was conducted with students and/or faculty in various fields (including some research being conducted related to communication), departments, schools, or colleges of journalism and mass communication also face unique challenges that might not affect other programs.

The Role of the Dissertation

Regardless of the course variety in doctoral programs, for the vast majority, the dissertation is the pinnacle that demonstrates a student’s command of theory, methods, and explication. A few doctoral programs have begun to look beyond the dissertation as the only way to demonstrate a student’s competence. For example, Dowling, Gorman-Murray, Power, and Luzia (2012) argued that creating a series of publications rather than one dissertation provides a more realistic—and helpful—way to conduct adequate research that can lead to the granting of the degree. Francis, Mills, Chapman, and Birks (2009) also argued that although the dissertation in the field of nursing can be important, publishing articles (in lieu) of the dissertation provides a better mechanism for understanding the research to publication process.

For the most part, however, the dissertation remains the mechanism that faculty mentors and advisees use to calculate the advisee’s chance of success not only as a graduate student but also as a precursor toward publication during the graduate’s tenure-track progression. Some disciplines have attempted to quantify the success of dissertation publication. For example, Hahn, Bowlin, and Britt (2007) examined non-traditional and traditional business doctoral programs and discovered that only 7.1% of students from non-traditional programs and 18.4% from traditional programs published from their dissertations. Although long-term success in published research was not as dismal, less than half (43.9%) of people holding the PhD in business continued to publish research. (This number included those who did not enter the academic field and, therefore, would not be expected to publish.) Stephen and Geel (2007) also discovered the relative lack of publication records among communications professors. Using ComAbstracts to evaluate research productivity for 4,803 faculty who earned the PhD, the authors found a strong relationship between publishing early in a faculty member’s career and publishing later as a senior faculty member. They also reported that more than one third (39%) of the communications scholars did not publish at all after receiving a doctoral degree. Similarly, Hilmer and Hilmer (2009) looked at PhD student success in the area of economics, and found a correlation between the number of publications the student had and the prestige of the students’ adviser.

The Academic Versus the Professional

One of the remaining challenges of graduate education for journalism and mass communication programs relates to who is best equipped to teach the next generation of students. Fedler, Counts, Carey, and Santana (1998) explored the potential clash between those with a doctoral degree and those with significant professional experience arguing that the “great divide” (that professors must be one or the other, but cannot be both) is a myth. Their research confirmed this idea, demonstrating that more than half (53.5%) of those teaching skills classes had professional experience, many of whom also held a doctoral degree.

Thorson (2005) argued that the “professional culture that perceives journalism schools primarily if not solely as providing a workforce influences what we think about how practice and theory should be integrated in our curricula and courses” (p. 18). This quandary, although not as prevalent in doctoral education as in undergraduate, has emerged as an issue that needs examination as schools around the country prepare the next generation of graduates from schools of journalism and mass communication.

Based on the literature, then, this study seeks to better understand the following core research question:

Research Question 1: Among full professors in journalism and mass communication, what is the perceived role of graduate education and the adviser–doctoral student mentoring relationship?

Method

An exploratory questionnaire was developed by the authors (senior and junior faculty) and loaded onto the Qualtrics platform for distribution and data collection. Senior faculty volunteered what they remembered their advisers telling them as well as what they tell their own graduate students. The early career assistant professors then offered their experiences of what advisers told them. Items that were corroborated with both levels of professors were retained in the questionnaire. After incorporating feedback garnered from pre-testing the questionnaire with faculty from non-accredited programs (and hence, ineligible for inclusion in the study), the final questionnaire included 23 items consisting of both closed- and open-ended questions as well as statements rated using dichotomous and Likert-type response formats. All study procedures and protocols received Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval prior to implementation.

The survey was emailed to professors holding the rank of full professor who were housed in 1 of 108 ACEJMC (Accrediting Council of Education in Journalism and Mass Communication) accredited programs throughout the United States. To generate the email list, the authors accessed each accredited program’s website and identified which faculty held the rank of full professor. In cases where faculty members were not clearly identified as full professors, the unit’s website and university directory were searched for additional information. If the rank was unclear, the name was not included, with the exception of cases where faculty members held a senior title such as dean or endowed professor. The final email list included 702 faculty members.

Emails with a link to the survey were sent in late summer 2014 with three reminders sent during early fall 2014. A total of 437 faculty members opened the email. Of those who opened the email, 272 began the survey; 241 professors completed the questionnaire, yielding a response rate of 34.1%. Eleven respondents indicated they were not at the rank of “full professor,” and were excluded from all subsequent analysis. Data analyses were conducted using SPSS software, and all tests of statistical significance were two tailed.

Findings

Sample Characteristics

In journalism and mass communication programs, it is common for faculty to be made up of both those holding the PhD and those who entered the academy after a long career in the profession. The sample was comprised of 70% (n = 163) full professors with a PhD, 18% (n = 41) with a master’s degree, 4% (n = 9) with a bachelor’s degree only, and 9% (n = 20) who held the JD, EdD, or some other graduate degree. Of these, 136 were male, 90 were female. Overall, as Table 1 indicates, respondents represented newly minted full professors with 60% (n = 108) holding the rank for six or fewer years. Participants were asked how long it took them to move from associate to full professor. Nearly two thirds (66%) of the male professors moved from associate to full professor in six or fewer years compared with half (52%) of the female professors.

Table 1.

Participant Characteristics.

	n	Percent
Highest level of education
Other terminal degree	4	1.7
JD	7	3.0
EdD	9	3.9
PhD	163	70.0
Master’s	41	17.6
Bachelor’s	9	3.6
Career prior to appointment to full professor
Outside of academia	34	14.0
In academia, though not on tenure track	5	2.1
Associate professor on the tenure track	190	78.2
Other	14	5.8
Program characteristics (degrees offered)
Professional master’s (MMC or MSJ)	144	55.4
Traditional master’s (MA or MS)	183	70.4
Doctoral program (PhD)	147	56.5
No graduate degree program	20	7.7
Other	15	5.8

Note. Data reported represented completed responses to corresponding questionnaire items. Missing values account for the disparity between item totals—and their corresponding percentages—relative to the full number of survey respondents.

The Role of Graduate Education and the Adviser–Student Mentoring Relationship

In trying to better understand perceptions of the overall purpose of graduate education, we sought to assess professor views about the amount of emphasis that should be placed on developing research versus developing pedagogical and/or administrative skills. Participants were asked to rate their agreement with two statements. Of the two items, the strongest level of agreement was generated in response to the statement, “A PhD is, by definition, a research degree” (M = 4.33, standard deviation [SD] = 0.78). The statement, “A PhD can be a degree that focuses on teaching or administration rather than research,” received much less support (M = 2.40, SD = 1.06). Results of a paired-samples t test indicated that these differences were statistically significant, t(223) = 18.45, p < .001, η² = .60.

The survey asked participants about their agreement with two statements designed to assess whether faculty see graduate students as colleagues or assistants to help with faculty members’ work. More specifically, the survey data revealed that respondents reported stronger levels of agreement with the following statement: “I think of a graduate student as a ‘colleague in training’” (M = 3.93, SD = 0.93). In contrast, respondents’ agreement with the following statement fell below the midpoint: “One of the main reasons I like to have a graduate assistant is to help me with my own scholarly work” (M = 2.84, SD = 1.00). Results of a paired-samples t test indicated that these differences were statistically significant, t(224) = 13.41, p < .001, η² = .45.

Perceived Role of the Dissertation

Within a series of questions that addressed participants’ perceptions of the role of the dissertation, findings indicated the highest level of agreement with the statement, “The purpose of the dissertation is to allow a student the time to conduct a major project” (M = 4.10, SD = 0.88). The statement that received the second highest level of agreement, with a mean score just above the midpoint, was “The dissertation should be a student’s Magnum Opus” (M = 3.21, SD = 1.24). In contrast, the following statement, which was included in an attempt to measure opposition to the previous statement, was met with agreement levels that fell just below the midpoint: “The only good dissertation is a done dissertation” (M = 2.49, SD = 1.10). The least agreed upon statement was, “A student should be able to pull enough out of a dissertation to last all the way to tenure” (M = 1.81, SD = 0.85). Repeated paired-samples t tests, with adjustment for multiple comparisons (Bonferroni method; p < .0083), confirmed that the differences in participant agreement with each of the four statements were statistically significant.¹

To better understand expectations for what the student should be able to accomplish with a dissertation, we examined the relationship between the role of the dissertation in personal careers and expectations about the number of publications students should generate from their dissertation. Analysis was conducted in two stages. First, an independent-samples t test was run to determine whether differences existed between professors who published the results from their dissertation and those who had not, in terms of their expectations about the number of publications students should be able to generate from a dissertation. Results found no significant differences between professors who published their dissertations (M = 3.61, SD = 0.91) and those who did not (M = 3.90, SD = 0.13); t(159) = 1.93, p = .06, η² = .02. Next, bivariate correlations were used to test whether the number of publications professors were able to produce from their own dissertations was related to the number of dissertation-related publications expected of doctoral students. Results indicated that expectations about the number of publications students should be able to generate from a dissertation (M = 3.63, SD = 0.90) were positively correlated with the number of publications professors produced from their own dissertations (M = 2.30, SD = 1.51) at a level that was statistically significant with a small effect size (r = .24, p < .05).² Of those, nearly three quarters (71%) were published in top-tier communication journals, and three quarters (75%) were published as sole-authored works. Almost one third (32%) of those surveyed had published a book from their dissertations.

“Clones” as Mentors in Graduate Education

As discussed earlier, part of mentoring in graduate education involves passing on knowledge accrued while the professor was a graduate student. In journalism schools, however, it is not unusual to find full professors who do not hold a terminal degree. Indeed, this study was comprised of 30% full professors without the PhD. More specifically, we were interested in professors’ views on the importance of faculty members having a PhD compared with having significant professional experience. Again, responses to two items were used to answer this question, with higher levels of agreement elicited in response to the statement, “It is important for faculty in journalism and mass communications to have a PhD” (M = 3.03, SD = 1.24), compared with agreement with the statement, “Significant work experience in journalism and mass communications is at least equal to earning a PhD” (M = 2.63, SD = 1.36). Results from a paired-samples t test indicated that the difference between participants’ level of agreement with the two statements was statistically significant, t(226) = 2.69, p < .05, η² = .03.

Because it is plausible that participants’ responses to both these questionnaire items may have been biased by their own educational background, additional analysis was conducted to explore this possibility. For each item, a one-way ANOVA was conducted with respondents’ highest earned degree serving as the categorical independent variable (“bachelor’s,” “master’s,” “PhD,” “JD,” “EdD,” or “other terminal degree”). As shown in Table 2, results indicated that, based on respondents’ highest earned degree, there were significant differences in their agreement with the notion that professional experience can be equated to earning a PhD, F(5, 220) = 32.54, p < .005, η² = .425, as well as their views on the importance of a PhD for journalism faculty, F(5, 221) = 18.12, p < .005, η² = .291.

Table 2.

Perceived Importance of a PhD Based on Educational Background.

Measure		Highest level of education
Measure		BA	MA	PhD	EdD	JD	Other
It is important that faculty have a PhD	M	1.67_a	1.97_a	3.45_b	2.78_a,b	2.14_a	1.50_a
It is important that faculty have a PhD	SD	0.87	1.00	1.06	1.20	1.22	1.00
Professional experience is equal to PhD	M	4.56_a	4.00_a	2.07_b	3.22_a	4.14_a	4.00_a
Professional experience is equal to PhD	SD	0.53	1.04	1.06	1.30	0.69	0.82

Note. Comparisons between means, specified by lowercase subscripts, are horizontal only. Means that do not share a letter in their subscripts differ at p < .05 (Tukey’s HSD).

With regard to the item asking whether significant professional experience was equal to earning a PhD, post hoc analysis (Tukey’s HSD) indicated that respondents with an earned PhD had lower levels of agreement with this statement than all other professors without degrees other than a PhD, and these differences were uniformly statistically significant.

Findings from the analysis related to the perceived importance of having a PhD also indicated those with a PhD differed from those with other educational backgrounds. Professors who held a PhD indicated the highest level of agreement with the notion that a PhD is important for journalism faculty and differed from nearly all non-PhD-holding professors at a level that was statistically significant.

Discussion

Although there have been a number of studies published in the past decade that focus on graduate education in general and other research that calls for a better understanding of journalism and mass communication education, a paucity of research exists that concentrates on graduate education in journalism and mass communication and, particularly, doctoral education and the relationship between advisers and doctoral students in this field. This study was an attempt to better understand graduate education from the perspective of those who had gone through the process and then progressed through the academic ranks achieving the rank of full professor.

This research indicates that what a professor experienced as a graduate student is often how the professor views the appropriate approach to mentoring graduate students today. This was particularly prevalent in the analyses that demonstrated that the number of publications the professor was able to pull from the dissertation was related to the number that the professor believed the subsequent graduate student should be able to publish. However, it is interesting to note that the full professors surveyed in this study agreed more with the idea that a dissertation should be a student’s “magnum opus,” rather than the idea that students should simply focus on getting their dissertation “done.” It could be that the respondents’ definition of a “magnum opus” is one in which students can publish two to three papers, and they prioritize these publications at the possible expense of extra time spent by the student in terms of getting the dissertation “done.”

Some professors who participated in the study reiterated this dilemma. For example, when asked at the end of the survey for “other comments,” one respondent wrote that the

field is moving towards the quick and dirty dissertation, in three years, which does not bode well for ethnographic research and for research that has to be done overseas. Students often fail to see the big picture of where media fit into society.

It was encouraging to see that senior faculty tended to agree more with the idea that doctoral students are “colleagues in training” more so than assistants to help with the faculty members’ own work. Perhaps the fact that the scholars surveyed are further out from their own graduate education and more established in their respective fields and schools helps explain this perspective.

Similarly, although not surprising that the majority of full professors recognized the PhD as a “research degree,” rather than one that should be focused on teaching and/or administrative duties, one may wonder whether emphasizing research alone can hinder students’ preparation for teaching and service, which are a large part of professors’ careers once they are hired at an institution after earning their doctoral degree. As some have noted, the faculty socialization process can be paramount to a future professor’s success (Austin, 2002; Gardner, 2010).

Finally, we asked about the unique qualifications of faculty in the field of journalism and mass communication or perceptions of the importance of education versus professional experience in the field. Respondents reported higher levels of agreement with the idea that faculty in journalism and mass communication should have a PhD than with the idea that they should have significant professional experience in journalism and mass communication. However, responses were just above the midpoint for the first item and slightly below the midpoint for the latter. This finding could be related to the fact that 70% of the respondents reported having a PhD, while the other 30% did not. Kalbfleisch’s (2002) notion of mentoring is focused on the mentor sharing his or her experiences with the mentee. This may present challenges to senior-level faculty without graduate school experience to impart to the next generation of faculty.

Results from this study show that there are differing viewpoints about graduate education between those with a PhD and those without. If this is the case, and if we view the future of journalism and mass communication through the lens of mentoring enactment theory, then it seems we may continue to encourage a “great divide” within our field, with some scholars focusing on and encouraging research while others do not.

Limitations and Future Research

Very few studies have asked the senior professorate their views on graduate education in the field of journalism and mass communication. This study uncovers some previously little known attitudes toward graduate education; however, it is limited to full professors. It would be interesting to see how these responses relate to early career faculty as well as current graduate students’ experiences. For example, do current graduate students expect to get multiple publications from their dissertations? Do they think their professors expect them to publish their dissertations as their “Magnum Opus?” Do they expect to continue working with their faculty advisers?

Finally, both faculty and graduate students can use this research to help them negotiate the mentoring relationship. Students, for example, should realize that the advice their advisers impart is based in part on their own graduate student experience and may not be the only way to approach graduate studies. Likewise, faculty can work with their colleagues to assure that a consistent approach to graduate study is presented to students. Faculty who do not have a doctoral degree and are advising doctoral students also might benefit from mentoring, particularly in helping students to complete their dissertations. Clearly, more research needs to be done to better understand the relationship between the graduate student and adviser, and the role this plays in the future of graduate education.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Carol J. Pardun is a professor in the School of Journalism and Mass Communications at the University of South Carolina. She studies the impact of advertising on society as well as broader media content issues. She holds a PhD from the University of Georgia.

Robert McKeever is an assistant professor in the School of Journalism and Mass Communications at the University of South Carolina. His research interests include persuasive health communication and quantitative research design. He earned his PhD from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Geah N. Pressgrove is an assistant professor at West Virginia University’s Reed College of Media where she teaches undergraduate courses in public relations and advertising. Her research interests include nonprofit advocacy, the role of technology platforms in relationship development and formation of loyalty in the organization-public relationship. Her PhD is from the University of South Carolina.

Brooke Weberling McKeever is an assistant professor in the School of Journalism and Mass Communications at the University of South Carolina. Her research interests include public relations, nonprofit and health communication. She earned her PhD From UNC, Chapel Hill after almost a decade working in PR, marketing and fundraising in Chicago and elsewhere.

References

Arum

Roska

(2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Austin

A. E.

(2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socialization to the academic career. The Journal of Higher Education, 73, 94-122.

Blackburn

R. T.

Chapman

D. W.

Cameron

S. M.

(1981). “Cloning” in academe: Mentorship and academic careers. Research in Higher Education, 15, 315-327.

Christ

W. G.

Broyles

S. J.

(2008). Graduate education at AEJMG schools: A benchmark study. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 62, 376-401.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Dowling

Gorman-Murray

Power

Luzia

(2012). Critical reflections on doctoral research in human geography: The “PhD by publication.” Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 36, 293-305.

Ehrenberg

R. G.

Jakubson

G. H.

Groen

J. A.

Price

(2007). Inside the black box of doctoral education: What program characteristics influence doctoral students’ attrition and graduation possibilities? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29, 134-150.

Fedler

Counts

Carey

Santana

M. C.

(1998). Faculty’s degrees, experience and research vary with specialty. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 53, 4-13.

Francis

Mills

Chapman

Birks

(2009). Doctoral dissertations by publication: Building scholarly capacity whilst advancing new knowledge in the discipline of nursing. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 4, 97-106.

10.

Gardner

S. C.

(2010). Faculty perspectives on doctoral student socialization in five disciplines. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 5, 39-53.

11.

Golde

C. M.

(2005). The role of the department and discipline in doctoral student attrition: Lessons from four departments. The Journal of Higher Education, 76, 669-700.

12.

Grant

McKinley

(2011). Colouring the pedagogy of doctoral supervision: Considering supervisor, student and knowledge through the lens of indigeneity. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 48, 377-386. doi:10.1080/14703297.2011.617087

13.

Hahn

Bowlin

Britt

(2007). The incidence of publishing among business disciplines: An examination of nontraditional and traditional programs. Journal of Education for Business, 83, 77-86.

14.

Hilmer

(2009). Fishes, ponds, and productivity: Student-advisor matching and early career publishing success for economics PhD’s. Economic Inquiry, 47, 290-303.

15.

Howard

K. J.

Turner-Nash

(2011). Alimentar: Theorizing pedagogy, curriculum, and mentorship for democratic doctoral education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 44, 22-39. doi:10.1080/10665684.2011.541344

16.

Kalbfleisch

P. J.

(2002). Communicating in mentoring relationships: A theory for enactment. Communication Theory, 12, 63-69.

17.

Mansson

D. H.

Myers

S. A.

(2012). Using mentoring enactment theory to explore the doctoral student-advisor mentoring relationship. Communication Education, 61, 309-334.

18.

Massé

M. H.

Popovich

M. N.

(2007). Accredited and non-accredited media writing programs are stagnant, resistant to curricular reform, and similar. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 62, 142-160.

19.

Mensing

(2010). Rethinking [again] the future of journalism education. Journalism Studies, 11, 511-523. doi:10.1080/14616701003638376

20.

Stephen

Geel

(2007). Normative publication productivity of communication scholars at selected career milestones. Human Communication Research, 33, 103-118. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00291.x

21.

Thorson

(2005). Reconceptualizing the influence of the news industry on journalism graduate education. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 60, 17-22.