TPC-Journal-V5-Issue1

The Professional Counselor /Volume 5, Issue 1 186 and helping new graduates find employment. Although the types of interactions between doctoral students and their faculty chairperson have been documented, the relative influences of these interactions on the overall student–chairperson relationship remain unclear. Selection and Behaviors Chairperson behaviors and the criteria used by doctoral students to select their chairperson influence student relationship satisfaction and degree completion (Goulden, 1991; Lovitts, 2001). Lovitts (2001) found that the amount of time faculty spent interacting with students, the location of interactions (formal vs. informal settings), and the quantity of work and social interactions with students all influenced doctoral students’ satisfaction with their chairperson. In addition, participants in the study who failed to complete their doctoral degree were six times more likely to have been assigned a chairperson rather than to have chosen a chairperson. Furthermore, students who completed their degrees were cited as feeling much more satisfied with their advisors than students who did not complete theirs. Wallace (2000) researched meaningful student–chairperson relationships and the process by which students are assigned or select a chairperson, and found that previous interactions, personality matching and similar research interests were the three most common factors of meaningful relationships in the dyads. Smart and Conant (1990) conducted a qualitative study examining faculty members’ perceptions of key factors that doctoral students should consider when selecting a chairperson. The top suggestions were for someone with similar research interests, someone with a thriving reputation for publishing and someone well educated in methodology (Smart & Conant, 1990). Although this combination can equal success for some doctoral students, researchers also have identified other variables that contribute to a successful student–chairperson relationship. For example, Bloom, Propst Cuevas, Hall, and Evans (2007) accumulated letters of nomination for outstanding advisors. Five overarching behaviors of outstanding advisors included the following: demonstrating genuine care for students, being accessible, acting as a role model in professional and personal matters, individually tailoring guidance, and proactively integrating students into the profession (Bloom et al., 2007). Emerging themes centered on the importance of support and nurturing rather than on the research background or reputation of the chairperson. Zhao, Golde, and McCormick (2007) set out to examine how selection of a chairperson and chairpersons’ behaviors affect doctoral student satisfaction, noting that the process by which students and chairpersons come together is relatively unexplored. Data for the study were gathered from a national survey of advanced doctoral students across 11 disciplines at 27 leading doctorate-producing universities with over 4,000 student participants. The four broad discipline areas included humanities, social sciences, physical sciences and biological sciences. Results revealed differences among disciplines for selection, behaviors and satisfaction. For the humanities and social sciences, categories under which counselor education falls, academic advising contributed most to student satisfaction. Cheap labor, which was more of a factor in physical and biological sciences, was least important for humanities and social science students. Further, humanities students noted that intellectual compatibility and advisor reputation were most influential in selecting a chairperson, while potential pragmatic benefit resulting from working with the chairperson was rated unfavorably. Results suggest that overall satisfaction with the advising relationship, especially in the humanities, is positively correlated with advisor choice and advisor behaviors (Zhao et al., 2007). Research indicates that the relationship between the doctoral student and the chairperson is a key element in determining the student’s success in completing his or her degree (Bloom et al., 2007). Much of the previous research in the area of assessing behaviors has been conducted in a qualitative manner in order to give voice to the participants. All of these studies have been informative across disciplines; however, researchers have