TPC-Journal-V5-Issue1

The Professional Counselor /Volume 5, Issue 1 190 Discussion The present study was conducted in order to better understand which variables best predict satisfaction in the relationship between counseling doctoral students and their dissertation chairperson. Specifically, the study was designed to address gaps in the literature regarding selection criteria and chairperson behaviors as predictors of satisfaction among counselor education doctoral students. The authors sought to understand the extent to which selection criteria predict doctoral students’ overall satisfaction with their chairperson. Results from the regression analysis suggest that collaborative style significantly contributes to overall satisfaction with one’s dissertation chairperson. There are four items within the component of collaborative style, which include the following: work ethic, personality match, previous work with faculty member and faculty member willing to serve as chairperson. Results suggest that doctoral students’ perception of their ability to collaborate with their chairperson is most influential in predicting overall satisfaction in the relationship between the two. The items within this component seem to share a sense of alignment between the student and professor that focuses more on internal compatibilities, such as similar work ethic and similar personality styles, as opposed to external similarities and benefits, such as a focus on similar research interests or receiving a beneficial recommendation letter. Although there is limited research on how and why doctoral students select their dissertation chairperson, the findings from the present study support those of Wallace (2000), who found that both previous interactions and personality match are among the top themes for why doctoral students select their dissertation chairperson. The second research question explored which chairperson behaviors best predict overall satisfaction with one’s chairperson. Results from the regression suggest that two components, work style and personal connection, significantly predict overall satisfaction, and the model containing the two components contributed over 71% of the variance in overall satisfaction. Work style includes items such as the following: spoke in “we” vs. “you” statements, provided appropriate structure, held me accountable and on track, provided effective feedback, and discussed expectations prior to the working relationship. Items within the personal connection component included the following: personable and comfortable to be around, used humor in our interactions, advocated for me with others, was patient with my progress, and was invested in me as a professional. The chairperson behavior components that were found to significantly contribute to students’ overall satisfaction with their chairperson seem to center on personal, mentoring and validating behaviors shown by chairpersons as perceived by students. The other components, which include more external assistance (such as building professional relationships, assisting with career possibilities, and providing articles and tips for conducting research), were not found to significantly predict overall satisfaction. Current findings support previous research indicating that students feel more comfortable and more satisfied when expectations are shared and discussed up front (Friedman, 1987; Golde, 2005; Goulden, 1991). In addition, the current findings uphold previous research showing that students are more satisfied with their chairperson when the chairperson displays genuine care and regard for the student (Bloom et al., 2007). However, results from the present study conflict with Zhao et al.’s (2007) findings, which showed that humanities and social science students identified academic advising as the most important factor in a satisfactory advising relationship. Although the current study’s work style component includes some items that reflect academic advising functions, most academic advising roles fall under the present study’s professional development and academic assistance components. Neither of these two components significantly predicted overall satisfaction in the present study. As a follow-up to research questions one and two, a subsequent multiple regression analysis was conducted. The predictor variables included the four selection criteria components and the five chairperson behavior components. Results from the regression model suggest that three components, work style (behavior