Strategies for School Counselors-in-Training to Maximize Their Supervision Experience

Nancy Chae, Adrienne Backer, Patrick R. Mullen

All counseling graduate students participate in fieldwork experiences and engage in supervision to promote their professional development. School counseling trainees complete these experiences in the unique context of elementary and secondary school settings. As such, school counselors-in-training (SCITs) may seek to approach supervision with specific strategies tailored for the roles, responsibilities, and dispositions required of competent future school counselors. This article suggests practical strategies for SCITs, including engaging in reflection; navigating feelings of vulnerability in supervision; developing appropriate professional dispositions for school counseling practice; and practicing self-advocacy, broaching, and self-care. Counselor educators can share these strategies to help students identify their needs for their field experiences and prepare for their professional careers as school counselors.

Keywords: supervision, professional development, school counseling, school counselors-in-training, strategies

School counselors-in-training (SCITs) are trainees enrolled in graduate-level counselor education programs and receive supervision as an integral component of their training (Bernard & Goodyear, 2019). Although the supervision relationship is often characterized as hierarchical, trainees must actively participate in the supervision process to develop competency as counseling professionals (Stark, 2017). Despite this, trainees in counseling programs generally receive little guidance on understanding their roles in supervision or how to make the most of their supervision experience to contribute to their learning (Pearson, 2004; Stark, 2017). Although Pearson (2004) offered suggestions for mental health counseling students to optimize their supervision experiences, there is limited literature about how school counseling students can maximize their supervision experiences. The intention of this article is to share strategies for SCITs to take the initiative to approach supervisors with questions and ideas about their overall supervision experience, though these suggestions are not limited to SCITs and may also be useful for trainees across other counseling disciplines.

School counseling site supervision is distinguishable from supervision in other helping professions in that the roles and responsibilities of professional school counselors extend beyond the individual and group counseling services that their community counseling partners provide (American School Counselor Association [ASCA], 2019a, 2021; Quintana & Gooden-Alexis, 2020). For example, comprehensive school counseling programming encompasses direct counseling services with students and families in addition to broader systemic consultation, advocacy, and support for school communities (ASCA, 2019a). School counselors encounter unique challenges in schools regarding student and staff mental health, issues related to equity and access, and navigating the political landscapes of school systems (Bemak & Chung, 2008). Even with an understanding of these distinct themes in school counseling, there is a lack of significance placed on supervision in school counseling within research and in practice to adequately respond to contemporary school counseling issues (Bledsoe et al., 2019). Examining how SCITs can approach supervision and their roles as trainees can ensure their own learning and developmental needs are met, along with the needs of their school communities.

Contexts of School Counseling Supervision

Supervision for SCITs is provided by experienced professional school counselors and characterized by an intentional balance of hierarchy, evaluation, and support during their practicum and internship fieldwork experiences (Bernard & Goodyear, 2019; Borders & Brown, 2005). School counselor supervision serves three primary purposes: (a) promoting competency in effective and ethical school counseling practice; (b) facilitating SCITs’ personal and professional development; and (c) upholding accountability of services and programs for the greater profession and the schools, students, and families receiving services (ASCA, 2021; L. J. Bradley et al., 2010). School counseling site supervisors utilize their training and experiences to guide SCITs through their induction to the profession and development of initial skills and dispositions.

ASCA (2021) compels school counseling supervisors to address the complexities specific to educational settings as they support the professional development of SCITs, which sets school counseling supervision apart from supervision in other clinical counseling disciplines. School counselors facilitate instruction and classroom management, provide appraisal and advisement, and support the developmental and social–emotional needs of students through data-informed school counseling programs (ASCA, 2019a). Within school and community settings, they also navigate systems with an advocacy and social justice orientation and attend to cultural competence and anti-racist work. Although there are school counseling–specific supervision models that address some of the complexities inherent in the work of school counselors (e.g., Lambie & Sias, 2009; Luke & Bernard, 2006; S. Murphy & Kaffenberger, 2007; Wood & Rayle, 2006), there is currently a gap in the school counseling literature about effectively addressing the unique supervision needs of SCITs. Therefore, school counselor practitioners and counselor educators may refer to professional standards for supervision to inform how they supervise and support the developmental needs of SCITs, which may also help SCITs to understand what they might expect to encounter in graduate-level supervision.

Professional Standards for School Counseling Supervision
     School counseling professional standards underscore the need for school counselor supervisors to seek supervision and training (ASCA, 2019b; Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs [CACREP], 2015; Quintana & Gooden-Alexis, 2020). Professional associations and accrediting organizations (e.g., ASCA, CACREP) promote adherence to and integration of school counselor standards and competencies related to leadership, advocacy, collaboration, systemic change, and ethical practice (ASCA, 2022; CACREP, 2015; Quintana & Gooden-Alexis, 2020). As such, school counseling supervision facilitates ethical and professional skill development through school counselor standards and competencies, such as the ASCA School Counselor Professional Standards & Competencies (ASCA, 2019c) and the ASCA Ethical Standards for School Counselors (ASCA, 2022).

School counseling supervisors can support SCITs’ professional growth and development by aligning supervision activities with specific standards and competencies (Quintana & Gooden-Alexis, 2020). For example, a supervisor seeking to model the school counselor mindset and behavior standards focused on collaborative partnerships (i.e., M 5, B-SS 6; ASCA, 2019c) might provide opportunities for SCITs to develop relationships with stakeholders (e.g., families, administrators, community) while supporting student achievement. Similarly, an example of aligning supervision activities with ethical standards might involve guiding an SCIT through the process of utilizing an ethical decision-making model to resolve a potential dilemma (see Section F; ASCA, 2022).

Supervision in School Counseling
     Supervision in school counseling ensures that new professionals enter the field prepared to understand and support the needs of students by effectively applying ethical standards and best practices of the profession. As such, gatekeeping is a crucial component of supervision. As gatekeepers, counselor educators or supervisors exercise their professional authority to take action that prevents a trainee who does not enact the required professional dispositions and ethical practices from entering the profession of counseling (Bernard & Goodyear, 2019). When a trainee is identified as unable to achieve counseling competencies or likely to harm others, ethical practice guides counselor educators to provide developmental or remedial services to work toward improvements before dismissal from a counseling program (American Counseling Association [ACA], 2014; Foster & McAdams, 2009).

Although supervised fieldwork experiences during graduate education and training are needed for accreditation (CACREP, 2015) and state certification, professional school counselors employed in the field may not be required to participate in any form of post-master’s clinical supervision for initial school counseling certification or renewal of their certification, unlike professional clinical mental health counselors, who require post-master’s supervision to attain licensure (Dollarhide & Saginak, 2017; Mecadon-Mann & Tuttle, 2023). Administrative supervision provided by a school administrator is more common for school counselors than clinical supervision, which promotes the competence of counselors by focusing on the development and refinement of counseling skills (Herlihy et al., 2002). In other words, though school counselors routinely encounter complex situations that involve supporting students with acute needs and responding to crises, they likely do not receive the clinical supervision needed to enhance their judgment, skills, and ethical decision-making (Bledsoe et al., 2019; Brott et al., 2021; Herlihy et al., 2002; McKibben et al., 2022; Sutton & Page, 1994). Given the reality that school counselors may not access or receive opportunities for postgraduate clinical supervision, it is important that SCITs experience robust supervision during their graduate training programs with the support of qualified site and university supervisors. This sets the stage for SCITs to effectively engage with the challenges of their future school counseling careers.

Expectations of Site and University Supervisors
     For SCITs who are new to the experience of supervision in their fieldwork, it is helpful to understand what they may expect from their respective site and university supervisors. Borders et al. (2014) recommended that supervisors initiate supervision, set goals with trainees, provide feedback, facilitate the supervisory relationship, and attend to diversity, as well as engage in advocacy, ethical consideration, documentation, and evaluation. Supervisors select supervision interventions that attend to the developmental needs of trainees, and they also serve as gatekeepers for the profession (Bernard & Goodyear, 2019; Borders et al., 2014). Furthermore, supervisors facilitate an effective relationship with their trainees, characterized by empowerment, encouragement, and safety (Dressel et al., 2007; Ladany et al., 2013; M. J. Murphy & Wright, 2005). Supervisors provide a balance of support and challenge in their feedback and interactions with trainees (Bernard & Goodyear, 2019) and attend to multicultural issues by broaching with their trainees about their intersecting identities and experiences of power, privilege, and marginalization (Dressel et al., 2007; Jones et al., 2019; M. J. Murphy & Wright, 2005). Supervisors also validate trainees’ experiences by acknowledging any emergent issues of vicarious trauma and encouraging self-care (K. Jordan, 2018).

Supervisors and trainees have mutual responsibilities to facilitate an effective supervision experience. Although supervisors may hold a more significant stake of power in the relationship, trainees’ willingness to take an active role also matters. School counseling trainees are not passive bystanders in the learning process; instead, they can be thoughtful learners yearning to take full advantage of the growth from their clinical experiences. To help illuminate the opportunities and expectations SCITs can seek during supervision, the subsequent strategies from school counseling supervision research serve as suggested approaches for SCITs to make the most of this fundamental and practical learning experience.

Strategies for School Counseling Trainees

School counseling trainees can take an active role to ensure that their supervision experiences are relevant to their personal and professional development. The following approaches do not constitute an all-encompassing list but provide a foundation and guidelines rooted in existing research to get the most out of the supervision experience, including engaging in reflection and vulnerability, practicing self-advocacy, broaching, and maintaining personal wellness.

Reflection in Supervision
     Reflection is key to school counselor development, especially in supervision. Researchers have reported that continuous reflection helps novice counselors move toward higher levels of cognitive complexity and expertise (Borders & Brown, 2005; Skovholt & Rønnestad, 1992). A reflective trainee demonstrates openness to understanding; avoids being defensive; and engages in profound thought processes that lead to changes in their perceptions, practice, and complexity (Neufeldt et al., 1996). Through reflection, trainees consider troubling, confusing, or uncertain experiences or thoughts and then reframe them to problem-solve and guide future actions (Ward & House, 1998; Young et al., 2011). Further, by developing relationships with supervisors, trainees become open to  receiving and integrating feedback to support their development (Borders & Brown, 2005). Reflection becomes an ongoing process and practice throughout trainees’ academic and field experiences and postgraduation.

Trainees can engage in self-reflective practices in various ways over the course of their graduate training. First, trainees can use a journal to record thoughts, feelings, and events throughout their school counseling field experiences. Research has shown that written or video journaling can help trainees to reflect on the highs and lows of counseling training and foster self-awareness (Parikh et al., 2012; Storlie et al., 2018; Woodbridge & O’Beirne, 2017). For example, trainees can connect their practical experiences with knowledge from academic learning to note discrepancies and consistencies (e.g., learning about the ASCA National Model and the extent to which a school chooses to implement the model; navigating the bureaucracy of school systems that often dictate roles and responsibilities of school counselors). Trainees can also challenge their thoughts by exploring difficult experiences using reflective journaling. They can journal about the different perspectives of those involved in the situation (e.g., students, parents/guardians, teachers, administrators), process ethical dilemmas, and gauge and manage any emotional experiences attached to grappling with challenges. Trainees desiring structured prompts can consider writing about specific developmental, emotional, and interpersonal experiences to process events related to counselor and client interactions (Storlie et al., 2018).

Second, trainees can consult with their supervisors to seek guidance and constructive feedback about challenging experiences (Borders & Brown, 2005). Hamlet (2022) recommended using the S.K.A.T.E.S. form to reflect on issues related to trainees’ Skills, Knowledge, Attitudes, Thoughts, Ethics, and Supervision needs. Using S.K.A.T.E.S., for example, a school counseling intern may reflect on how they incorporated motivational interviewing counseling skills to support a student struggling with their declining grades (North, 2017). They might seek supervision about a challenging crisis response at the school and process how they might have responded differently. Even after supervision sessions, trainees should engage in continued self-reflection and apply new learning to their clinical practice.

Third, trainees can utilize the Johari window as a tool to reflect upon the knowledge, awareness, and skills required for school counseling practice (Halpern, 2009). Trainees work with supervisors to consider questions or experiences to identify: (a) open areas (i.e., things known to everyone, such as critically discussing school- and district-wide policies that contribute to inequitable access to college preparatory courses); (b) hidden areas (i.e., things only known to the trainee to be shared in supervision, such as the trainee’s hesitations about leading a group counseling session with middle school students independently for the first time); (c) blind spots (i.e., things that the supervisor is aware of that the trainee may not be, such as personal biases, prejudices, stereotypes, and discriminatory attitudes that may affect the trainee’s conceptualizations and interactions with students and families); and (d) undiscovered potential (i.e., things that the supervisor and trainee can experience and learn together, such as engaging in professional learning together to align school counseling programming with a school-wide movement toward implementing restorative justice practices). This strategy also compels trainees to align their supervision goals with ethical codes (see A.4.b., F.8.c., and F.8.d in the ACA Code of Ethics) and standards for professional practice (ACA, 2014). Trainees can feel empowered to utilize the Johari window with supervisors and peers to guide conversations, generate questions, and develop insights to inform school counseling practice and explore ethical dilemmas.

Vulnerability in Supervision
     Vulnerability is an essential yet challenging experience within the hierarchical nature of supervision. Being vulnerable involves feelings of uncertainty, reluctance, and exposure; hence, trainees require a sense of psychological safety and support to explore their needs and areas of weakness (Bradley et al., 2019; Giordano et al., 2018; J. V. Jordan, 2003). Although site supervisors hold the primary responsibility for facilitating supervision relationships characterized by safety and support (Bernard & Goodyear, 2019), trainees can feel empowered to advocate for supervision environments that encourage authenticity and vulnerability, which are conducive to growth and development.

First, trainees can discuss with their supervisors and peers to define feelings of vulnerability and create group norms to promote supported vulnerability (Bradley et al., 2019). With a shared understanding, trainees, supervisors, and peers create an environment for continued growth and risk-taking. For example, during the first group supervision meeting, trainees can suggest norms that will individually and collectively sustain a safe classroom community for sharing and learning. A lack of clear norms about how to communicate feedback may result in experiences of shame and affect trainees’ confidence (J. V. Jordan, 2003; Ratts & Greenleaf, 2018). To mitigate this, trainees, supervisors, and peers can collaboratively discuss appropriate and preferred ways of giving and receiving feedback that is supportive, productive, and meaningful (Ladany et al., 2013). For example, trainees may prefer specific comments rather than general praise: “When the client expressed their frustration, you did well to remain calm and reflect content and feelings in that moment,” instead of “You did a great job.” This exchange among trainees, supervisors, and peers offers a constructive and engaging experience in which individuals can appropriately support and challenge one another.

Second, reviewing recordings offers a learning opportunity for trainees to reflect upon and critique their own skills and dispositions (Borders & Brown, 2005). When presenting recorded case presentations, trainees can practice vulnerability by selecting and presenting recordings that highlight challenging areas that may require constructive feedback (i.e., show their worst rather than their best). Trainees can identify portions of recordings that exemplify where they need the most help, such as a challenging experience during an individual counseling session with a student. Further, when presenting their recordings, trainees can also ask for suggestions to improve consultation work with caregivers when discussing college and career planning issues or innovative instructional strategies for teaching a classroom lesson in response to challenging situations. Vulnerability also occurs when trainees seek support from supervisors and peers about blind spots and areas of strength and growth regarding skill development and self-awareness issues in the recorded session or role-play. For instance, a trainee may express concern about the increasing academic counseling referrals of ninth-grade students who are struggling with the transition to high school and ask for guidance about how to more effectively respond systemically and individually.

Self-Advocacy in Supervision
     Self-advocacy is another empowering practice for trainees to identify their needs and seek support. Researchers have defined self-advocacy as understanding one’s rights and responsibilities, communicating needs, and negotiating for support, which helps trainees proactively approach supervision (Astramovich & Harris, 2007; Pocock et al., 2002). Although supervision is characterized as hierarchical, it is also a relationship based on mutual participation, with inherent expectations for trainees (Stark, 2017). Within the evaluative nature of a supervision relationship, trainees may reasonably feel intimidated about practicing self-advocacy. However, trainees can feel empowered to self-advocate when building rapport with supervisors in an environment characterized by safety and support.

To prepare to self-advocate, trainees should continue engaging in self-reflection on their gaps in knowledge, awareness, and skills related to school counseling practice and then consider the types of resources and supports needed from their supervisor to bridge such gaps. In alignment with their learning goals, trainees can self-advocate by taking the initiative to request support for what they would like to achieve during the supervision experience (Storlie et al., 2019). For example, trainees may inquire about logistical concerns, such as seeking guidance about appropriate and creative ways to ensure that they earn sufficient direct and indirect hours, or evaluative concerns, like asking how to improve in specific school counseling skill areas after mid- and end-of-semester evaluations. Trainees can also seek support with conceptualization (e.g., applying a theoretical orientation when understanding the potential contributors to a student’s feeling of anxiety), skill development (e.g., experience with advocating for students receiving special education services in an Individualized Educational Plan [IEP] meeting), and countertransference issues (e.g., emotional reactions that may arise when supporting a grieving student coping with a loss; Pearson, 2004). Trainees should prepare specific questions that communicate their needs and explicitly request resources, opportunities, or next steps for continued improvement and development.

Trainees may also self-advocate through positive communication, which is a critical skill for helping professionals and in maintaining relationships (Biganeh & Young, 2021). Positive communication may involve actively listening to their supervisor’s insights, presenting statements that paraphrase their supervisor’s key points, and asking open-ended questions to elicit mutual exploration of topics of interest. For instance, after observing a crisis response to a student expressing suicidal ideation, the trainee can debrief about their experiences with their supervisor by summarizing key observations and protocol followed, while also asking what steps could be added or reconsidered if the trainee were leading the crisis response. Additionally, practicing communication skills in the context of supervision may enhance trainees’ competence and confidence when interacting with students and stakeholders, including caregivers, teachers, and administrators (Heaven et al., 2006). For example, trainees can request to observe and later role-play how they might facilitate a consultation meeting with a student and their parent to discuss the importance of consistent attendance and academic development.

Trainees can get the most out of their supervision experience by self-advocating and taking initiative to describe their unique learning styles and needs (Storlie et al., 2019). This provides an opportunity for trainees to proactively convey their goals and concerns about students and stakeholders at their sites (Baltrinic et al., 2021; Cook & Sackett, 2018). For example, if the trainee has become increasingly comfortable with co-leading a group counseling session, the trainee can communicate a desire to design and independently lead a group counseling session and then seek feedback about the curriculum plans or recordings of the session for continued improvement in group facilitation skills. Ultimately, engaging in self-advocacy skills during fieldwork helps trainees prepare for their careers as school counselors, in which self-advocacy is necessary when seeking professional development, resources for school counseling program development, and navigating school systems and politics to support their students and school counseling programs (Oehrtman & Dollarhide, 2021).

     Broaching is an ongoing behavior in which counselors invite conversations to explore race, ethnicity, and culture with clients, which can strengthen the counseling relationship and enhance cultural responsiveness and therapeutic benefits (Day-Vines et al., 2007, 2013). Likewise, in supervisory relationships, broaching helps supervisors and trainees to understand how cultural factors affect the supervisory relationship (Jones et al., 2019). Without broaching, both supervisors and trainees may miss meaningful contexts and realities, potentially rupturing the supervisory relationship (Jones et al., 2019). Broaching is also a key demonstration of commitment to culturally informed clinical supervision that promotes cultural humility and anti-racist counseling and supervision practice (Cartwright et al., 2021).

Although supervisors are charged with the responsibility of broaching based on the hierarchical nature of the supervisory relationship and its inherent power dynamics, they may not consistently incorporate broaching as part of their regular supervision behaviors (Bernard & Goodyear, 2019; King & Jones, 2019). Trainees who feel empowered to discuss issues of identity and power in supervision are more likely to initiate broaching conversations with their supervisors (King & Jones, 2019). As such, trainees should feel encouraged to engage in discussions with their supervisors to openly address cultural identities that may impact the supervisory relationship and their work with students and stakeholders in schools. King and Jones (2019) suggested that trainees can broach topics that they feel comfortable discussing within the context of their supervision relationship. It is necessary to note that the process and outcome of broaching in supervision are not only contingent upon the diverse sociocultural and sociopolitical contexts of individuals, but also on where the trainee and supervisor lie within the continuum of broaching styles and their own racial identity development as well as the power and hierarchy dynamics of the supervisory relationship (Bernard & Goodyear, 2019; Day-Vines et al., 2007; Jones et al., 2019). Just as for any novice counselor and individuals in the early stages of the broaching styles continuum, there may be hesitation, anxiousness, misunderstanding, or intimidation about engaging in broaching skills, especially considering the power dynamic of supervision. Trainees can self-assess their broaching style by using the Broaching Attitudes and Behavior Survey (Day-Vines et al., 2007, 2013), which might provide them with insight about their own level of comfort with broaching in supervision.

Trainees can seek continuing education and support from supervisors and peers about developing and strengthening their understanding of cultural diversity, race, oppression, and privilege related to school counseling. If a trainee feels nervous about broaching with their supervisor, the trainee can express their desire to practice broaching and seek feedback from their supervisor after broaching has taken place (e.g., “I would like to try broaching about a student’s cultural identities, and I was wondering if you could share your thoughts with me.”). Trainees can also directly express curiosities, observations, or questions about how any cultural differences and similarities between the supervisor and trainee may impact and inform the supervisory relationship. For example, a trainee and supervisor can discuss prior supervisory relationships, such as in academic or employment experiences, and identify the shared or different intersectional cultural identities to understand how this new supervisory relationship can be a meaningful relationship and safe space for learning. This exercise demonstrates cultural humility in which trainees engage in respectful curiosity, a stance of openness, and cultural awareness that enhances the supervisory working alliance (Watkins et al., 2019).

Broaching can also help school counseling trainees move beyond the nice counselor syndrome—a phenomenon in which stakeholders may often view school counselors as harmonious and unengaged in conflict, which supersedes their position as social justice advocates and instead perpetuates the status quo and reinforces inequities (Bemak & Chung, 2008). Because broaching invites discussion about multicultural and social justice issues, trainees can initiate conversations about personal obstacles (e.g., apathy, anxiety, guilt, discomfort) and professional obstacles (e.g., professional paralysis, resistance, job security) during supervision (Bemak & Chung, 2008). For example, a trainee can seek guidance about how to present a proposal to administrators about an affinity group for LGBTQ+ students and allies in the school. They can discuss potential personal and professional obstacles, how to overcome such obstacles to promote the group, and how to advocate for inclusion of LGBTQ+ students. It is important for trainees to engage in advocacy during their fieldwork experiences because social justice is inherent to school counselor identity and comprehensive school counseling programs (Glosoff & Durham, 2010).

Personal Well-Being
     Self-care and personal wellness are necessary not only for counseling practice but also for supervision experiences; these contribute to personal and professional development and ethical practice, promote positive outcomes with students/clients, and mitigate issues of burnout and turnover (Blount et al., 2016; Branco & Patton-Scott, 2020; Mullen et al., 2020). For trainees, it is typical yet challenging to balance an academic workload; the demands of fieldwork; and other personal, social, and emotional experiences. Trainees can utilize supervision to maintain accountability for self-assessing their wellness practices that support their continued effective and ethical counseling practice. Marley (2011) found that self-help strategies can reduce emotional distress and offer coping skills to manage difficulties, which can help trainees maintain their self-care and develop skills for continued wellness.

Blount et al. (2016) suggested developing a wellness identity in supervision. Trainees can develop a wellness identity by acknowledging the wellness practices they already engage in and continuing practices that help to maintain self-care. Moreover, Mullen et al. (2020) found that engaging in problem-solving pondering (e.g., planning or developing a strategy to complete a task or address a problem within fieldwork), as opposed to negative work-related rumination, supported well-being, higher job satisfaction, and work engagement for school counselors. For example, rather than ruminating about a disagreement with a teacher regarding recommending a student for the gifted program, the trainee can consider ways to turn future conversations into partnership opportunities with the teacher—while also consulting with the supervisor, administrator, and parent about considering additional data points to advocate for the student’s enrollment in the gifted program.

Another way for trainees to support their well-being is to acknowledge their strengths (Wiley et al., 2021) related to their clinical knowledge, awareness, and skills in live and recorded sessions with students. This can be challenging yet empowering for trainees who are quick to self-criticize. For instance, before jumping to areas for improvement, trainees are encouraged to first ask, “What did I do well here?” and also request recommendations for additional wellness strategies to strengthen their school counseling practice. Additional resources, such as readings or role-plays, may help trainees
re-center themselves after difficult or challenging scenarios. For example, after making their first report to child protective services about a suspected physical abuse case, the trainee can process with their supervisor and discuss potential self-care strategies and resources to manage the difficult emotions arising from the challenging experience.

Moreover, researchers suggested utilizing self-compassion as a means of self-care for counseling graduate students (Nelson et al., 2018). Trainees can intentionally practice being kind to oneself; normalizing and humanizing the experience of challenges; and being aware of one’s own feelings, thoughts, and reactions, which can enhance their well-being and reduce potential fatigue and burnout (Nelson et al., 2018; Pearson, 2004). For example, after hearing difficult feedback from their supervisor about improving a lesson plan, a trainee can try reframing weaknesses as areas for continued growth. Or, when reviewing a mid- or end-of-semester evaluation with their supervisor, a trainee can practice being present and open to feedback while also monitoring and taking the initiative to share feelings, insights, and questions. After a supervision session or evaluative experience, a trainee can also engage in journaling or compassionate letter writing (Nelson et al., 2018) to be mindfully aware of their emotions and normalize the challenging growth experiences of a developing counselor.

Overall, trainees deserve meaningful, supportive, and responsive supervision, yet they commonly (mis)perceive themselves as in positions of less power in supervision and their fieldwork sites. Trainees should feel empowered to consult with others at their sites and universities to address issues of concern and seek clarification from supervisors about the expectations of supervision; this supports an effective, collaborative supervision experience. Together with supervisors, trainees can review the strategies throughout supervision sessions. With guidance and support, trainees can attempt such strategies within the safety of the supervisory relationship.

Implications for Site Supervisors and Counselor Educators

There are several implications for site supervisors and counselor educators when considering strategies to empower trainees to maximize their supervision experience. Although trainees can take the initiative to implement such strategies independently, some suggestions may require additional collaborative support and guidance from site supervisors and counselor educators. For example, site supervisors and counselor educators could consider introducing the strategies posed in this article during supervision sessions or as assigned reading for discussion. Altogether, engaging in and facilitating these strategies contributes to the development of important dispositional characteristics required of professional school counselors.

Site supervisors and counselor educators have the responsibility to facilitate a supervision environment in which trainees feel empowered to utilize the suggested strategies. This requires them to intentionally balance safety and support with challenge and high expectations (Stoltenberg, 1981). When trainees lack a sense of safety, they may be less likely to self-disclose dilemmas or concerns and more likely to feel shame, which jeopardizes the overall supervision experience and relationship (J. V. Jordan, 2003; Murphy & Wright, 2005). When trainees experience inclusivity in their training programs and move past the discomfort of vulnerability, they can experience growth, strengthen the supervisory relationship, and address their learning goals (Bradley et al., 2019; Giordano et al., 2018). For example, although trainees can take the initiative to suggest norms for supervision, we encourage supervisors to invite or prompt discussions related to trainees’ learning needs and expectations for the supervisory relationship.

Reflection and vulnerability also require rapport and trust for trainees to self-advocate. Further, when trainees can communicate with their supervisors about their needs, supervisors can respond by appropriately facilitating their request for support (Stoltenberg, 1981). During supervision, supervisors also model, teach, and monitor wellness strategies to support trainees’ ethical and professional school counseling practice (Blount et al., 2016). For instance, site supervisors and counselor educators may need to introduce the Johari window framework as a structured reflective exercise, if trainees are not already aware of this tool (Halpern, 2009).

Finally, broaching within supervision may offer a proactive means of exploring dynamics, power, and cultural differences that can bolster the quality and longevity of the supervision experience. However, the onus is typically on supervisors to initiate broaching conversations after they have facilitated a supervision relationship characterized by trust, acceptance, and inclusion (Jones et al., 2019). Supervisors model how to broach topics of race and culture within the dynamics of the supervisory relationship so that trainees can feel empowered to incorporate broaching as an ongoing professional disposition during and beyond supervision. For example, trainees and supervisors are encouraged to explore, model, and role-play recommendations from Bemak and Chung (2008) to move beyond nice counselor syndrome in school counseling practice.

Limitations and Future Research

Although this article provided a variety of practical strategies for SCITs to navigate supervision, it is not intended to be comprehensive and is not without limitations. The suggested strategies have been informed by research to support the supervision process and overall trainee development but may not necessarily be empirically supported. In addition, the strategies may not apply across all supervision contexts, relationships, and circumstances; thus, we encourage trainees to use their best judgment to consider which strategies may be most feasible and useful within their given contexts. Although this article attempted to provide examples specific to the unique work environment and responsibilities that SCITs will encounter, several suggestions provided herein may also apply to counseling trainees working outside of school counseling contexts. Knowing that supervision is an evaluative and hierarchical process, there may be dynamics of power and privilege present that may intimidate or hinder trainees from autonomously attempting and engaging in such strategies. Thus, the power dynamics of supervision may present a barrier for some trainees to self-advocate.

Future research is needed about the characteristics and contributions of trainees that can enhance the supervisory relationship and competence of the supervisor. Researchers could consider a qualitative study to explore SCITs’ experiences of autonomously implemented strategies during supervision as well as a quantitative intervention study to assess the effectiveness of specific strategies to enhance trainee and supervisor development, self-efficacy, and competence. Researchers could also consider strategies specific to site- and university-based supervision that offer evidence for trainees’ growth and competence and later longitudinal impacts of such strategies on personal and professional development.


Considering that supervision is a time-limited experience, these suggested strategies for approaching supervision can inform SCITs (and trainees from other counseling disciplines) about ways to advocate for a quality supervision experience. When trainees are prepared for supervision, they may feel less anxious and more empowered to approach and shape supervision to meet their developmental needs. When trainees are mindful of and actively engaged in reflection, vulnerability, self-advocacy, broaching, and wellness, they can feel empowered to seek support and resources to bridge gaps in their learning and development during the supervision experience. Site supervisors and counselor educators can also share these strategies with trainees and encourage trainees to implement them in fieldwork and university contexts.


Conflict of Interest and Funding Disclosure
The authors reported no conflict of interest
or funding contributions for the development
of this manuscript.



American Counseling Association. (2014). ACA code of ethics.

American School Counselor Association. (2019a). The ASCA national model: A framework for school counseling programs (4th ed.).

American School Counselor Association. (2019b). ASCA standards for school counselor preparation programs.

American School Counselor Association. (2019c). ASCA school counselor professional standards & competencies.

American School Counselor Association. (2021). The school counselor and school counselor supervision.

American School Counselor Association. (2022). ASCA ethical standards for school counselors.

Astramovich, R. L., & Harris, K. R. (2007). Promoting self-advocacy among minority students in school counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 85(3), 269–276.

Baltrinic, E. R., Cook, R. M., & Fye, H. J. (2021). A Q methodology study of supervisee roles within a counseling practicum course. The Professional Counselor, 11(1), 1–15.

Bemak, F., & Chung, R. C.-Y. (2008). New professional roles and advocacy strategies for school counselors: A multicultural/social justice perspective to move beyond the Nice Counselor Syndrome. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86(3), 372–381.

Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2019). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (6th ed.). Pearson.

Biganeh, M., & Young, S. L. (2021). Followers’ perceptions of positive communication practices in leadership: What matters and surprisingly what does not. International Journal of Business Communication, 0(0).

Bledsoe, K. G., Logan-McKibben, S., McKibben, W. B., & Cook, R. M. (2019). A content analysis of school counseling supervision. Professional School Counseling, 22(1), 1–8.

Blount, A. J., Taylor, D. D., Lambie, G. W., & Anwell, A. N. (2016). Clinical supervisors’ perceptions of wellness: A phenomenological view on supervisee wellness. The Professional Counselor, 6(4), 360–374.

Borders, L. D., & Brown, L. L. (2005). The new handbook of counseling supervision (1st ed.). Routledge.

Borders, L. D., Glosoff, H. L., Welfare, L. E., Hays, D. G., DeKruyf, L., Fernando, D. M., & Page, B. (2014). Best practices in clinical supervision: Evolution of a counseling specialty. The Clinical Supervisor, 33(1), 26–44.

Bradley, L. J., Ladany, N., Hendricks, B., Whiting, P. P., & Rhode, K. M. (2010). Overview of counseling supervision. In N. Ladany & L. J. Bradley (Eds.), Counselor supervision (4th ed.). Routledge.

Bradley, N., Stargell, N., Craigen, L., Whisenhunt, J., Campbell, E., & Kress, V. (2019). Creative approaches for promoting vulnerability in supervision: A relational-cultural approach. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 14(3), 391–404.

Branco, S. F., & Patton-Scott, V. (2020). Practice what we teach: Promoting wellness in a clinical mental health counseling master’s program. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 15(3), 405–412.

Brott, P. E., DeKruyf, L., Hyun, J. H., LaFever, C. R., Patterson-Mills, S., Cook Sandifer, M. I., & Stone, V. (2021). The critical need for peer clinical supervision among school counselors. Journal of School-Based Counseling Policy and Evaluation, 3(2), 51–60.

Cartwright, A. D., Carey, C. D., Chen, H., Hammonds, D., Reyes, A. G., & White, M. E. (2021). Multi-tiered intensive supervision: A culturally-informed method of clinical supervision. Teaching and Supervision in Counseling, 3(2), Article 8.

Cook, R. M., & Sackett, C. R. (2018). Exploration of prelicensed counselors’ experiences prioritizing information for clinical supervision. Journal of Counseling & Development, 96(4), 449–460.

Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2015). 2016 CACREP standards.

Day-Vines, N. L., Bryan, J., & Griffin, D. (2013). The Broaching Attitudes and Behavior Survey (BABS): An exploratory assessment of its dimensionality. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 41(4), 210–223.

Day-Vines, N. L., Wood, S. M., Grothaus, T., Craigen, L., Holman, A., Dotson-Blake, K., & Douglass, M. J. (2007). Broaching the subjects of race, ethnicity, and culture during the counseling process. Journal of Counseling & Development, 85(4), 401–409.

Dollarhide, C. T., & Saginak, K. A. (2017). Comprehensive school counseling programs: K-12 delivery systems in action (3rd ed.). Pearson.

Dressel, J. L., Consoli, A. J., Kim, B. S. K., & Atkinson, D. R. (2007). Successful and unsuccessful multicultural supervisory behaviors: A Delphi poll. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 35(1), 51–64.

Foster, V. A., & McAdams, C. R., III. (2009). A framework for creating a climate of transparency for professional performance assessment: Fostering student investment in gatekeeping. Counselor Education & Supervision, 48(4), 271–284.

Giordano, A. L., Bevly, C. M., Tucker, S., & Prosek, E. A. (2018). Psychological safety and appreciation of differences in counselor training programs: Examining religion, spirituality, and political beliefs. Journal of Counseling & Development, 96(3), 278–288.

Glosoff, H. L., & Durham, J. C. (2010). Using supervision to prepare social justice counseling advocates. Counselor Education and Supervision, 50(2), 116–129.

Halpern, H. (2009). Supervision and the Johari window: A framework for asking questions. Education for Primary Care, 20(1), 10–14.

Hamlet, H. S. (2022). School counseling practicum and internship: 30+ essential lessons (2nd ed.). Cognella Academic Publishing.

Heaven, C., Clegg, J., & Maguire, P. (2006). Transfer of communication skills training from workshop to workplace: The impact of clinical supervision. Patient Education and Counseling, 60(3), 313–325.

Herlihy, B. J., Gray, N., & McCollum, V. (2002). Legal and ethical issues in school counselor supervision. Professional School Counseling, 6(1), 55–60.

Jones, C. T., Welfare, L. E., Melchior, S., & Cash, R. M. (2019). Broaching as a strategy for intercultural understanding in clinical supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 38(1), 1–16.

Jordan, J. V. (2003). Valuing vulnerability: New definitions of courage. Women in Therapy, 31(2–4), 209–233.

Jordan, K. (2018). Trauma-informed counseling supervision: Something every counselor should know about. Asia Pacific Journal of Counseling and Psychotherapy, 9(2), 127–142.

King, K. M., & Jones, K. (2019). An autoethnography of broaching in supervision: Joining supervisee and supervisor perspectives on addressing identity, power, and difference. The Clinical Supervisor, 38(1), 17–37.

Ladany, N., Mori, Y., & Mehr, K. E. (2013). Effective and ineffective supervision. The Counseling Psychologist, 41(1), 28–47.

Lambie, G. W., & Sias, S. M. (2009). An integrative psychological developmental model of supervision for professional school counselors-in-training. Journal of Counseling & Development, 87(3), 349–356.

Luke, M., & Bernard, J. M. (2006). The School Counseling Supervision Model: An extension of the Discrimination Model. Counselor Education and Supervision, 45(4), 282–295.

Marley, E. (2011). Self-help strategies to reduce emotional distress: What do people do and why? A qualitative study. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 11(4), 317–324.

McKibben, W. B., George, A. L., Gonzalez, O., & Powell, P. W. (2022). Exploring how counselor education programs support site supervisors. Journal of Counselor Preparation and Supervision, 15(2). https://digital

Mecadon-Mann, M., & Tuttle, M. (2023). School counselor professional identity in relation to post-master’s supervision. Professional School Counseling, 27(1), 1–11.

Mullen, P. R., Backer, A., Chae, N., & Li, H. (2020). School counselors’ work-related rumination as a predictor of burnout, turnover intentions, job satisfaction, and work engagement. Professional School Counseling, 24(1), 1–10.

Murphy, M. J., & Wright, D. W. (2005). Supervisees’ perspectives of power use in supervision. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31(3), 283–295.

Murphy, S., & Kaffenberger, C. (2007). ASCA National Model: The foundation for supervision of practicum and internship students. Professional School Counseling, 10(3), 289–296.

Nelson, J. R., Hall, B. S., Anderson, J. L., Birtles, C., & Hemming, L. (2018). Self-compassion as self-care: A simple and effective tool for counselor educators and counseling students. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 13(1), 121–133.

Neufeldt, S. A., Karno, M. P., & Nelson, M. L. (1996). A qualitative study of experts’ conceptualizations of supervisee reflectivity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43(1), 3–9.

North, R. A. (2017). Motivational interviewing for school counselors. Independently Published.

Oehrtman, J. P., & Dollarhide, C. T. (2021). Advocacy without adversity: Developing an understanding of micropolitical theory to promote a comprehensive school counseling program. Professional School Counseling, 25(1), 1–9.

Parikh, S. B., Janson, C., & Singleton, T. (2012). Video journaling as a method of reflective practice. Counselor Education and Supervision, 51(1), 33–49.

Pearson, Q. M. (2004). Getting the most out of clinical supervision: Strategies for mental health. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 26(4), 361–373.

Pocock, A., Lambros, S., Karvonen, M., Test, D. W., Algozzine, B., Wood, W., & Martin, J. E. (2002). Successful strategies for promoting self-advocacy among students with LD: The LEAD group. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37(4), 209–216.

Quintana, T. S., & Gooden-Alexis, S. (2020). Making supervision work. American School Counselor Association.

Ratts, M. J., & Greenleaf, A. T. (2018). Multicultural and social justice counseling competencies: A leadership framework for professional school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 21(1b), 1–9.

Skovholt, T. M., & Rønnestad, M. H. (1992). Themes in therapist and counselor development. Journal of Counseling & Development, 70(4), 505–515.

Stark, M. D. (2017). Assessing counselor supervisee contribution. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 50(3), 170–182.

Stoltenberg, C. (1981). Approaching supervision from a developmental perspective: The counselor complexity model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28(1), 59–65.

Storlie, C. A., Baltrinic, E., Fye, M. A., Wood, S. M., & Cox, J. (2019). Making room for leadership and advocacy in site supervision. Journal of Counselor Leadership and Advocacy, 6(1), 1–15.

Storlie, C. A., Giegerich, V., Stoner-Harris, T., & Byrd, J. (2018). Conceptual metaphors in internship: Creative journeys in counselor development. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 13(3), 331–343.

Sutton, J. M., Jr., & Page, B. J. (1994). Post-degree clinical supervision of school counselors. The School Counselor, 42(1), 32–39.

Ward, C. C., & House, R. M. (1998). Counseling supervision: A reflective model. Counselor Education and Supervision, 38, 23–33.

Watkins, C. E., Jr., Hook, J. N., Mosher, D. K., & Callahan, J. L. (2019). Humility in clinical supervision: Fundamental, foundational, and transformational. The Clinical Supervisor, 38(1), 58–78.

Wiley, E. D., Phillips, J. C., & Palladino Schultheiss, D. E. (2021). Supervisors’ perceptions of their integration of strength-based and multicultural approaches to supervision. The Counseling Psychologist, 49(7), 1038–1069.

Wood, C., & Rayle, A. D. (2006). A model of school counseling supervision: The Goals, Functions, Roles, and Systems Model. Counselor Education and Supervision, 45(4), 253–266.

Woodbridge, L., & O’Beirne, B. R. (2017). Counseling students’ perceptions of journaling as a tool for developing reflective thinking. The Journal of Counselor Preparation and Supervision, 9(2), Article 12.

Young, T. L., Lambie, G. W., Hutchinson, T., & Thurston-Dyer, J. (2011). The integration of reflectivity in developmental supervision: Implications for clinical supervisors. The Clinical Supervisor, 30(1), 1–18.


Nancy Chae, PhD, NCC, NCSC, ACS, LCPC, is an assistant professor at the University of San Diego. Adrienne Backer, PhD, is an assistant professor at Texas A&M University–Corpus Christi. Patrick R. Mullen, PhD, NCC, NCSC, ACS, is an associate professor and department chair at Virginia Commonwealth University. Correspondence may be addressed to Nancy Chae, University of San Diego, Mother Rosalie Hill Hall, 5998 Alcalá Park, San Diego, CA 92110,

Faculty Perspectives on Strategies for Successful Navigation of the Dissertation Process in Counselor Education

Michelle Ghoston, Tameka Grimes, Jasmine Graham, Justin Grimes, Thomas A. Field

This research was conducted as part of a larger qualitative study that involved the collection and analysis of in-depth interviews with 15 counselor educators at counselor education and supervision doctoral programs accredited by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP). The participants were asked to identify strategies used to help students navigate the dissertation process and if the strategies were successful. Structural and relational strategies were identified as significant to the successful completion of the dissertation process. Although additional research is necessary to determine if the strategies are successful for faculty and students in other counselor education and supervision doctoral programs, we identified five themes that support the completion of the dissertation process: (a) mechanics of the program, (b) supportive environment, (c) selecting and working with committee members, (d) intentionality in developing a scholar identity, and (e) accountability.   

Keywords: dissertation process, counselor education and supervision, CACREP, strategies, doctoral


Nearly 100,000 people pursue a doctoral degree in the United States every year (Jairam & Kahl, 2012). The pursuit of a doctoral degree in one’s identified field of study is considered an extraordinary feat. Earning a doctoral degree is an indication that one has achieved the apex in their identified area of expertise. Nevertheless, across all disciplines, the doctoral completion rate lags at 57% (Neale-McFall & Ward, 2015). There is a paucity of literature regarding how individuals navigate the process necessary to obtain a doctoral degree, including completing a dissertation. As with other fields, counselor education has a dearth of research into factors associated with doctoral completion and graduation (Golde, 2005; Hill et al., 2005; Protivnak & Foss, 2009).

The dissertation process can be confusing and arduous despite completing the journey with the support and guidance of a faculty member chairperson (Mauch & Park, 2003). The chairperson holds a senior position in terms of knowledge in the field and understanding of the process needed to ensure a successful dissertation. Although this process can take differing paths depending on the field, completing the dissertation is the ultimate goal in order to cross the threshold of earning a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) or Doctor of Education (EdD) degree. For doctoral candidates who desire to progress through the dissertation process, a successful dissertation is the difference between achieving the pinnacle of one’s educational and professional goals versus remaining at the “all but dissertation” (ABD) phase.

Two major themes exist in the research literature relevant to successful dissertation experiences: the development of research identity and the importance of the advising relationship (Limberg et al., 2013; Neale-McFall & Ward, 2015). Further, Flynn et al. (2012) developed a theory that explains the experiences of counseling professionals during the dissertation phase. Their specific theory of initiation, management, and completion of the dissertation includes three elements: relational factors (i.e., personal relationships and friends), professional factors (i.e., career and professional identity), and internal factors (i.e., within the person). These themes are explored to position this study in the context of what is currently known about high-quality doctoral dissertation advising from the perspective of the chairperson, which further supports the theory of initiation, management, and completion of the dissertation process.

Research Identity Development
     The experiences and challenges associated with the pursuit of a doctoral degree in counselor education and supervision (CES) have received increased focus within scholarly literature (Hinkle et al., 2014; Hoskins & Goldberg, 2005; Lamar & Helm, 2017; Neale-McFall & Ward, 2015). Critical to the pursuit of a doctoral degree is the scholarly identity forged among students during the dissertation process (Dollarhide et al., 2013; Limberg et al., 2013). For some doctoral students, the pursuit of a doctoral degree in CES is connected to research interests and goals developed during post–master’s degree experiences (Farmer et al., 2017; Hinkle et al., 2014). Upon entering a doctoral program, students often maintain those initial interests and goals or adopt new interests that align with expanded goals and/or faculty and program expectations (Lei, 2009). According to Hoskins and Goldberg (2005), congruence between students’ goals, faculty expectations, and doctoral program goals is a key determinant of student attrition and persistence in CES doctoral programs.

Faculty have an important role in the development of a scholar and research identity among CES doctoral students (Dollarhide et al., 2013; Limberg et al., 2013). Relationships with mentors and faculty contribute to doctoral students’ professional identity development as counselor educators (Limberg et al., 2013). To that end, faculty support is important in doctoral students’ research identity development (Dollarhide et al., 2013; Lamar and Helm, 2017). Nevertheless, gaps persist within the study of research identity development in CES. Although there has been examination into students’ rationales for the pursuit of graduate education in professional counseling and how this pursuit informs the development of one’s professional identity (Limberg et al., 2013), less is known about the experiences of doctoral students in CES (Dollarhide et al., 2013). As a result, little is known about the professional, research, and scholar identity development of doctoral students in CES and how doctoral study impacts the aforementioned areas of identity development (Dollarhide et al., 2013).

Chairpersons provide research-related ideas, strategies, and requirements useful to the development of students’ research identity. Examples of ideas and strategies include students seeing themselves as knowledge creators, the ability to identify gaps in literature, and a focus on completing a study that can be done in a reasonable time (Dollarhide et al., 2013). The dissertation stage is a place where students understand and accept their responsibility for creating new knowledge in the field. Yet, as faculty postulate these ideas and disseminate their recommendations to doctoral candidates, there may be a disconnect between seeing one’s role as a knowledge creator (student) and gatekeeper (faculty).

As gatekeepers for their doctoral candidates, faculty create barriers and maintain rules around what they deem is research, a structure for how to conduct research, and how the research will impact the field of counselor education. Researchers have yet to explore how students receive this feedback. Having their needs considered and receiving consistent feedback have been outlined as helpful with doctoral students understanding how gatekeeping supports them throughout the dissertation process (Dollarhide et al., 2013; Hilliard, 2013).

Approaches to Advising
     The dissertation chairperson has a number of roles to help a doctoral candidate be successful. According to Garcia et al., (1988), a lack of chairperson supervision or mentorship contributes to delayed completion or non-completion of the dissertation process. Given the importance of the dissertation chairperson, understanding chairpersons’ approaches to advising and feedback is critical. Previous literature indicates three important elements of chairperson–student interactions in the dissertation process: (a) transparent and supportive feedback, (b) collaborative interactions, and (c) established communication expectations. These will be discussed below.

Transparent and Supportive Feedback
     Hilliard (2013) provided a number of recommendations regarding transparent and supportive feedback to doctoral students. First, according to Hilliard, because chairpersons hold a major responsibility to ensure the student receives specific feedback for accepting improvements from other committee members, it is incumbent upon chairpersons to maintain positivity and professionalism when working with students. Second, chairpersons should demonstrate an ability to understand students’ needs in the context of their current dissertation stage. Lastly, Hilliard advises chairpersons to make consistent efforts to provide appropriate and useful feedback to students that informs them of their progress toward dissertation completion.

Nevertheless, there are a number of additional challenges in addressing feedback, including the strategies and ideas provided through feedback. Giving and receiving feedback can be challenging. Questions regarding when, where, and how feedback should be given further complicates the feedback process (Purgason et al., 2016). The complication in the feedback process occurs largely because both parties, chairperson and doctoral candidate, have a responsibility to provide and share feedback and oftentimes expectations are not established. However, in general, the chairperson has the added responsibility of initially broaching feedback, as well as establishing norms and expectations around how and when feedback can occur (Purgason et al, 2016).

Finally, faculty provide critical feedback in a supportive manner. Learning is most likely to occur when feedback is critical yet supportive, provided in a timely manner, and given with time for the advisee to receive and respond (Dollarhide et al., 2013; Idrus et al., 2018). The challenge faculty members face in following this structure of providing and receiving feedback is that it can create growth but may lead to feelings of frustration experienced by both individuals (Idrus et al., 2018; Waring, 2017). A response to address this challenge is to consider the whole person (i.e., professional identity and social and emotional wellness beyond academics) and educate students on the usefulness of giving and receiving feedback (Idrus et al., 2018).

Collaborative Interactions
     Neale-McFall and Ward (2015) found that CES doctoral students were most satisfied when working with chairpersons who they perceived to be collaborative. This was a significant contributor to doctoral student satisfaction with the dissertation process. Additionally, Hilliard (2013) recommended that chairpersons work collaboratively by utilizing dissertation committee members’ expertise.

Established Communication Expectations
     Hilliard (2013) noted that students are more likely to move successfully through the dissertation process if there are clear expectations communicated, written, and agreed upon with the faculty. Expectations that include each of these elements provide a foundation for the way feedback will be given and received. Moreover, clear communication expectations can help the doctoral candidate with productivity and keep both parties accountable throughout the dissertation process (Hilliard, 2013). Clear expectations provide a structure for the dissertation process and help candidates efficiently move through this phase of their doctoral journey (Flynn et al., 2012; Hilliard, 2013). In establishing these expectations, department and program faculty share the roles of the dissertation chairperson as coach and supporter of the doctoral student. Faculty and students have named other essential parts of successfully advancing through the process, including the degree of involvement, having systems of support, mentoring, and fitting within the departmental culture (Dollarhide et al., 2013). Despite naming these essential parts for success, little is known about how these factors impact successful navigation of the dissertation process.

Purpose of the Study
     Previous research with current and former doctoral students has found that students see a number of criteria as vital to their success in the doctoral process. These criteria include professionalism, clear expectations, and consistent feedback from their advisor, as well as a collaborative approach to the dissertation and mentoring processes (Neale-McFall & Ward, 2015; Purgason et al., 2016; Sinady et al., 2009). Although these studies provide a detailed picture from the students’ perspective, limited research exists regarding the topic of successful dissertation advising from the perspective of faculty advisors. Faculty advisors play an integral role in the success of doctoral students as they progress through the dissertation process (Dollarhide et al., 2013; Limberg et al., 2013). To address this gap in knowledge, this research explored the following question: From a faculty member’s perspective, what strategies help students navigate the dissertation process, and how successful are those strategies? A qualitative design was selected to elicit an in-depth analysis of the experiences of faculty members supporting students in the dissertation process, affording the research team the opportunity to value all responses regardless of the frequency or number of responses (Lincoln & Guba, 2013).


This study was a part of a larger qualitative research study that was led by the fifth author. That larger study utilized a basic qualitative research design, with the primary goal of collecting and analyzing qualitative data, and employed the constant comparative method to collect, code, and categorize the data (Corbin & Strauss, 2015; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The data was collected using in-depth qualitative semi-structured interviews (see Appendix) with 15 faculty members in CES doctoral programs. Data collection continued until saturation was achieved and no new ideas were presented. Saturation was determined when the same themes were repeated by multiple participants. Participants responded to interview questions regarding issues pertinent to doctoral CES programs, specifically the components of high-quality programs, strategies to recruit and retain underrepresented students, strategies for working with administrators, and strategies for successful dissertation advising. In this study, a research team comprised of the first four authors analyzed and coded interview data pertinent to the research question: From a faculty member’s perspective, what strategies help students navigate the dissertation process, and how successful are those strategies? The goal of employing this research question was to identify successful strategies utilized by faculty to support doctoral students in completing the dissertation process and to understand the effectiveness of these strategies.

     Participants in this study were full-time core faculty members in CES doctoral programs accredited by the Council for the Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP). The participants worked in CACREP-accredited CES programs that had doctoral-level students. All participants had experience serving as a dissertation chairperson. Maximum variation sampling—that is, deliberately selecting a wide range of extremes from the population—was used to select participants to increase the likelihood of a diverse and representative sample (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Participants were selected one at a time to ensure adequate variation of the selection criteria. The selection criteria included: a) gender self-identification, b) racial and ethnic self-identification, c) Carnegie classification of the university where the participant was currently employed (The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, 2019), d) length of time working in doctoral-level counselor education programs, e) the method used to deliver the counselor education program where the participant was currently working (e.g., in person, online), and f) the region of the counselor education program where the participant was currently working. Based on previous research (Cartwright et al., 2018; Hill et al., 2005; Lambie et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2015), each of the noted criterion were believed to have some impact on the participants’ perspectives and, ultimately, their responses. Data saturation occurred after 15 interviews. A constant comparative method was utilized to assure saturation.

All 15 participants interviewed for this study taught in separate and unique CES programs. No program was represented by more than one participant. The demographics of the participants included eight self-identified males (53.3%) and seven self-identified females (46.7%). No participants identified as non-binary or transgender. All but one of the participants identified as heterosexual (n = 14, 93.3%); the one remaining participant identified as bisexual (6.7%). Racial and ethnic representation, also self-reported, was largely White (n = 11, 73.3%). Other racial groups represented included African American (n = 1, 6.7%), Asian (n = 1, 6.7%), Latinx (n = 1, 6.7%), and multiracial/multiethnic (n = 1, 6.7%). According to the 2017 CACREP Vital Statistics report, 71.38% of counselor education faculty in CACREP-accredited programs are White (CACREP, 2018). Thus, our sample was representative of the CES profession as it relates to the cultural identification of being White.

The participants averaged 19.7 years (SD = 9.0 years) of experience as full-time faculty members. Most of the participants’ years as faculty members were spent at the doctoral level in CES programs (M = 17.3 years, SD = 9.2 years, Mdn = 16 years). The number of years as a faculty member ranged from 3 to 33 years.

     After receiving approval from the last author’s IRB, a database of doctoral-level counselor educator contacts who worked at the then 85 programs accredited by CACREP was created (CACREP, n.d.). Thirty-four faculty responded to the request to participate. Of the 34 respondents, 15 respondents (41% response rate) were selected to participate in the study. The process of selecting and interviewing the 15 participants was scheduled and conducted by the fifth author. The selection of the 15 participants was done using maximum variation sampling (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interviews lasted for approximately 60 minutes and were recorded with the consent of each participant via the Zoom online format. One interview was completed during a professional conference and was recorded with a Sony digital audio recorder. Participants were assigned an alphabetical identifier to protect individual identities during the data analysis process. This step allowed all researchers to be blinded to the participants’ identities except for the fifth author. The fifth author did not participate in the coding and analysis process in order to enhance participant anonymity and reduce the potential for bias during the data analysis process.

Interview Protocol
     The interview question analyzed for this study was “How have you helped students to successfully navigate the dissertation process?” To start each interview, participants were asked the demographic questions mentioned above. Following the demographic information, eight in-depth questions were asked that addressed the research questions of the larger qualitative study (see Appendix). Per Patton’s (2015) recommendations, interview questions were open-ended, “why” questions were avoided, questions were as neutral as possible, and questions were asked one at a time. The interview protocol was piloted prior to the study commencing. Several questions were divided into two questions to ensure that only one question was asked at a time. A conventional semi-structured interview was used with follow-up questions allowed to ensure understanding of the participant responses. Each participant reviewed and signed the informed consent agreement approved by the last author’s IRB prior to the interviews.

Data Analysis
     The team coded, categorized, and analyzed data from the 15 interview transcripts. Transcripts were coded using an open verbatim coding process, followed by the development of axial codes using the constant comparative method to create themes that emerged from the data (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). The research team used a shared Google Sheet to document codes, descriptions for the codes, and, later in the coding process, broader categories. All members of the research team had access to each transcript in a Microsoft Word document through Dropbox. Each line of the transcript was read and discussed by team members, and then a verbatim portion(s) of the line that answered the research question was copied to the shared Google Sheet. Once the code was selected, the group determined a description for the code, using the context in the transcript as a guide. The first three of the 15 transcripts were coded collaboratively as a team during online coding sessions. This was necessary to establish consistency among the researchers and to increase trustworthiness in the data (Corbin & Strauss, 2015; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Transcripts 4 through 11 were coded in pairs and the final four were coded individually with a second researcher available if there were questions. The first and second authors established a code key upon the completion of the first four transcripts.

Following initial coding, the first two authors met three additional times to come to a consensus regarding the collapsing of codes. For example, the code “playing politics” was initially identified. After all transcripts were coded, this code only had two direct quotes for support. Therefore, during a subsequent coding team meeting, the first two authors determined that this code had limited evidence from the data and it was collapsed into the code “selecting and working with committee members.” Creating a code book made it possible for the team to track categories and to ultimately identify the themes that emerged from the data. Verbatim quotes of participants were noted and organized into themes. Themes were agreed upon by the first two authors and reviewed and supported by the third and fourth authors.

The research team continued coding until completion, maintaining agreement on new categories and descriptions added to the code key. Any discrepancies were resolved by all team members, reaching consensus on the final coding. The following steps were adhered to by the team: 1) asking clarifying questions of each other to be sure every perspective was considered; 2) rereading previous lines of the transcript and reading ahead a few lines to better understand context; 3) allowing space to reflect on what each person was thinking and feeling about a code; 4) considering new codes when participant statements seemed to indicate different data points within the same line of the transcript; and 5) referring back to the research question when considering if a statement fit the purpose of the study.

     To ensure a reliable process, the researchers adhered to a 4-step process proposed by Moustakas (1994). First, the researchers bracketed personal experiences and assumptions regarding what was instrumental in completing the dissertation process. For example, the research team discussed the nature of their own dissertation experiences as people of color at predominantly White universities; their beliefs that advising has a critical impact on student success, particularly for students of color; and their awareness that the faculty members’ perspectives may not speak to what is actually experienced by doctoral candidates. There also was a need to discuss what is actually meant by a successful dissertation. For the purpose of this research, the team determined successful as completing the dissertation process and having a degree conferred. Additionally, the first author participated in another project from the larger qualitative study that allowed access to participant responses regarding other topics that were not analyzed as part of this study. The information obtained from the other project was not shared during meetings for coding nor data analysis. Further bracketing was achieved by fleshing out any potential areas of overlap with the fifth author, who had knowledge of all transcripts but did not participate in coding. Memos were kept regarding each team member’s process.

Second, the researchers completed line-by-line, verbatim coding to identify repeated concepts and words within the transcripts. Third, the research team met on a regular basis to ensure consistency in coding and to resolve any discrepancies in the analysis process. During each of these meetings, memos were maintained to track methodological decisions and reactions to the data. Memos were kept by each coder to note thoughts, reactions, and methodological decisions during paired and individual coding. These memos were reviewed periodically by the fifth author, who was not actively participating in the coding process. Finally, the researchers questioned and investigated the constructs for themes to be sure to indicate the depth and breadth of the participants’ perspectives.

     The coding team was comprised of the first four authors. The coding team consisted of three counselor educators and one graduate school assistant director. Coding team members were from three institutions, with two team members working at the same institution (one counselor educator and one graduate school assistant director). Three of the coding team members identified as Black women, and one member identified as a Black man. All four coding team members held Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degrees earned within the last 7 years. Two of the four coding team members completed their dissertation process within the last 18 months. All four of the coding team members worked at institutions conferring doctoral-level degrees. All but one coding team member had etic (outsider) status, as they had not yet served on doctoral dissertation committees. One coding team member had emic (insider) status, having served on two dissertation committees and participated in three dissertation defense presentations and discussions. This coding team member had not yet served as a chairperson of a dissertation.

Coding team members with etic positioning knew that their own experiences as doctoral students would be the most present in their minds when coding data. This required a significant amount of bracketing and identification of a priori codes. The first four authors’ initial meeting was dedicated to discussing these factors to ensure internal researcher accountability.

Potential biases of the research team included: (a) over-identifying with the data; (b) bracketing own negative experiences; (c) race and gender considerations (how our race and gender impacts how we see the recommendation); (d) having a higher education perspective and not a counselor education perspective; (e) role of privilege and how it plays out in the dissertation process and the lasting impact on early career progress; (f) awareness of differing program structures (some doctoral students mentored master’s-level students and developed writing teams, setting them up to be more successful once they had graduated); (g) having participated in faculty searches and seen successful dissertation advising (turning dissertations into manuscripts) be a key component in who is hired; and (h) having projects prioritized over opportunities that helped the doctoral candidate be more successful (e.g., publications, grants). These were all areas that required the coding team to discuss and process prior to delving into the transcripts. The coding team regularly challenged each other (i.e., suggested that a team member stop and reevaluate their position as it seemed more personal than based on the data) regarding these potential biases throughout the process.

The researchers identified a priori codes that included: (a) participants will be of the dominant culture; (b) how voices are centered would impact the data and results (hearing from the faculty member versus hearing from the student); (c) communication between student and chair, as well as student and committee, being important; (d) lack of awareness of race and gender influences on the dissertation advising process; (e) belief that the influence of the full identities of the doctoral candidate on their dissertation experience would not be captured in the data; (f) type of university (i.e., traditional, hybrid, online) impacts advising process; and (g) the doctoral student’s timeline does not align with the chairperson’s expectations of what the student needs (can impede the student getting to the end of the process successfully). Reconciling the a priori codes required coding team members to be open and honest regarding how their own experiences and perceptions have impacted their lens as educators and researchers. All researchers agreed to engage in these discussions during each meeting to ensure proper bracketing and to reduce the potential for bias negatively impacting the coding and analysis process.


Five themes were identified based on the analysis of interviews with the 15 counselor educators who have served as dissertation chairpersons. The first and second authors collapsed 11 broader categories into the five emerging themes. The themes identified demonstrated some impact on a successful dissertation process: (a) mechanics of the program, (b) selecting and working with committee members, (c) intentionality in developing a scholar identity, (d) supportive environment, and (e) accountability. Each of these themes will be expounded upon below.

Mechanics of the Program
     The mechanics of the program theme referred to program structures put in place that allowed students to move through the dissertation process. These program structures addressed the curriculum sequence and timelines. Faculty acknowledged that successfully navigating the dissertation process required a structured process on the program’s part. A participant commented that, in their experience, having an unstructured program usually led to “more ABDs than if it is structured.” Such a structured process started with “getting to know faculty members in terms of their research interests and identities and processes.” As students developed this knowledge, they were able to see examples of different faculty research identities within counselor education, while also learning which professor might be a good fit as the chairperson for their dissertation committee.

From there, programs put curriculum sequences in place that allow students to begin thinking about the dissertation process from the start of their doctoral journey. According to multiple chairpersons, doctoral students in their programs had at least one class in which they wrote research papers or miniature dissertation proposals that could be a starting point for their actual dissertation proposal. Creating this structure in the program, they believed, also supported students in developing a scholar identity, a theme that will be addressed in more detail later in this article. As one participant shared, “Students would essentially write a mini version of their dissertation proposal with lots of feedback and guidance from the course instructor and lots of check-ins with their major professor.” The class and check-ins became accountability measurements for the students, and these were established by the program as formalities rather than steps the students had to implement on their own.

Finally, chairpersons highlighted the importance of timelines as a necessary program structure to ensure student success in the dissertation process. These timelines are often externally imposed by larger entities, such as the graduate school and the university. In some circumstances, external deadlines created additional chaos for students. As a participant noted, sometimes an email was sent to the chairperson by administrators saying, “Grad College has changed their timeline for drops and deposits of thesis.” In response, all the faculty member can do is “forewarn [the students].” Instances such as these were out of the control of the chairperson. On the other hand, internal deadlines created by the program and agreed upon between the student and dissertation chairperson were beneficial. Overall, chairpersons who highlighted timelines in discussions with students noted a higher level of success in completing the dissertation process.

Selecting and Working With Committee Members
     Selecting and working with committee members specifically applied to which faculty members were invited to serve on the dissertation committee. The dissertation committee tends to include three, and in some cases four, faculty members. These members often include the chairperson, a co-chairperson, a methodologist and, in some cases, a specialty person (someone who has expertise with the identified topic). Participants indicated that the selection of these members could have a strong impact on the likelihood of successfully completing a dissertation rather than the student remaining ABD. Although there was some variability in whether the doctoral candidate selected the committee members or if this was done by the chairperson, all participants were consistent in disclosing the importance of selecting the “right” committee members.

Several participants reported that faculty and students should give careful thought to committee composition before inviting faculty to serve on a student’s dissertation committee. Some faculty members can cause problems, such as being unresponsive and unsupportive. As one participant noted, “I don’t let [doctoral candidates] select [faculty members] who have a history of causing problems on committees.” Participants further noted that some students can get caught in political power dynamics between faculty. When this happens, the doctoral student has little to no power and has to rely on the chairperson to intervene.

Another participant noted that some faculty members are simply not able to be a part of a dissertation committee, stating, “Some faculty members are horrible. And some faculty members are not capable of being helpful to students. They have agendas of their own and they obstruct the progress.” When faculty obstruct progress, it can have significant impacts on the student’s likelihood of defending a dissertation successfully. When advising students, giving careful consideration to the composition of the dissertation committee seemed to be an important strategy to increase student likelihood of completing their dissertation.

Intentionality in Developing a Scholar Identity
     Intentionality in developing a scholar identity was an important element of a successful dissertation strategy. Participants indicated that doctoral candidates should begin considering their dissertation topic and also identifying research methods of interest to them. As one participant shared, “When [doctoral candidates] are taking research methods . . . we encourage our students from day one to identify the general area of research that they’re interested in and then apply that in research methods and stats and qualitative.” Two participants both noted that students are more likely to go through the motions of completing a dissertation when they have not been thoughtful about their dissertation topic and have not been identifying a preferred methodology to address research questions pertinent to their topic.

In addition to helping students develop a research identity, participants identified the need for a balanced advising approach that helped students complete dissertations rather than becoming stuck in attempting to complete an unwieldy and unachievable dissertation. Participants reported that doctoral faculty needed to strike a balance between supporting the research ideas and interests of students and helping students identify projects that are achievable and realistic. As one participant noted, “It’s more about finding the balance between what’s gonna be a good and meaningful study for the student—hopefully what’s going to be a potential contribution to the field—and then what can be done.”

The participants noted that faculty should attend to the student’s development of a scholar identity during the dissertation process. Per one participant, as the chairperson, there is a need for “demystifying what research development looks like.”

Supportive Environment
     The importance of creating a supportive environment was another key factor expressed by participants. A supportive environment, as described by several participants in this study, is relational: “[Mentoring] needs to happen in the context of relationship.” A supportive environment appears to be established when faculty individualize their advising and mentoring to each student’s personality and unique circumstances. As one participant stated, “Just as when we have to meet the client where they are, we also have to apply the same principle to our doc students.” Participants also reported that doctoral students needed different approaches and styles of advising. One participant shared, “My style varies depending on the student and my assessment of the student’s needs.” Some students will need more direct instruction than others, as “not every student needs the same level of guidance.” Other participants felt that faculty members could best guide students if they engaged in sustained relationships with them over time—“knowing somebody well enough and having enough contact with them over time to foresee some of those obstacles and help them navigate some of the roadblocks.” Participants also spoke to the importance of the chairperson detecting how much challenge and support to provide. As one participant stated, “I constantly try to figure out how much [support] is enough for this person, without being so much that they’re not learning what they need to learn in the process.” A faculty member’s established relationship with their doctoral students assists them in making such determinations.

The chairperson must provide feedback regarding whether a student’s proposal fits within their identified timeline. As one participant stated, “My job is to ensure that the product is gonna be the best it can possibly be for the timeline that it is.” Timelines, program structure, and the supportive environment overlap when the chairperson guides students to discern how to narrow their research idea into a manageable project that could be completed within the expected dissertation timeline. This conversation was another opportunity for faculty to mentor students and provide feedback in a way that would help the students be more successful in the dissertation process.

Many participants felt that a supportive environment enabled faculty to provide feedback and help students get “unstuck.” Providing feedback must happen early, otherwise students “just keep making the same mistakes over and over again.” When students become stuck in their dissertation process, a supportive environment helps students to be honest about their status. This honesty provides the chairperson with the information needed to give direction and feedback. As one participant shared, “Students almost embellish a little bit on how they were working because they were too afraid to say that they were stuck. So, for us, it’s really dissecting that component. ‘Where are you stuck? Let’s talk about this.’” Engaging in such conversations in an honest and transparent way gave the chairperson the opportunity to target their support toward specific goals that helped the student make progress.

     Participants reported that faculty chairpersons were in regular contact with their doctoral candidates to provide accountability. For most participants, this contact needed to be face-to-face, whether in person or via an online platform. As one participant shared, “I want that student in my office or on a screen in front of me every single week with actionable goals.” For this chairperson, a regular schedule of meetings ensured that there was a “constancy of contact.” Another participant agreed with this suggestion and specifically noted that these check-ins should be weekly after the dissertation writing began. The concept of accountability seemed to intersect with the supportive environment because many participants saw accountability as a means of supporting the student throughout the dissertation process.

The five themes identified in this study highlighted what dissertation chairpersons believed led to a successful dissertation. Both structural factors (mechanics, committee selection, and scholar identity) and relational factors (supportive environment and accountability) appeared to impact the success of the dissertation process.


     The purpose of this study was to identify successful strategies utilized by faculty to support doctoral students in completing the dissertation process and to understand the effectiveness of these strategies, as reported by the faculty members. The researchers engaged in verbatim coding to ensure that the perspectives of the participants were captured. Responses appeared to fall within two broad categories of structural and relational strategies. The structural elements highlighted the importance of a timeline and intentional department- and university-level scheduling and selection of committee members who are invested in the process of supporting the doctoral candidate in developing a scholar identity. Relational elements included a supportive environment and accountability as successful strategies in completing the dissertation process.

Structural Strategies
     Institutions have their own timelines and processes, which doctoral candidates and chairpersons should know (e.g., approval of committee members, defense timeline, final submission procedures). When institutions change their processes or timelines, it greatly impacts the student’s ability to complete the process.

Chairpersons hold a major responsibility in helping the doctoral candidate understand the process of completing the dissertation (Flynn et al., 2012). The chairperson should clearly communicate requirements and guidelines for successfully completing the dissertation process (Hilliard, 2013). Ineffective communication by the chairperson can result in doctoral candidates lacking a clear understanding of the structure, leaving the candidate feeling unsupported and discouraged (Flynn et al., 2012; Hilliard, 2013).

Chairpersons who know their doctoral candidate’s strengths and weaknesses must seek committee members whose expertise fills gaps in areas where the student is not a content expert. The chairperson should also consider that the doctoral candidate’s success hinges on everyone’s investment in the process (Hilliard, 2013). The selection of committee members must thus be intentional, as not all faculty members are appropriate to serve on dissertation committees (Flynn et al., 2012). When the chairperson and doctoral candidate are strategic about selecting dedicated committee members, this may enhance the likelihood of a successful dissertation process. Students may benefit from reviewing former student dissertations. This current study further supports these structural strategies previously highlighted by Hilliard (2013) and Flynn et al. (2012).

Although a successful dissertation is a goal, the participants indicated the need to also ensure that doctoral candidates develop a scholar identity. This scholar identity allows the doctoral candidate to establish themselves as a researcher beyond the program (Lambie et al., 2008; Lambie & Vaccaro, 2011). The development of a scholar identity brings the process full circle as the former doctoral candidate represents their graduating institution and the profession (Flynn et al., 2012; Lamar & Helm, 2017).

Relational Strategies
     Developing a supportive environment is a crucial strategy for a successful dissertation experience (Perera-Diltz & Sauerheber, 2017). Supportive environments include open communication, mentorship, providing helpful feedback, and providing appropriate challenge to candidates when writing the manuscript (Dollarhide et al., 2013; Neale-McFall & Ward, 2015; Purgason et al., 2016).

Communication primarily happens through the use of digital mediums such as email and virtual conferencing, or verbally through face-to-face meetings and telephone calls (Hilliard, 2013). This communication establishes support and a means of accountability. Both the candidate and chairperson should establish expectations regarding when to meet, the purpose of the meeting, and items to bring to the meetings (e.g., written sections of a manuscript, updates on the IRB decision regarding review requests).

Irrespective of the meeting format and candidate support, communication and feedback with candidates must be clear, precise, timely, and offer candidates some direction for how to move forward through their process. Feedback should also hold the doctoral candidate accountable for meeting any agreed-upon deadlines and items to submit. The style and type of feedback provided should be individualized to unique student needs and issues. Hilliard (2013) noted that feedback should (a) be given orally in meetings and electronically on items submitted from the candidate via their manuscript or email; (b) be frequent, with dates listed for each revision or submission of new information; (c) be detailed to what chapter or area in the dissertation the candidate needs to address; (d) be direct around dissertation progress and areas needing more development, and consistent so that candidates can move swiftly through their writing; and (e) include helping students understand the seriousness of academic integrity.

Doctoral candidates need the chairperson to be available and to communicate clearly and authentically. A defensible dissertation happens as a result of navigating the structural and relational components of the dissertation process. This study further aligns with Flynn and colleagues’ (2012) theory of initiation, management, and completion. Specifically, the relational and structural categories that emerged, from the perspective of the chairpersons working with doctoral candidates, are all support elements of a successful navigation of the dissertation process.


Doctoral students’ preparedness for the dissertation process varies throughout CES programs. Students’ experiences during the dissertation process also vary. The dissertation chairperson plays an important role in both the students’ preparedness and experiences. Yet, standards for best practices in dissertation advising in CES are not clearly articulated in the profession. It is possible that some doctoral students, particularly those who need additional support for research or writing, would benefit greatly from more structured and intentional dissertation methods (Perera-Diltz & Sauerheber, 2017). Without such guidelines, faculty members may rely on their own dissertation experiences to inform their current advising practices as faculty (Knox et al., 2011). Over time, the lack of standardized dissertation advising may contribute to disproportionate outcomes in (a) CES doctoral program completion rates, (b) research identity development among graduates of CES doctoral programs, and (c) overall CES program reputations.

Although chairpersons have many strategies to use in providing feedback, they cannot determine how their feedback impacts their students’ progression. Gaining a better understanding of how doctoral candidates internalize feedback may lead to more clarity regarding whether the strategy and style of feedback was successful. A similar study from the perspective of current doctoral candidates or recent graduates would add tremendous value to the field.

Quantitative studies could also explore relationships among variables. For example, the relationship between dissertation advising strategies and career choice is unknown. Schweiger et al. (2012) reported that approximately 50% of doctoral graduates in CES pursue non-academic careers, and it is possible that these graduates have different dissertation advising needs and/or received different forms of dissertation advising than candidates who entered academia after graduation.


This study had several limitations. First, respondents were current faculty members in doctoral CES programs, and the data thus represents faculty perceptions and experiences. Future studies are needed to examine the perspectives of students when working with chairpersons to triangulate these strategies. Although prior research has shown that graduate students described similar strategies as those espoused by the participants in this study (Sinady et al., 2009), a follow-up study could be helpful to ascertain whether students felt the findings of this study were commensurate with their own experience.

A limitation of qualitative methodology is the ability to generalize findings. Because dissertation processes look different across programs and universities, it is unclear whether the strategies highlighted by participants in this study are transferable to other programs. Additional quantitative studies are needed that use a larger sample to examine the relationship between these strategies and outcomes such as dissertation completion rates and time to completion.

In this study, the research team only used one definition of success (i.e., completing the dissertation and graduating with a doctoral degree) when coding and analyzing data. Because the participants did not provide their own definition of success, we cannot say with certainty that they had the same conception in mind when responding to the question. Other definitions of success could include developing a scholar identity or being prepared to be an effective counselor educator. These alternative ways of understanding success could impact the way in which the participant responded to the question. In future research, it would be important to clarify these definitions with participants prior to their responding to the question.

Finally, two coding team members had recently completed their own dissertations and may have found it difficult to bracket their experiences during the coding and analysis process. To mitigate these potential biases, the research team frequently discussed and documented their personalized reactions to the data when coding, used multiple coders for the first 11 transcripts, and used consensus coding to resolve discrepancies.


     Successfully navigating the dissertation process is a necessary step for obtaining a doctorate in CES. Though many doctoral students start the journey, the degree completion rate remains just above 50% (Neale-McFall & Ward, 2015). The completion rate for doctoral students in CES is currently unknown. Understanding ways that chairpersons effectively support students in the dissertation process can lead to more students completing their doctoral journey. Some of these ways include creating a supportive environment, establishing consistent accountability, and providing timely feedback. As students successfully navigate the dissertation process, they build confidence in their scholar identity and counselor educator identity and move forward into the counseling profession to support future generations of CES doctoral students.

The current study explored strategies for successful navigation of the dissertation process from the perspective of faculty members. Future research should examine the generalizability of our findings throughout other CES doctoral programs. Although some norms and expectations regarding the path to the dissertation in CES may exist, it is possible that other strategies were not fully captured in this study. Moreover, while the current study examined successful dissertation advising from the chairperson’s perspective, future research should examine the topic from the perspective of doctoral students and candidates. Moreover, it may be that current doctoral students and doctoral alumni may hold differing perspectives regarding their dissertation experience. To that end, future research may examine recent graduates of CES doctoral programs. A longitudinal study that explores the perspective of current students and the same sample later as alumni may capture nuances not accounted for in existing counselor education literature.


Conflict of Interest and Funding Disclosure
The authors reported no conflict of interest
or funding contributions for the development
of this manuscript.



The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. (2019). Basic classification description.

Cartwright, A. D., Avent-Harris, J. R., Munsey, R. B., & Lloyd-Hazlett, J. (2018). Interview experiences and diversity concerns of counselor education faculty from underrepresented groups. Counselor Education and Supervision, 57(2), 132–146.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). SAGE.

Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (n.d.). Find a program. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from

Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2018). CACREP vital statistics 2017.

Dollarhide, C. T., Gibson, D. M., & Moss, J. M. (2013). Professional identity development of counselor education doctoral students. Counselor Education and Supervision, 52(2), 137–150.

Farmer, L. B., Sackett, C. R., Lile, J. J., Bodenhorn, N., Hartig, N., Graham, J., & Ghoston, M. (2017). An exploration of the perceived impact of post-master’s experience on doctoral study in counselor education and supervision. The Professional Counselor, 7(1), 15–32.

Flynn, S. V., Chasek, C. L., Harper, I. F., Murphy, K. M., & Jorgensen, M. F. (2012). A qualitative inquiry of the counseling dissertation process. Counselor Education and Supervision, 51(4), 242–255.

Garcia, M. E, Malott, R. W., & Brethower, D. (1988). A system of thesis and dissertation supervision:  Helping
graduate students succeed. Teaching of Psychology, 15(4), 186–191.

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(6), 669–700.

Hill, N. R., Leinbaugh, T., Bradley, C., & Hazler, R. (2005). Female counselor educators: Encouraging and discouraging factors in academia. Journal of Counseling & Development, 83(3), 374–380.

Hilliard, A. T. (2013). Advising doctorate candidates and candidates’ views during the dissertation process. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 10(1), 7–12.

Hinkle, M., Iarussi, M. M., Schermer, T. W., & Yensel, J. F. (2014). Motivations to pursue the doctoral degree in counselor education and supervision. The Journal of Counselor Preparation and Supervision, 6(1), 1–19.

Hoskins, C. M., & Goldberg, A. D. (2005). Doctoral student persistence in counselor education programs: Student–program match. Counselor Education and Supervision, 44(3), 175–188.

Idrus, M. M., Nor, N. F. M., Hashim, R. S., & Mydin, R. M. (2018). Advice-giving roles and strategies in selected faculty member-graduate student advising. Journal of Language Studies, 18(2), 217–234.

Jairam, D., & Kahl, D. H., Jr. (2012). Navigating the doctoral experience: The role of social support in successful degree completion. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 7, 311–329.

Knox, S., Burkard, A. W., Janecek, J., Pruitt, N. T., Fuller, S. L., & Hill, C. E. (2011). Positive and problematic dissertation experiences: The faculty perspective. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 24(1), 55–69.

Lamar, M. R., & Helm, H. M. (2017). Understanding the researcher identity development of counselor education and supervision doctoral students. Counselor Education and Supervision, 56(1), 2–18.

Lambie, G. W., Ascher, D. L., Sivo, S. A., & Hayes, B. G. (2014). Counselor education doctoral program faculty members’ refereed article publications. Journal of Counseling & Development, 92(3), 338–346.

Lambie, G. W., Sias, S. M., Davis, K. M., Lawson, G., & Akos, P. (2008). A scholarly writing resource for counselor educators and their students. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86(1), 18–25.

Lambie, G. W., & Vaccaro, N. (2011). Doctoral counselor education students’ levels of research self-efficacy, perceptions of the research training environment, and interest in research. Counselor Education and Supervision, 50(4), 243–258.

Lei, S. A. (2009). Strategies for finding and selecting an ideal thesis or dissertation topic: A review of literature. College Student Journal, 43(4), 1324–1332.

Limberg, D., Bell, H., Super, J. T., Jacobson, L., Fox, J., DePue, M. K., Christmas, C., Young, M. E., & Lambie,
G. W. (2013). Professional identity development of counselor education doctoral students: A qualitative investigation. The Professional Counselor, 3(1), 40–53.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2013). The constructivist credo. Left Coast Press.

Mauch, J., & Park, N. (2003). Guide to the successful thesis and dissertation: A handbook for students and faculty (5th ed.). CRC Press.

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Wiley.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. SAGE.

Neale-McFall, C., & Ward, C. A. (2015). Factors contributing to counselor education doctoral students’ satisfaction with their dissertation chairperson. The Professional Counselor, 5(1), 185–194.

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). SAGE.

Perera-Diltz, D., & Sauerheber, J. D. (2017). Mentoring and other valued components of counselor educator doctoral training: A Delphi study. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 6(2), 116–127.

Protivnak, J. J., & Foss, L. L. (2009). An exploration of themes that influence the counselor education doctoral student experience. Counselor Education and Supervision, 48(4), 239–256.

Purgason, L. L., Avent, J. R., Cashwell, C. S., Jordan, M. E., & Reese, R. F. (2016). Culturally relevant advising: Applying relational-cultural theory in counselor education. Journal of Counseling & Development, 94(4), 429–436.

Schweiger, W. K., Henderson, D. A., McCaskill, K., Clawson, T. W., & Collins, D. R. (2012). Counselor preparation: Programs, faculty, trends. Routledge.

Sinady, C., Floyd, D. L., & Mulder, A. E. (2009). The AACC competencies and the PhD completion project: Practical implications. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 34(1–2), 218–226.

Smith, R. L., Flamez, B., Vela, J. C., Schomaker, S. A., Fernandez, M. A., & Armstrong, S. N. (2015). An exploratory investigation of levels of learning and learning efficiency between online and face-to-face instruction. Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation, 6(1), 47–57.

Waring, H. Z. (2017). Going general as a resource for doing advising in post-observation conferences in teacher training. Journal of Pragmatics, 110, 20–33.



Interview Protocol

  1. For context, please briefly describe how you self-identify and your background. This information will be aggregated; individual participant responses will not be associated with any quotes in subsequent manuscripts.
    Sexual/Affective Orientation:
    Race and Ethnicity:
    Years as a Faculty Member in a Counselor Education Program:
    Years as a Faculty Member in a Doctoral Counselor Education Program:
    Number of Doctoral Counselor Education Programs You Have Worked In:
    National Regions of Doctoral Counselor Education Programs You’ve Worked In:
  2. How might you define a “high-quality” doctoral program?
  3. What do you believe to be the most important components? The least important?
  4. How have you helped students to successfully navigate the dissertation process?
  5. Which strategies has your program used to recruit underrepresented students from diverse backgrounds? How successful were those?
  6. Which strategies has your program used to support and retain underrepresented students from diverse backgrounds? How successful were those?
  7. What guidance might you provide to faculty who want to start a new doctoral program in counseling with regards to working with administrators and gaining buy-in?
  8. What guidance might you provide to faculty who want to sustain an existing doctoral program in counseling with regards to working with administrators and gaining ongoing support?
  9. Last question. What other pieces of information would you like to share about running a successful, high-quality doctoral program?


Michelle Ghoston, PhD, ACS, LPC, LCMHC, is an assistant professor at Wake Forest University. Tameka Grimes, PhD, NCC, is an assistant professor at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Jasmine Graham, PhD, is an assistant professor at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis. Justin Grimes, PhD, is an assistant director for the Office of Recruitment, Diversity, & Inclusion for the Graduate School at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Thomas A. Field, PhD, NCC, CCMHC, ACS, LPC, LMHC, is an assistant professor at the Boston University School of Medicine. Correspondence may be addressed to Michelle Ghoston, 7406 Reynolda Station, Winston-Salem, NC 27109,