Educators Earning Their Doctorates: Doctoral Student Perceptions regarding Cohesiveness and Persistence

Educators such as school principals, administrators, and teachers generally have rather hectic schedules and a fair amount of daily stresses. To earn a doctorate, an educator must find the time and motivation in nonworking hours to register, attend classes, read, research, and write papers. It should be no surprise that half of these practicing professionals taking on such overwhelming tasks fail to complete their doctoral programs. This study sought to analyze persistence motivators referred to as social interaction, peer mentoring, and/or group cohesiveness. We found that educators who work together as a team earning doctorates benefit from the experience, share those benefits with their workplaces, and most importantly, tend to find the motivation to complete their doctorates. Group cohesiveness can be used to provide support for today's higher education students, especially in light of the dramatic changes in the composition of students in higher education that have occurred recently (Fairfield, 1977; Gardner, 1972; Gilley & Hawkes, 1989; Hughes, 1983; Trow, 1988). Doctoral students in Education today are not typically full time resident students in their twenties with few outside commitments and a "campus directedness" (Hughes, 1983). Hughes (1983) described many of today's adult students as having multiple external commitments (e.g., family, career, community) and an off-campus directedness. One of the problems associated with traditional graduate level work is the isolation of the students and faculty (Brien, 1992, Fairfield, 1977; Hughes, 1993). Lack of persistence has been attributed to the absence of support and encouragement in traditional doctoral programs (Cesari, 1990, Tinto, 1988). Cesari (1990) recommended peer relationships as an important source of support and encouragement and stated that doctoral group members rely on one another for guidance and knowledge, and that group members gain competence and a sense of self-worth by helping their peers. Researchers (Hodges, 1992, Sheridan, Byrne & Quina, 1989) have noted that only one-half of doctoral students in Education ultimately complete their degrees often because their needs were not being met. Recommendations given for meeting those needs and increasing persistence emphasized social interaction, incorporating a cohort structure, fostering collegiality, and encouraging collaboration (Brien, 1992; Hodges, 1992; Iannone, 1992; Paplewis & Minnis, 1992a; Sheridan, Byrne, & Quina, 1989; Tinto, 1988; Trow, 1988). Fairfield (1977) argued for student-centered, custom-made, personalized doctoral programs to protect against the bureaucracy and isolationism of traditional doctoral work. Brien (1992) used ethnographic research methods to study the cohort structure of a doctoral program at Northern Illinois University. Brien stated that the main reason for students persisting in the doctoral program was the support and encouragement from cohort members. Fisher & Ellis (1990) pointed out that the power of group dynamics could be used to increase the likelihood of educational success since group members create a collective identity so that the success of the group means the success of the individuals, and vice versa. A group of doctoral students that becomes highly cohesive becomes committed to the educational success of all members (Papalewis & Dorn, 1993; Papalewis & Minnis, 1992b). Methodology Department Chairs or Program Coordinators of Educational Leadership Doctorate Programs were approached in August 1994 at the annual conference of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) to invite their participation in this study. A paper regarding this study was presented at that conference. Those willing to participate in the study received the Cohesiveness and Persistence Questionnaire (CPQ) during October 1994. The Department Chairs or Program Coordinators were asked to administer the CPQ to their doctoral students. …