0.10 Storms, b.a., prada, m. j., & Donahue, e. n. (september 2011  (Page 2/8)

However, program demand does not directly relate to completion of degrees. Rates of doctoral student attrition in the U.S. are not easily calculated (Allan&Dory, 2001). The attrition rates that have been reported vary, but current thought and research indicates that the completion rate of doctorates stands between 50% and 60% (Creighton, 2008; Golde, 2005). One issue that may contribute to doctoral program attrition is the length of time it takes candidates to complete their degrees. Shulman (2010) commented: “The open-endedness of doctoral education has become one of its deepest flaws, both an impediment to effective learning and an ethical problem in the relations between faculty members and candidates” (Time section, para.1). Of those who do not complete the doctoral program, more than a quarter of them drop out after completing the prescribed coursework, but before finishing their dissertations (McIlveen, George, Voss,&Laguardia, 2006). Other researchers have found that of pivotal importance to completion of the degree is the quality of the relationship between the candidate and the advisor (Zhao, Golde&McCormick, 2005). Di Pierro (2007) explored the training dissertation advisors received and found that very few doctoral programs train advisors how to support doctoral students in their dissertation phase. In fact, Di Pierro (2007) found that for most dissertation committee members their advising style is highly influenced by their own dissertation experiences.

As more educators begin doctoral studies, and more faculty (both full time and part-time) take on advising students through a dissertation, learning from the experience of successful doctoral graduates and advisors could be especially helpful to programs seeking to improve the graduation rate of Ed.D. programs.

Methodology

This article reflects the lessons learned through an appreciative inquiry (Cooperrider, Whitney&Stavros, 2008; Cooperrider&Whitney, 2005) conducted by the co-authors –a dissertation chairperson and two successful graduates of Ed.D. programs. The graduates were enrolled in two different Ed.D. programs: one in the Joint Doctoral Program (JDP) of California State University East Bay, San Jose State, San Francisco State and University of California, Berkeley, the other in the Educational Leadership for Social Justice (ELSJ) doctoral program at California State University East Bay. Both candidates were working full time as district or system level administrators during their doctoral programs. The JDP graduate completed his degree in 2008. The ELSJ graduate completed her degree in 2011. In both cases, the first author was the dissertation chairperson.

The experience of completing a dissertation study was viewed by the advisor as an opportunity engage in inquiry about effective and efficient advising processes by having the candidates examine and reflect on how, and in what ways, the advising process supported them in the completion of their dissertation. The first author (chairperson) had demonstrated an ongoing interest and research agenda related to school leaders’ use of inquiry and reflection to develop their leadership capacities (Storms&Gordon, 2005; Brynjulson&Storms, 2005; Lee&Storms 2003; Storms&Lee, 2001). By taking an appreciative inquiry stance toward the dissertation advising process the team of advisor and candidate would purposefully ask themselves what was working in the advising process –versus what was not working. While appreciative inquiry theory is largely concerned with organizational change, the advisor believed that such an approach would work in examining the dissertation advising process.