Content area
Full text
Thoughts and experiences of educators related to quality and change
Increasingly, higher education is focusing on the necessity to retain and graduate doctoral students. With a nationwide attrition rate of 50 percent, a rate that may indeed be exceeded by students from underrepresented groups,' universities must focus on developing and implementing paradigmatic retention initiatives to reverse this trend for all doctoral students.
The questions now concern how we reverse this problem by applying effective and efficient retention methods. As Golde2 indicated, previous research did not focus on ameliorative approaches which led to substantive changes that improved rates of attrition or provided theoretical insight into doctoral attrition, especially for diverse students. Although educators are aware of doctoral attrition, data gathering and assessment, and possible solutions, the manner in which these findings are applied to institutional levels is debatable. The implementation of actual corrective measures to staunch doctoral attrition is slow in coming and begs the question regarding why universities do not more aggressively address doctoral losses.
Certainly, the creation of graduate centers for retention represents an initial inroad. Without cultural buy-in from faculty and other administrators, these mechanisms remain nascent entities that spend as much time justifying their presences as they do in ensuring retention and degree completion. In like manner, graduate centers that suffer from the limitations on the services they provide also cannot achieve their goals. For example, providing statistical consultation as well as conceptual proposal development originally was a role of doctoral committees. This has migrated somewhat to the support provided via graduate centers, which are designed to provide a more holistic approach. Moreover, contemporary students frequently seek support through coaches, retreats, and writing consultants, further aligning the research/writing activity with elements outside the direct control of the dissertation committee.
We need to reconsider new paradigms that account for those resources that doctoral students require for success. Clearly, the old models are not working. Graduate centers play a vital role in the changes that hold the promise. Moreover, institutional buy-in, achieved via adaptations in die infrastructure, including new ideas regarding accountability for student success, can assist in creating new mindsets and move institutions beyond resistant barriers, along roads that are less traveled.
Eclectic theory and its central tenet of the primacy of...