Bing Han and Irina Gendelman are student affairs committee members who proposed writing a column about how advisors and professors identify important factors that predict graduate students' success in academia. For this purpose, Bing and Irina designed a survey and sent it to 52 graduate programs in communication. They received 54 faculty members' responses. Based on the received data, Bing and Irina extracted the dominant themes that the faculty members used to predict graduate students' success in their academic careers. In this column, we present Bing and Irina's research findings. If you have further questions or comments, please feel free to email Qi Wang or Rebecca Hains, or the original authors. We welcome diverse responses from our readers.    

By Bing Han and Irina Gendelman

During the course of a Ph.D. program, a student is gradually socialized into the culture of the academy. At this stage, however, a question remains as to whether the student will have a successful academic career in the future. Advisors oftentimes have an intuitive knowledge of which students will be more successful than others in academia. What are the implicit indicators that professors rely on in their judgment? How do they predict the future success of a graduate student?

Identifying these implicit expectations could help graduate students understand early in their training what is expected of them as they adjust to life in graduate school. These criteria could act as a powerful guide for graduate students to get the best out of their graduate study, set appropriate goals, assess their dedication to the academy, and lay a solid foundation for their future success in academia. Making these expectations explicit could also assist faculty in advising students and aid departments in designing graduate-student professional development programs that actively cultivate the valued characteristics.

This article is a brief report of a study that asked faculty in Communication departments to indicate how they judge graduate students. This study aims to inform graduate students of what is important in their early development as young scholars, and also to facilitate faculty in developing a consistent policy in advising graduate students. Due to limited space, this article will only report some of the questions included in the study. A full research article can be obtained by contacting the authors.

Research Questions

In this article, four research questions from the study will be presented. These questions seek to understand what communication faculty members perceive to be necessary characteristics that graduate students need in order to succeed in academia.

RQ1: What are the typical characteristics that lead to the success or failure of communication graduate students in academia?

This question seeks to find out the typical characteristics (e.g., behaviors, personality, character, etc.) of four categories of communication graduate students: outstanding, very good, ordinary, and ill-suited.

RQ2: How important is time taken to complete a Ph.D. degree in assessing a graduate student’s potential as a successful scholar?

This question examines the importance of time taken to complete a Ph.D. degree as an indicator of graduate students' success, and asks faculty members how long they took to complete their own degrees and what they think is a reasonable range of time in getting a Ph.D. in communication.

RQ3: What is the best research/publication model a graduate student should use (solo, collaboration, or both)?

This question explores faculty members' suggestions as to how graduate students should go about doing research and publishing based on their own experience and their observation of outstanding graduate students.

RQ4: How critical are some of the characteristics in contributing to a communication graduate student's success or failure in comparison with each other?

Method

Participants

Participants in the study were faculty in communication departments across the U.S. These departments were chosen from the ranking schools based on an NCA (National Communication Association) 2004 Doctoral Reputational Study of the doctoral programs in communication. An online survey was sent to 52 communication departments in the U.S. and in total, 54 faculty members responded to the survey. The average age of the participants was 47.55 (SD = 9.46 years). The range of age was from 30 years to 62 years. Males composed 53.7% of the sample. Most identified as Caucasian (83.3%) and a few identified as Asian-American/Asian (3.7%), African-American (1.9%), and other (9.3%). Together, the 54 faculty members had 912 years of experience, had advised approximately 1367 graduate students, and had sat on about 2461 dissertation committees. The average participant had been a professor for 17 years, advised about 25 dissertations, and served on about 46 committees.

Procedure

The chairs of targeted communication departments were asked to relay an online survey solicitation email to faculty members in their departments. The survey included five open-ended and two closed-ended questions. The open-ended questions asked the participants to characterize four categories of graduate students: outstanding, very good, ordinary, and ill-suited. Participants were asked to discuss what specific strengths a graduate student should bring to a collaboration with faculty members, whether time taken to complete a Ph.D. degree is a good indicator of the success of a graduate student, and what the best research/publication model is for a graduate student to use. They were also asked what characteristics had helped them succeed as a graduate student. Finally, the two closed-ended questions asked participants to rate listed characteristics in terms of how critical they were in contributing to a student’s success or failure.

Results

RQ1: What are the typical characteristics that lead to the success or failure of communication graduate students in academia?

When asked to give "a typical description of an outstanding Communication graduate student," university professors agreed on a number of measures. Naturally, there was no unanimous formula for an outstanding graduate student, but the responses were consistent enough that it was possible to organize them into the following overlapping themes -- initiative, engagement, work ethic, intelligence, creativity, and flexibility.

These themes are conceptualized in a way that seemed most useful for aligning the expectations between graduate students, professors, and departments. The themes, however, vary from tangible to abstract. For example, writing or time management are concrete skills that a graduate student can tangibly develop over time, while intelligence or creativity are more abstract qualities that may be more difficult or time-consuming to build up, if indeed they can be acquired at all. An attempt is made to unpack the abstract qualities into some tangible attributes described by participants.

Initiative. Most consistently, an outstanding student was sketched as a student who is "independent," "motivated," "self-directed," and overall shows "initiative." Repeatedly, university professors painted a picture of a student who is not only motivated to get through graduate school, but who readily takes initiative or has enough motivation to take action without much prompting. As one professor wrote, students who require "little hand-holding" stand out from their peers. Others wrote that an excellent student "does not need his or her hand held" but also "knows how to seek advice and guidance," emphasizing that initiative can be demonstrated over time and refers not only to initiating projects or seeking out collaboration, but also to asking for help and getting feedback.

Engagement. Faculty described students who take the opportunity to engage in their immediate as well as in the broader community. They wrote, for example, that "he or she also tends to be excited by others' work and encourages them to do well" or that outstanding students tend to engage with the larger academic network by participating in conferences, writing papers for publication, collaborating with others, engaging with existing theory, integrating teaching with research, asking for feedback, asking questions, and generally engaging with other scholars. Respondents placed an emphasis not only on engagement with others, but also on engagement with the practice of scholarship, stating that a promising academic should actually have a passion and curiosity or enjoy and love research and teaching. For example, answers included statements like "they should have an interest in the topic and discipline," or possess "hunger for knowledge" and be "eager to learn," and that an outstanding student is someone who is "genuinely interested in communication (high curiosity)." Overall, respondents articulated engagement as a drive to search for answers, discuss ideas and view research as a tool to higher understanding, or a knowledge that might be extended beyond the academy, to "change the world" or "to advance the human condition."

Work ethic. Work ethic was most often articulated as "hard work," which was then qualified by language such as focus, energy, discipline, professionalism, commitment, and persistence. Another less repeated, but noticeably recurring theme was productivity—such as (in order of most frequently mentioned) conference presentations, writing for publication, and publication and grants. Finally, organization and time-management skills also figured prominently in the responses.

Some of the responses were conceptually very broad. For example, simple descriptions of students as "intelligent" or "smart" risk reducing intelligence to binaries (intelligence vs. ignorance). Explaining what action demonstrates intelligence, however, allows students with initiative to take action. Therefore, it is useful to unpack complex concepts such as intelligence, creativity, and flexibility, and to conceptualize them as achievable goals or merit rather than as an innate quality. Much conversation already exists about the meaning of these concepts and could easily fill another volume, but for the sake of this article, our focus falls on unpacking the broad concepts through an analysis of answers obtained within the survey.

Intelligence. Several faculty wrote that being "smart" or "intelligent" is key to academic success. To interpret this, we consider a number of skills that were discussed as possible indicators of intelligence. A high majority of the respondents agreed that writing is a key measure of a graduate student’s excellence, stating that a graduate student should be a very good writer, require little or no editing, be eager for suggestions, and be responsive to feedback. Second to writing, respondents emphasized reading breadth and comprehension, i.e. retaining information, synthesizing material from a body of literature, and quickly grasping new concepts. The focus here was not on writing or reading skills only, but on the ability to absorb and produce information. Professors wrote that outstanding students are motivated to read more than just the bare minimum for a class, and, as one person summarized, these students contextualize their research "in the prevailing secondary-source literature, and digest it in a manner that advances cross-disciplinary understanding of the topic under study. All writing produced intensively, on every page, does the above."

Creativity. In addition to simply mentioning creativity as an important characteristic, faculty also identified such elements of creativity as students' ability to "conduct cutting-edge primary-source-based research," being "creative and finding a niche for themselves where they can contribute to the field of study and to theory building," having the aptitude to "make a cogent and creative argument in an engaging and informed way," as well as being "creative and able to visualize what literature/research is missing and perhaps even a way to fill that gap." Faculty linked creativity with an ability to produce cutting edge research, find a niche in the discipline, advance the field, and demonstrate resourcefulness in research and problem solving.

Flexibility. Flexibility was another common characteristic that respondents valued in praising open-mindedness and playfulness in contrast to a resistance or defensive reaction when faced with new or opposing ideas. Respondents wrote that it is important for the student to have the ability to discuss ideas with peers in a collegial manner, to challenge and disagree while also having the ability to listen. Another type of flexibility mentioned was a willingness to use a variety of methods and undertake a variety of projects, demonstrating interests beyond the primary focus of study.

RQ2: How important is time taken to complete a Ph.D. degree in assessing a graduate student’s potential as a successful scholar? 

Faculty members' responses differed greatly as to whether time taken to complete a Ph.D. degree is a good indicator of a graduate student’s future success in academia (i.e., whether it is "the sooner the better" in getting a Ph.D. degree in communication). Three major opinions emerge from the data analysis supporting a fast approach, a steady approach, or a middle approach to completing a Ph.D. degree.

A fast approach. Seventeen out of 54 participants believed that time taken to complete a Ph.D. degree is a good indicator of the success of a graduate student. The most cited explanation is motivational factors. Students who work at a faster pace are "highly motivated" and "internally driven" to accomplish. They bring "dedication," "enthusiasm," and "excitement" to what they are doing. "Timely finishers are probably more focused and disciplined than their slower counterparts," and "nothing matters more in finishing a degree or having a successful career than discipline." Moreover, finishing fast "demonstrates organization and structure," and "indicates good follow-through" to "get the work done."

In addition to motivation, the second most cited reason is professional requirement. One professor stated the importance of finishing fast for functioning professionally:

Fast finishers demonstrate motivation and the ability to work independently and quickly. These skills are essential to assistant professors. While it is possible to extend the time required to complete a Ph.D. a great deal, no such timeframe is available for assistant professors on the tenure-track who must publish to keep their jobs.

A steady approach. Among the 54 participants, 22 faculty members believed that speed is not a good predictor of a graduate student’s future success. These professors argued that "extra time" is not necessarily a bad thing—it all depends on what the "extra time" is used for. One participant wrote that there is
"minimal correlation of speed and accomplishment or talent." "Frankly," a professor said, "I think we would produce better Ph.D. teachers and researchers if they took about the same time as a literature or history Ph.D. student, five to seven years."

Another professor suggested that "a holistic approach is the most important and not just the time taken to complete," because "students often mature whilst studying and grow into their studies," and "they obtain a lot of insights and need time to also reflect on what they have learnt and to incorporate their experience." "The experience of becoming a scholar is about internalizing the values and tools of scholarship." These professors suggested that graduate school is a place for "intellectual pursuits" and for taking time to "think about the issues and contemplate seriously the subject matter." Therefore, "students who take their time wandering through the program are the most intellectually wide ranging," and "racing through to the end is a sign that someone is not taking the intellectual commitment seriously." One participant claimed: "We have a false sense of deadlines in the academy. Was Einstein a failure?" It seems that if the "extra time" is used for further intellectual development, it is worth the time.

Some professors noted that time to complete a Ph.D. degree is highly variable across students due to varying personal circumstances. They acknowledged that life interferes with studying and students often need to deal with factors beyond their control (e.g., family, illness). Therefore, "continual progress is perhaps more important than rapid progress," and "the issue isn’t how long it takes, but the amount of honest and consistent effort that the student demonstrates." In other words, if the "extra time" is spent in making honest and continual progress, it is worth the time.

The most frequently suggested undertaking worthy of "extra time" is the dissertation. It is worth all the extra time to improve the quality of the dissertation so that it can be published someday, to make the dissertation "a masterpiece" rather than "a stepping stone," and to choose a dissertation that serves as "a first step in an exciting research agenda." Oftentimes, however, "too little time is spent on the dissertation" or "many dissertation topics are slight in the contribution they make to knowledge in the field." In this case, "fast may very well mean sloppy, and often does."

In addition to spending the "extra time" on the quality of the dissertation, time is also worth spending in "receiving sufficient training that allows the student to be a quality researcher and teacher," in "pursuing concurrent MAs or certificates in related programs to strengthen their communication degree," and in "developing a publication and teaching record to enhance resume/CV."

A middle approach. Twelve participants agreed that "there is a middle ground" between going too fast and taking forever. They did not focus on the strong motivations that may lie behind a fast approach, nor did they emphasize the tangible and intangible benefits behind a steady approach. Instead, they tend to point out the problems with the two extreme situations, suggesting that completion within "a reasonable amount of time" or a "moderate" and "acceptable" range is important. On the one hand, going too fast could result in poor work, in failing to "smell the flowers of diverse other courses that are related," or in short-circuiting either the breadth or the depth aspects of pursuing different ideas, approaches, and methodologies. On the other hand, taking forever could show that the student is "not cut out for the field," "unable to focus," or "ambiguous about whether or not the degree is worth pursuing for him/her." "In other words, don’t rush through at the cost of getting the education that is needed to pursue a lifetime of research but don’t drag through the program either."

One participant even concluded:

[The relationship between time taken to complete the Ph.D. and future success] is curvilinear: I've seen that those that finish very quickly usually don't get the training that they need, whereas those that finish very slowly usually don't make the degree a high enough priority, and they tend to submit poor work. Those in the middle tend to be the best trained and do the best work.

To Be Continued in Next Issue.