Abstract
Doctoral ethics were examined from the perspectives of doctoral students, advisors and administrators through grounded theory research to understand how participants’ roles in doctoral programmes influenced their ethical perspectives. Findings resulted in the Lineage of Advising, whereby advisors enculturate doctoral students into the academy in the same way that, or in opposition to how, they were advised as doctoral students themselves. This relationship experience creates a Professional Family compared to marriage or parent–child relationships. Faculty Gatekeeping was revealed through programme acceptance, inclusion with projects, grants and presentations, and support in moving forwards in the programme. The Advisor Card uncovered privilege given to some doctoral students and not to others. Creating transparency through the doctoral advisor–student relationship creates spaces to construct ethical practices.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Appel, M. L., & Dahlgren, L. G. (2003). Swedish doctoral students’ experiences on their journey towards a PhD: Obstacles and opportunities inside and outside the academic building. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(1), 89–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830308608
Barnes, B. J., & Austin, A. E. (2009). The role of doctoral advisors: A look at advising from the advisor’s perspective. Innovative Higher Education, 33(5), 297–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-008-9084-x
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Gilbar, O., Winstok, Z., Weinberg, M., & Bershtling, O. (2013). Whose doctorate is it anyway? Guidelines for an agreement between adviser and doctoral student regarding the advisement process and intellectual property rights. Journal of Academic Ethics, 11(1), 73–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-012-9177-0
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2005.11772304
Gray, P., & Jordan, S. (2012). Supervisors and academic integrity: Supervisors as exemplars and mentors. Journal of Academic Ethics, 10(4), 299–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-012-9155-6
Halse, C. (2011). ‘Becoming a supervisor’: The impact of doctoral supervision on supervisors’ learning. Studies in Higher Education, 36(5), 557–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.594593
Harding-DeKam, J., Hamilton, B., & Loyd, S. (2012). The hidden curriculum of doctoral advising. NACDA: The Journal of the National Academic Advising Association, 32(2), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.12930/0271-9517-32.2.5
Knox, S., Schlosser, L. Z., Pruitt, N. T., & Hill, C. E. (2006). A qualitative examination of graduate advising relationships: The advisor perspective. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(4), 489–518. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006290249
Löfström, E., & Pyhältö, K. (2015). ‘I don’t even have time to be their friend!’ Ethical dilemmas in Ph.D. supervision in the hard sciences. International Journal of Science Education, 37(16), 2721–2739. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1104424
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
Mutula, S., & Majinge, R. M. (2015). Ethical aspects of doctoral-research advising in the emerging African information society. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Peluso, D. L., Carleton, R. N., Richter, A. A., & Asmundson, G. J. G. (2011). The graduate advising relationship in Canadian psychology programmes. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 52(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022047
Puddephatt, A., Shaffir, W., & Kleinknecht, S. (2009). Introduction. In A. Puddephatt, W. Shaffir, & S. Kleinknecht (Eds.), Ethnographies revisited: Constructing theory in the field (pp. 1–34). Routledge.
Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage Publications Ltd.
Schlosser, L. Z., Lyons, H. Z., Regine, M., Talleyrand, R. M., et al. (2011a). A multiculturally infused model of graduate advising relationships. Journal of Career Development, 38(1), 44–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845309359286
Schlosser, L. Z., Lyons, H. Z., Talleyrand, R. M., Kim, B. S. K., & Johnson, W. B. (2011b). Advisor–advisee relationships in graduate training programs. Journal of Career Development, 38(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845309358887
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Harding, J.L., Hamilton, B., Loyd, S. (2022). Ethical Doctoral Advisor–Student Relationships in the United States: Uncovering Unknown Perspectives and Actions. In: Mulligan, D.L., Ryan, N., Danaher, P.A. (eds) Deconstructing Doctoral Discourses. Palgrave Studies in Education Research Methods. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-11016-0_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-11016-0_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-11015-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-11016-0
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)