Journal of Academic Ethics

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 73–80 | Cite as

Whose Doctorate is it Anyway? Guidelines for an Agreement Between Adviser and Doctoral Student Regarding the Advisement Process and Intellectual Property Rights

  • Ora Gilbar
  • Zeev Winstok
  • Mickey Weinberg
  • Orit Bershtling
Article

Abstract

The process of advisement in the research of a doctoral dissertation is prolonged and harbors a variety of ethical aspects and issues. In some cases it gives rise to dissatisfaction on the part of both advisor and student regarding the process itself and/or the publication of the dissertation. To ameliorate these problems, the Dissertation Committee of the School of Social Work at the University of Haifa recently set out guidelines for both advisor and doctoral student, in accordance with which both parties will draw up an agreement in advance to suit the student’s research. The present article discusses the components of the advisement process and presents recommendations for an advisor-doctoral student agreement. Although no evaluation was undertaken by the authors to assess the impact of the guidelines agreement, our brief experience with these guidelines reinforces the importance of such an agreement, which can help assure mutual satisfaction on the part of both the advisor and the student.

Keywords

Ethics Research Higher education 

References

  1. Ahern, K., & Manathunga, C. (2004). Clutch-starting stalled research students. Innovative Higher Education, 28(4), 237–254.Google Scholar
  2. American Counseling Association (2005). ACA Code of Ethics. Alexandria.Google Scholar
  3. American Educational Research Association (2000). Ethical Standards of the American Educational Research Association, Washington.Google Scholar
  4. American Psychological Association (2010). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2nd ed.). Washington.Google Scholar
  5. Austin, A., & McDaniels, M. (2006). Preparing the professoriate of the future: graduate student socialization for faculty roles. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 21, 397–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barnes, B. J., & Austin, A. A. (2009). The role of doctoral advisors: a look at advising from the advisor’s perspective. Innovative Higher Education, 33, 297–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barnes, B. J. (2005). Success in graduate school. How exemplary advisors guide their doctoral advisees. Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.Google Scholar
  8. Barretta-Herman, A., & Garrett, K. J. (2000). Faculty-student collaboration: issues and recommendations. Advances in Social Work, 1(2), 148–159.Google Scholar
  9. Beal, P. E., & Noel, L. (1980). What works in student retention. Iowa City, IA: American College Testing Program and National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.Google Scholar
  10. Costa, M. M., & Gatz, M. (1992). Determination of authorship credit in published dissertation. Psychological Science, 3, 354–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davis, S. J., & Cooper, D. L. (2001). Assessing advising style: student perceptions of academic advisors. College Student Affairs Journal, 20(2), 53–62.Google Scholar
  12. Fairweather, J. S. (1993). Academic values and faculty reward. The Review of Higher Education, 17(1), 43–68.Google Scholar
  13. Fairweather, J. S. (1996). Faculty and Public Trust. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  14. Fine, M. A., & Kurdek, L. A. (1993). Reflections on determining authorship credit and authorship order on student-faculty collaborations. American Psychologist, 48(11), 1141–1147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harman, G. (2003). International PhD students in Australian universities: financial support, course experience and career plans. International Journal of Educational Development, 23, 339–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jeffery, D. D., & Fries, J. (2011). Unauthorized uses of a coauthored work and doctoral dissertation. Ethics & Behavior, 21(2), 118–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lowe, A., & Toney, M. (2000). Academic advising: view of the givers and takers. Journal of College Student Retention, 2(2), 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mitchell, T., & Carroll, J. (2008). Academic and research misconduct in the PhD: issues for student and supervisors. Nurse Education Today, 28, 218–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nettles, M. T., & Millett, C. M. (2006). Three magic letters: getting to Ph.D. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Vilkinas, T. (2008). An exploratory study of the supervision of Ph.D. research students’ theses. Innovative Higher Education, 32(5), 297–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Waldeck, J. H., Orrego, V. O., Plax, G., T., & Kearney, P. (1997). Graduate student/Faculty mentoring relationship: who gets mentored, how it happens, and to what end. Communication Quarterly, 45, 3, 93–109.Google Scholar
  22. Welfare, L. E., & Sackett, C. R. (2010). Authorship in student-faculty collaborative research: perceptions of current and best practices. Journal of Academic Ethics, 8, 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Yarbrough, D. (2002). The engagement model for effective academic advising with undergraduate college students and student organizations. Journal of Humanistic Counseling Education and Development, 41(1), 61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ora Gilbar
    • 1
  • Zeev Winstok
    • 1
  • Mickey Weinberg
    • 1
  • Orit Bershtling
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Social Work, Faculty of Social Welfare and Health SciencesUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations