Social Work Dissertation Committee Chairs' Perceptions of Their Role

Background and Purpose

As the signature pedagogy for social work doctoral education (Anastas, 2012), students experientially learn methodological and analytical skills during the dissertation process (Jenson, 2008). Although dissertations are independent undertakings, the dissertation committee chair can significantly impact the process (Gearity & Mertz, 2012; Liechty, Shull, & Liao, 2009; Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012). Existing research focuses on students’ experiences with dissertations, including their perceptions of the chair’s role. This study explored the chair’s perspective on their role.

Methods

Participants (N=148) were faculty members who have chaired a social work doctoral dissertation committee. Faculty members in programs belonging to the Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education in Social Work were invited to participate in the study via email. Data were collected via an anonymous online survey using Qualtrics. Questions explored participants’ conceptualization of the chair role, preparation for serving as chair, and perceptions of successful and challenging chair-candidate relationships. Descriptive statistics and Chi-Squares were used to analyze the quantitative data in SPSS. Qualitative data were coded independently in Dedoose using the steps of thematic analysis.

Findings

Participants were experienced chairs (mean years chairing dissertations = 10.59, SD=10.12; mean number of dissertations chaired = 8.10, SD=8.85), female (56%, N=83), white (78%, N=115), and parents (67%, N=99). They described the chair role as a “guide” for candidates. Only two (1%), received formal training, instead learning through observing and emulating colleagues who chaired dissertations. Successful relationships had a collegial rapport, clear expectations from the beginning, and the candidate set the pace. Challenges resulted from mismatches between a candidate’s needs and the chair’s resources or style, or the candidate’s difficulty in utilizing their chair’s assistance (e.g., accepting feedback, communicating effectively). Challenges were seen as stemming from the student versus the chair’s approach and skills. Beyond the dissertation, most chairs thought their roles included support for establishing academic careers (e.g., job searching (88%), professional development (89%), self-care (81%), and balancing school/work (81%)). Fewer believed their roles included support around personal issues (e.g.; family planning (39%), parenting (43%), or family issues (46%). Chairs with children were significantly more likely than those without to believe that parenting (53% vs 31%, X²=5.82, p=0.016) and family issues (56% vs 37%, X²=4.10, p=0.04) fell within the scope of the chair’s role.  

Conclusions and Implications

This study contributes to a growing body of research about social work doctoral education, focusing on an understudied aspect: dissertation chairs’ perceptions of their role. Participants emphasized the importance of “fit” and rapport between chair and candidate, mirroring the relational nature of social work practice. Many participants, especially those who were parents, acknowledged the importance of seeing doctoral candidates as a “whole person” with multiple needs and priorities, not expecting them to work in a “vacuum” separate from their personal lives. As the dissertation is a time when risk of attrition is high, these findings have important implications for social work programs interested in supporting students through successful dissertation completion.