Sevinç GELMEZ BURAKGAZİ, Gökçe GÖKALP, Sevgi KAYA KAŞIKÇI, Hamdican YILDIRIM, Amine Merve ERCAN, Ali YILDIRIM

Bilim İnsanı Yetiştirme: Doktora Eğitiminde Danışan - Danışman İlişkisi Üzerine Bir Olgubilim Çalışması

Bu çalışma, üniversitelerin doktora danışmanlığı ile ilgili iç mekanizmalarını ve danışan-danışman ilişkisinin geleceğin bilim insanlarının gelişimindeki rolünü deşifre ederek, doktora eğitimi süreci boyunca danışan-danışman ilişkisini hem danışan hem de danışman perspektifinden kapsamlı bir şekilde incelemeyi amaçlamıştır. Araştırmada nitel olgubilim deseni kullanılmıştır. Türkiye’de iyi kurulmuş danışan-danışman süreçleri ve güçlü organizasyon kültürleri ile uluslararası düzeyde kabul görmüş, tanınırlığı yüksek iki araştırma üniversitesinde 13 doktora öğrencisi ve 18 öğretim üyesi ile görüşmeler yapılmıştır. Sonuçlar, süreç boyunca her iki tarafın birbirinden ve kendisinden beklentilerinin yanı sıra danışan-danışman ilişkisinin sürecin verimliliğine, danışanların gelecekteki akademik kariyerlerine ve kimliklerine etkisini ortaya koymaktadır. Danışanlar genel olarak danışmanları ile olan iletişim ve çalışma planlarını vurgularken, danışmanlar da danışmanlık sürecinin farklı boyutlarının bilim insanı kimliği anlayışını nasıl etkilediğini vurgulamışlardır. Ayrıca, öğrencilerin danışmanlarının desteğini hissettiklerinde ve danışmanları ile yakın bir ilişki içinde olduklarında kendilerini bilim insanı/araştırmacı olmaya daha yakın hissettikleri ve danışmanların söylemlerinin bu argümanı tüm öğretim üyelerinin desteğini bir bütün olarak hissetmek şeklinde genişlettikleri sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Çalışma, danışmanların geleceğin bilim insanlarını yetiştirmedeki önemli rolünü vurgulayarak, üniversitelerin öğretim üyelerinin danışmanlık becerilerini geliştirmelerini desteklemenin yollarını bulma ihtiyacını ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

danışan, danışman, doktora eğitimi, danışan- danışman ilişkisi

Raising Scientists: A Phenomenological Study on Advisor - Advisee Relationships in Doctoral Education

The current study aimed to examine the advisor-advisee relationship from the perspectives of both advisees and advisors throughout the doctoral education process, deciphering the internal mechanisms of universities related to doctoral advisement and the role of the advisor-advisee relationship in the development of future scientists. A qualitative phenomenological research design was used through interviews conducted with 13 doctoral students and 18 faculty members at two high-ranking public research universities with well-established advisor-advisee processes and strong organizational cultures. The results demonstrate the expectations of both parties from each other and themselves throughout the process as well as the effects of the advisor-advisee relationship on the efficiency of the process, advisees’ future academic careers, and identities. Advisees generally focused on communication and planning thesis work with advisors while the advisors stressed how different dimensions of the supervising process affect the understanding of scientist identity. Additionally, it was concluded that students feel closer to being a scientist/researcher when they feel the support of their advisor and have a close relationship with their advisor, and the discourses of advisors extend this argument to feeling the support of all faculty members as a team. The study highlights the important role of advisors in raising future scientists which demonstrates the need for universities to find ways to support faculty members in developing their supervisory skills.

Keywords:

advisor, advisee, doctoral education, advisor-advisee relationship,

PDF

___

Arastaman, G., Çetin, O. U., Arslan, S. Y., & Kerimoğlu, P. N. G. (2020). Eğitim yönetimi alanında doktora öğrencisi olmak: Lisansüstü öğrencilerin bakış açısından fenomenolojik bir inceleme. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 8(4), 1323-1346. https://doi.org/10.14689/issn.2148-2624.8c.4s.11m
Baker, V. L., & Pifer, M. J. (2011). The role of relationships in the transition from doctoral student to independent scholar. Studies in Continuing Education, 33(1), 5-17. https://doi. org/10.1080/0158037X.2010.515569
Bakioglu, A., & Gurdal, A. (2001). Lisansüstü tezlerde danışman ve öğrencilerin rol algıları:Yönetim için göstergeler. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(21).
Barnes, B. J., & Austin, A. E. (2008). 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
Barnes, B. J. (2010). The nature of exemplary doctoral advisors’ expectations and the ways they may influence doctoral persistence. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 11(3), 323-343.
Barnes, B. J., Williams, E. A., & Archer, S. A. (2010). Characteristics that matter most: Doctoral students’ perceptions of positive and negative advisor attributes. NACADA Journal, 30(1), 34-46. https://doi.org/10.12930/0271-9517-30.1.34
Cardoso, S., Santos, S., Diogo, S., Soares, D., & Carvalho, T. (2022). The transformation of doctoral education: A systematic literature review. Higher Education, 84(4), 885-908. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10734-021-00805-5
Chamberlain, A. W., & Burnside, O. (2021). A theory of change for advising in the 21st century. New Directions for Higher Education, (195-196), 11-21. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20405
CoHE (The Council of Higher Education of the Republic of Turkey) (2023). Yüksek Öğretim BilgiYönetim Sistemi [Higher education information management system. https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/
Council of Graduate Schools (2008). Ph.D. completion and attrition: Analysis of baseline demographic data from the Ph.D. completion project. (Executive Summary).
Denzin, N.K. (1978). Sociological methods: A sourcebook. McGraw-Hill.
Duffy, J. O., Wickersham-Fish, L., Rademaker, L. & Wetzler, E. (2018). Using collaborative autoethnography to explore online doctoral mentoring: Finding empathy in mentor/protégé relationships. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 2(1), 57– 76. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/5794
Ertem, H. & Gokalp, G. (2019). Role of Personal and Organizational Factors on Student Attrition From Graduate Education: A Mixed-Model Research. Journal of College Student Retention, 23(4), 903-928. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025119881391
Ertem, H. Y. & Gokalp, G. (2016). Sayıların Dili: Lisansüstü Eğitimde Okul Terki. Beycioğlu, K., Özer, N., Koşar, D. & Şahin, İ. (Eds.). Eğitim Yönetimi Araştırmaları. Pegem-Akademi.
Faghihi, F., Rakow, E. A., & Ethington, C. (1998). A study of factors related to dissertation progress among doctoral candidates: Focus on students’ research self-efficacy as a result of their research training and experiences [Conference Session]. American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
Fairbanks, A. J. (2016). Relationship Factors Influencing Doctoral Student Retention and Success: A Study of Faculty Advisor and Doctoral Student Perceptions. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University College of Education].
Gardner, S. K., & Barnes, B. J. (2007). Graduate student involvement: Socialization for the professional role. Journal of College Student Development, 48(4), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2007.0036
Gardner, S. K. (2008). Fitting the mold of graduate school: A qualitative study of socialization in doctoral education. Innovative Higher Education, 33, 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755- 008-9068-x
Gelmez Burakgazi, S., Can, I., & Coskun, M. (2020). Exploring pre-service teachers’ perceptions about professional ethics in teaching: Do gender, major, and academic achievement matter?. International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(4), 213-228. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2020.268.14
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/10.1 080/00221546.2005.11772304
Halse, C., & Malfroy, J. (2010). Retheorizing doctoral supervision as professional work. Studies in Higher Education, 35(1), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070902906798
Karadag, N., & Özdemir, S. (2017). Türkiye’de doktora eğitimi sürecine ilişkin öğretim üyelerinin ve doktora öğrencilerinin görüşleri. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 2, 267-281. https://doi. org/10.5961/jhes.2017.206
Karaman, S., & Bakırcı F. (2010). Postgraduate study in Turkey: Problems and proposed solutions. The Journal of Social Sciences Research, 5(10), 94–94.
Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure from doctoral study. Rowman and Littlefield.
Lovitts, B. E., & Nelson, C. (2000). The hidden crisis in graduate education: Attrition from Ph. D. programs. Academe, 86(6), 44. https://doi.org/10.2307/40251951
Lowenstein, M. (2008). Ethical foundations of academic advising. In V. N. Gordon, W. R. Habley, & T. J. Grites (Eds.), Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook. (2nd ed., pp. 36–49). Jossey- Bass.
Mackie, S. A., & Bates, G. W. (2019). Contribution of the doctoral education environment to PhD candidates’ mental health problems: A scoping review. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(3), 565-578. https://doi.org//10.1080/0729436 0.2018.1556620
Menke, D. J., Stuck, S., & Ackerson, S. (2018). Assessing Advisor Competencies: A Delphi Method Study. NACADA Journal, 38(1), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.12930/nacada-16-040
Murphy, K. A. (2015). First-generation students and advising. Center for Faculty Enrichment.
Nerad, M. (2020). Governmental innovation policies, globalisation, and change in doctoral education worldwide: Are doctoral programmes converging? Trends and tensions. In S. Cardoso, O. Tavares, C. Sin, & T. Carvalho (Eds.), Structural and institutional transformations in doctoral education: Social, political and student expectations. (pp. 43–84). Springer Nature.
Patton, M.Q. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Sciences Research, 34, 1189–1208.
Sambrook, S., Stewart, J., & Roberts, C. (2008). Doctoral supervision…a view from above, below and the middle!. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 32(1), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/030987 70701781473
Sarrico, C.S. (2022). The expansion of doctoral education and the changing nature and purpose of the doctorate. High Education, 84, 1299–1315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00946-1
Schmidt, M. & Hansson, E. (2018) Doctoral students’ well-being: A literature review, International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631 .2018.1508171
Seckin, M., Apaydin, Ç., & Aypay, A. (2012). Lisansüstü eğitimde normlar: Yapı, iklim ve danışmanlık. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 3, 176-185.
Taylor, R. T., Vitale, T., Tapoler, C., & Whaley, K. (2018). Desirable qualities of modern doctorate advisors in the USA: a view through the lenses of candidates, graduates, and academic advisors. Studies in Higher Education, 43(5), 854–866. https://doi.org/10.1080/030 75079.2018.1438104
Tierney, W. G. (1997). Organizational socialization in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 68(1), 1-16.
Van der Linden, N., Devos, C., Boudrenghien, G., Frenay, M., Azzi, A., Klein, O., & Galand, B. (2018). Gaining insight into doctoral persistence: Development and validation of Doctorate-related Need Support and Need Satisfaction short scales. Learning and Individual Differences, 65, 100-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. lindif.2018.03.008
Varney, J. (2012). Proactive (intrusive) advising. Academic Advising Today, 35(3). https://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Academic- Advising-Today/View-Articles/Proactive-Intrusive-Advising. aspx
Weidman, J. C., Twale, D. J., & Stein, E. L. (2001). Socialization of graduate and professional students in higher education: A perilous passage? Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2003.11 780868
Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma. Seçkin Yayınları.