2.3 The qualitative dissertation: still hazy after all these years  (Page 7/14)

Students can benefit from seeing the dissertation process as a series of steps or stages that explain the process. Brause (2000) outlines eight stages in the doctoral process with the last four focused on beginning and completing the dissertation. Although delineating these stages can help students to see the“cycle”of completing a doctoral program as a whole, the four dissertation focused stages are misleadingly succinct and discrete:“p. 58) stage 5 Select, dissertation topic, chair and committee; Stage 6 Draft dissertation proposal; Stage 7 Conduct, analyze and write; and Stage 8 Prepare for defense and revise dissertation”(Brause, 2000, p. 59). The timeframe suggested for completing the dissertation is 12 to 36 months (p. 59), obviously allowing for more involved or complex studies, but no specific differentiation for qualitative studies appears in the timeframe.

Piantinada (1999) offers stages of qualitative dissertation writing not tied to time: beginning phase (up to proposal), middle stage (living with the data), ending phase (more living with the study and public discourse), and transitional phase (life after the dissertation). These phases, which are inherently qualitative, help students understand the process of the dissertation outside the parameters of time. Indeed, predicting the time needed for each stage is precarious and, in many ways, antithetical to the notion of the qualitative experience. Not only do perceptions of time influence the choice of a qualitative dissertation study, there are also implications for committee processes and differences in the ways that students complete the study.

Committee Coordination Part 1: Navigating the“Fog”of Relationships

Numerous researchers offer observations and advice on committees and the relationships between students and committee members (Piantinada&Garman, 1999; Brause, 2000; Mullen, 2006; Schneider, 1998). The discussion ranges from techniques for choosing committee members and the chair to examples of abusiveness to students. Brause, for example, notes the power differential that is inherent in the relationship between students and committee chairs and that the completion of the dissertation signals a rite of passage from student to colleague that received mixed reactions from faculty. At least in part, the consternation for students can stem from a shift in the responsibility for learning from the professors to the student (Brause, 2000; Piantinada&Garman, 1999). In courses and qualifying examinations, professors take the lead in identifying foci and assessing progress. In the dissertation, the student must take that lead, ultimately becoming an independent learner with his or her own area of expertise. Chairs can guide the development of independence,“letting go”at the appropriate time. Some faculty members encourage the transitions and may continue working with the student on scholarly presentations and publications (Mullen, 2006). Other faculty resist the transition, adopting the perspective that“once a student always a student”(Brause, 2000, p. 58). The student is indeed at the mercy of the committee and especially the chair for the duration of the dissertation process. Their responses and“shepherding”of the student can shape a productive passage or a highly stressful episode (Fauske, 2001). In the extreme, students can drop out of programs, abandoning years of work, or, more horrifying, student can commit suicide over harsh feedback from their dissertation chairs (Schneider, 1998).