Decision Line, March 2010
15
Jason Thatcher
is an associate professor in the Department of Management at Clemson University. He holds BA’s in history and political science from the University of Utah as well as an MPA from the Askew School
of Public Administration and Policy, and a PhD in business administration from Florida State University. His rearch examines the influence of individual beliefs and characteristics on faith-ful and ironic us of information technology. His work appears in MIS Quarterly, Journal of Man-agement Information Systems, and Journal of Applied Psychology .
jthatch@clemson.edu
DOCTORAL STUDENT AFFAIRS
■ XENOPHON KOUFTEROS, Feature Editor, Texas A&M University
Varun Grover
is the William S. Lee (Duke Energy) Distinguished Pro-fessor of Information Systems at the College of Business & Behavioral Sciences, Clemson University. He has published extensively in the IS field,
with over 160 publications in refereed journals. Five recent articles have ranked him among the top five rearchers bad on publications in major IS journals over the past decade. He currently rves as nior editor of MIS Quarterly , Journal of the AIS , and Databa and associate editor for JMIS , JOM , and IJEC , among others. He is a recipient of the Outstanding Achievement Award from the Decision Sciences Institute, and has also received numerous recognitions for his rearch and teaching.
vgrover@clemson.edu
The 10 Mistakes Students Make
in Their Doctoral Program Revisited: The Student Respon (Part One)
by Varun Grover and Jason Bennett Thatcher, Clemson University
Editor’s note: This article is the first of a two-part essay. Part 2 will appear in the July 2010 issue of Decision Line .
I
n 2001, Varun Grover offered advice on how to avoid 10 mistakes doc-toral students make in managing their program (e Decision Line , May 2001). Since the publication of this article, Varun has received numerous respons from doctoral students indicating that the article was uful. Others indicate that the mistakes raid were inevitable—and avoidance was unrealistic. Still others indicated that that the mistakes need caveats as there are alternative ways of accomplishing doctoral goals.
At the minimum, this article spawned considerable attention and discussion. For this reason, we decided to follow-up on the article. We thought it would be uful to e if the problems were still p
erceived as relevant by recent graduates from Ph.D. programs. To do so, we asmbled a panel of five infor-mants from participants in the 2008 and 2009 ICIS doctoral student consortiums. Our informants were drawn from busi-ness schools in three different countries and all were within a year of finishing their Ph.D. programs. Each student was provided an instrument with each of the “mistakes” articulated. They were invited to provide an open-ended evalu-ation of whether they obrved the 10 mistakes among their contemporaries in their Ph.D. program and to offer ad-ditional advice or insight into how to succeed in a Ph.D. program.
In reviewing their respons, we supplement the mistakes with some caveats that might be relevant to help-
ing current doctoral students’ succeed in their programs. While we mainly focus on the panelists’ reactions to the mistakes, we also leverage our experi-ences working with doctoral students to provide advice. Due to the length and richness of their respons, we will pres-ent this article in two parts. Part 2 will be in the next issue of Decision Line .
Mistake 1: Doctoral students do not create synergy
Students take a piecemeal approach to opportunities and projects that they do in the program—doin
g what is expedient or expected without creating a synergy that enhances the creation of better products, in-depth study of literature in an area, time management, and identification of a disrtation topic.
Our informants reported that doctor-al students who created synergies were the exception, not the rule. One remarked on an exceptional peer who:
“entered the program knowing exactly what he wanted to do his disrtation on. He actually mapped out the n-paper model for his dis-rtation, with the help of the faculty member he had lected to be his advisor, before the first day of class had even begun. This enabled him to focus very early on, such that when-ever we took a class that required a rearch paper, he was able to carve out small gments of his disrtation to conceptualize and investigate. I should mention, however, that I did not meet any other students in my
four years in the program who were
this focud going in. Most were still
exploring and trying to figure out
what interested them the most.”
To create synergies, doctoral students have to develop a clear vision of what they want to study and think strategically about how to integrate their work. To do so, some students take an aggressive approach to managing their studies. As one respondent noted,
“The one student who sought syner-
gies was very deliberate in identify-
ing tho projects that aligned with
a specific rearch interest and then
actively negotiated for the revision
of expectations where such synergies
were not evident.”
Although aware synergies were impor-tant, our respondents suggested that the piecemeal approach
to doctoral studies was a function of circumstance and advising.
“I believe a piecemeal approach is less
risky from a student point of view
as well as from an advisor. Becau
模式英文students are at the beginning of the
program, most of the time, they don’t
know what they want to do or how
to choo a topic. It therefore becomes
a good option to take on a piecemeal
offer. However, I believe such an ap-
proach limits the opportunity for a
more comprehensive rearch.” Another agreed and underscored that:“changing rearch interests, dif-
ferences in the personalities of the
individuals overeing projects, and
the unique demands of each project
婴儿学英语resulted in relatively little opportu-
nity for such synergies.”
More importantly, one student suggested a pragmatic reason for a piecemeal ap-proach early in doctoral studies. He argued that:
“the publication life-cycle is far too
long to wait until the third or fourth
year. This means that not all of your
projects will create synergy. Early
on, I urge you to get involved in re-
arch and learn about the process.
Later… this mistake is to be avoided.
You will be moving from the laborer
type work in the rearch to the proj-
ect leader.”
Interestingly, all of our respondents sug-gested that finding synergies was neces-sary as Ph.D. programs come to a clo.
One reported:
“my disrtation did grow out of a pa-
per I wrote in my very first mester
of the program. But I never had any
clue that would happen at the time,
and in fact rebelled against the idea
for two full years… . At first, I didn’t
like that pressure, but as time went
on… .I ud the topic of my first
paper (which I had already prented
at 2 conferences).”
Caveat: Overall, the panelists endord
the importance of creating synergy – but
indicated that it may not be feasible
upfront. We concur, and would suggest
that the first year is typically a time to
explore in a doctoral program. Students
should be cognitive of synergy, but they
need to balance this against the need to
explore different areas and hone their
interests. However, the earlier synergies
can be created in the program, the better
off students will be.
Mistake 2: Doctoral students are too
reactive
Students react to, rather than control,
their environment—taking a ries of
cours and checking off a list of boxes.
Proactive students … keep the broad
objectives of learning and cultivat-
ing rearch and teaching skills while
simultaneously focusing on program
requirements.
Our panel was split on the issue
of being reactive and proactive. Most
noted that:
“reactive and proactive manage-
ment styles were evident both across
students and in the behavior of indi-
vidual students… reactive students
have tended to be more successful [in
the short term] becau the milestones
established by a PhD program rve
as the baline for success (pass com-
prehensives, defend proposal, submit
rearch in progress to conference,
etc.). Broad focus on learning and
cultivating rearch may be impor-
tant in the long run but tends to slow
progress in the short run.”
Although leading to short-term success,
one student noticed that a reactive strat-
egy did not readily translate to earning
the skills necessary to be an independent
scholar. One commented that:
“a colleague of mine often was saying,
‘I am afraid to start my data collection
and analysis, becau I don’t know
what to do.’ I also noticed that many
students are treating the PhD degree
like another courwork degree. They
boogeymando not realize a PhD is a project in
which they are at the same time the
project managers and the people
working in the project. Nobody el
is going to do it for them. This is one
of the biggest mistakes I e around
a lot of students.
In fact, many of our informants suggest-
ed that being proactive was necessary
for curing top notch training—through
化学工程与工艺专业英语翻译mentoring and courwork:
“I proactively involved mylf in
veral rearch projects in my c-
ond and third years and was able to
get a few papers from the projects.
I also proactively found cours
from other departments that helped
me understand topics that are not
typically discusd in cours in my
discipline.”
Another suggested that being proactive
meant more than simply finding cours
or collaborating with faculty. He argued
that it required going beyond training
to identify gaps or discrepancies in the
literature:
“Doctoral students often look for
rearch ideas as a respon to a
particular article rather than finding
rearch gaps in the literature. Using
a holistic approach to finding and de-
signing rearch questions provides
a stronger stream of rearch that
is far more interesting. As far as the
doctoral studies, an important skill
is time management. Being reactive
and not thoughtfully planning your
studies will lead to unnecessary hard-
ship. Start with a yearly plan and
reevaluate often. Talk to the nior
folks and the new assistant professor
to e what was part of their yearly
plans.”
Although being proactive is important,
one informant suggested the being too
proactive could come at a price. She
argued that:
“proactive students can be over-en-
thusiastic about their projects. They
think they can manage anything,
hence the issue of scoping the PhD
project. In that n they need to
be brought back into reality, to un-
16 Decision Line, March 2010
derstand that only certain parts can
be done part of a PhD program. Not
everything can be covered at one
time.”
As a result, this informant argued for a more tempered approach to managing a Ph.D. program:
“most students in my program lived
by the motto ‘shut up and graduate’
but looked for rearch outlets that in-
terested them personally, aside from
working with faculty. In my ca, this
involved using my non-MIS electives
and methods class to write papers
that interested me personally, but
that the MIS faculty had no interest
in. So perhaps I was proactive but in
laptop是什么意思a different way.”
Before leaving the topic of success and be-ing reactive or proactive, it is important to note that one student challenged the assumption underpinning this lesson: “How do you define ‘success’ in one’s
PhD program or in their post-PhD
career? Is this bad on how many ‘A’
pubs you have? Or on whether you
achieve tenure at your first post-PhD
institution? I would say that for some
students, success is having a balanced
life outside of academia, and therefore
I don’t fault tho students who sim-
ply ‘went through the motions’ to get
their degree, and were less focud on
rearch / more interested in teaching
and having a balanced life. They were
being proactive about their educa-
tion as well, but in a different (and
not necessarily wrong) way. To each
their own.”
Caveat:The importance of being proac-tive was clearly recognized by the panel, but the nature and extent of “out of class” activities might vary depending on how individuals view and tradeoff their long and short term objectives.
Mistake 3: Doctoral students do not carefully evaluate opportunity cost Students who are noted for their compe-tence and motivation tend to get more de-mands—to the extent that students have control over every opportunity t, every opportunity should be evaluated stra-tegically—with each opportunity, they should question does this (new) project contribute to my doctoral education?
Our informants agreed that priori-tization was important – yet noted that they had ud different approaches to prioritize their work.
“One individual relied on external
pressure such that the priority was
the one demanded immediately by
a supervisor, a cour, or some other
form of deadline. Another individual
continually asked whether the work
fulfilled one of three objectives:
complete the degree, get a job, or
get a publication. Personally, I tend
to rely heavily on a calendar that I
u to impo ‘artificial’ deadlines
for individual tasks. The risk is that
sometimes completing the small
tasks does not align with the broader
perspective offered by the three objec-
tives that guided my colleague.”Another suggested a uful way to approach to “right-sizing” your work-load:
“You have to manage the number of
your projects you are currently work-
ing on. I would suggest figuring out
how much you can actively take on
and eliminate the project that has the
least amount of promi (n-1). This
will accomplish two things. First,
you are always able to take on a good
project that comes along. Second, you
will do a great job with your current
projects. The key is balance and get-
ting involved as much as you can
while always being able to take on a
good project.”
Lacking a heuristic for prioritizing work, veral of our respondents noted that ambitious Ph.D. students tended to grow overextended and “either do a poor job or miss out on important rearch op-portunities.”
In fact, one noted a remarkable ca where:
“One student had unfortunately not
been informed of expectations for
summer work in advance. She signed
up for 3 different independent studies
(meaning 3 different rearch proj-
ects) in her first summer, while also
teaching 5 days a week (for the first
time). Somehow she lived to tell about
it… but with a couple of incompletes
to work off later.”
To prioritize well, doctoral students sug-gested it is important to learn to:
“say ’no’ to people a lot of times, par-
ticularly when tho people are very
powerful and well-respected faculty
members, and they are asking you to
Decision Line, March 2010
17
do something becau they think it
would be good for you (or for your
CV). I think a lot of students get in
the trap where they think they need
a couple of extra lines on their CV to
compete on the job market. So they
can’t say no to anything.”
Saying no and putting your work first becomes particularly important when you are
“trying to finish your disrtation and
simultaneously beginning a new job.
All of a sudden, priorities become
much clearer and it is a lot easier to
say ’no’ when someone wants you to
teach a new class, join a new rearch
project, or write a review. So des-
peration and the survival instinct bring
about proper prioritization when all
el fails. I think some of the other
younger, less experienced students in
our program have learned prioritiza-
tion through simple survival as well.
At any rate, I have heard they are
turning down all offers of new proj-
ects now that they are post-comps.”While we have emphasized prioritiza-tion as an important skill for successful doctoral students, we’d be remiss if we did not note that it is also important after leaving campus.
For example, one student noted that she:
“did not prioritize well after leav-
ing the program ABD—rather than
spending the summer before starting
my new job focusing 100 percent on
my disrtation, I allowed mylf to
be distracted with 2 paper submis-
sions in a completely different area
of rearch. It was hard to say no,
though, since my advisor was one
of the coauthors and she felt that I
could handle both. Sometimes you
just have to stand up to your advisor
and say, ‘It may be easy for you to do
all this, but it’s not that easy for me.’
If you are considered a ‘super star’
student, you really need to make
sure your advisor knows that even
‘super stars’ get overwhelmed and
need a break. If you don’t tell people
you are maxed out, they won’t know
it and will keep coming back to you,
making you feel under more pressure
to say ‘yes.’”
Caveat:There is little disagreement on the importance of evaluating opportu-nity costs and prioritization. However, while saying “no” is important, students
should prioritize people to which they
say no. I’ve obrved many cas where
“powerful” people make unreasonable
requests and a “no” has verely come
back to haunt students. While most fac-
ulty have the students best interests in
mind, there are some bad apples—and
so the caveat would be to judiciously
prioritize people along with tasks.
Mistake 4: Doctoral students fall into
a lull period
Students fall into a lull for … two months.
Then three months … between post-
comps and the disrtation propos-
al … which results in a loss of continuity
and tremendous start-up costs in every
interaction.
Lulls between comps and the dis-
rtation varied across institutions.
Students fell into a lull becau:
“especially after a milestone such
as their confirmation in Australia
they feel the need to relax and com-
pletely miss the fact they can lo
the momentum. Unfortunately, inyoice
Australia we don’t have a system
in place to monitor students cloly
on their progress. There is only an
annual progress that needed to be
filled in. Regular meetings with the
advisors will ensure more continu-
ity, however a lot of professors can’t
afford that time on a weekly basis.
Conquently, re-active students face
big problems with such relationship
management.”
Although many students ahead of her
advisfell into a lull, another student noted that
the faculty re-structured the program
to “encourage” moving ahead with the
disrtation.
“The students who were a year ahead
of me took way too much time off be-
tween written and oral comps (some
over a mester). So the students in
my peer group and going forward to
the prent never had to worry about
that particular lull, as the faculty t
very hard deadlines of only a few
weeks beyond written comps for
taking orals.
All in all, though, I think I avoided a
major lull simply by virtue of having
an advisor who placed extremely
demanding deadlines on me for when
I was expected to have my proposal
ready to defend (i.e., four months
post-orals).”
In addition to relying on faculty for mo-
tivation, our informants noted different
aspects of their programs that motivated
them to move forward in their studies.
One well-published student noted that:
“Most of the students, including
mylf, were actively working on
multiple rearch projects after comps
(outside the disrtation) as they were
trying to find topics for their disr-
tation. I think working on rearch
projects outside disrtation was the
key reason for being able to avoid
sapphirepost-comps lull.”
Another argued that funding became
a driver for progress after comments.
He suggested that lulls were unusual
becau “at our institution the funding
structure gives students an incentive to
defend a proposal within one year of
passing comprehensive exams.”
Finally, one noted that a more struc-
tured approach to avoiding a lull. He
suggested staying on track by:
“writing up your ideal, and doable,
CV for when you are on the market.
Second, work backwards to e
where your CV should be at the end
of year one and two to accomplish
your goals. You will find that with six
months per revision cycle you have
no time to sit on your rearch.”
Caveat: No disagreement here. Students
should actively avoid the lull simply by
being cognizant of it both a-priori and ex-
post comps. A-priori, the project portfolio
and their deadlines, along with planning
(i.e., a well thought out disrtation idea)
can keep activity alive. Ex-post, the ad-
visor and pressure from the market can
reinforce the awareness of a potential lull.
Dead periods can be avoided if students
feel they are going downhill after comps
and not negotiating another mountain
when the exams have sucked out most
of their energy.
Mistake 5: Doctoral students do not
manage their advisor
Students should be proactive in manag-
ing their advisor … if they go in prepared
with the issues, their possible solutions,
and solicit their advisor’s advice, they
18 Decision Line, March 2010
will u their time more efficiently … al-ternately, hiding [from the advisor] is a pathological behavior, particularly if they cannot deliver on a project.
To manage an advisor, a recently graduated student suggested that two elements were esntial. First, students need to be excited about their work becau your excitement rubs off on the advisor.
Second, students need to turn to their “project management class for strat-egies. This includes keeping the project team (your committee) informed of your milestones, timelines and deliverables.“However, many of our respondents reported that managing an advisor is more difficult than one might expect. One reported that he was not:
“sure how other students managed
their advisors. In my ca, the only
approach I had was to keep an open
and honest communication channel
with my advisor. I tried to contact
my advisor almost every day, if pos-
sible, and tried to get his feedback
on different things (e.g., papers, dis-
rtation topic ideas, new rearch
ideas, other non-academic issues). I
had a friendly relationship with my
advisor, which I think is important
for any doctoral student. However,
developing a good relationship with
the advisor takes time and requires a
strong work ethic.”
Another reported that there was no uni-versally effective strategy for managing an advisor. Really, this person argued that completing a disrtation hinged on either the advisor or the student taking accountability for managing the process. He argued that:
“I have en advirs ’manage’ stu-
dents who would otherwi not be
particularly successful. I think the
only time there is a real problem is
when neither the student nor the ad-
vir can manage effectively. And, by
‘manage’ I am generally referring to
efforts to keep the disrtation process
on track. This involves establishing
timelines, clear deliverables, priori-
ties, etc. and then making sure that
the are adhered to. Of cour, once
again there are a number of subtleties
surrounding the difference between
short- and long-term success.”
In contrast, a type “A” personality reported frustration with her attempts to manage her advisor. As a result, she
attempted many different approaches to
managing the relationship. She reported
that:
“my advisor is too damned busy,
yet despite that, she still has final
authority over everything that goes
into my papers (since she is a coau-
thor on all of them). So it’s a difficult
balancing act. We’ve been through
every variation of meeting structures
known to mankind since I began this
project—from ‘drop in any time’
meetings with no agenda beforehand,
to regular weekly meetings designed
to keep me on task (but which I didn’t
always come prepared for), and fi-
nally to ‘meetings on demand’ when
I get stuck and need very specific
advice about how to move forward.
The latter method has been by far
the most productive (even if least
practiced) of the three approaches.
It lets me work at my own pace, but
forces me to think through problems
and plan out very specific questions
before spending time with her. I have
no idea how (or if) the other students
in the program with me managed
崇文区小学
their advisors.”
Another reported that managing the
advisor might be problematic, becau
students lacked the necessary skills.
“I think such management skills
should be part of the doctoral edu-
cation. Currently we do not re-
ceive any formal education in this
area. Students who have previously
worked in industry are more mature
and probably better at manage-
ment, as oppod to the freshmen.
Often students complain that their
meeting with the advisors has not
achieved anything, but they did not
e the fact that they did not have an
agenda/items to achieve. In many
situations students come with their
issues without proposing any solu-
tions or alternative paths, expecting
the advisors will resolve the problems
for them. Or they refu to meet on a
regular basis becau they are behind
in their work, hence the inability to
deliver what was suppod to be
done. This is very common among
re-active students.
I think it is a problem of managing
expectations—what is really expected
from an advisor and from them as stu-
dents. There is a misunderstanding
of the relationship in the first place.
I think a certain level of education
in relationship management would
benefit students and save lots of time
for both sides.”
Caveat:The panel generally agreed that
students should manage their advi-
sor—but felt that doing so was easier
said than done. A bit of planning and
honest, open communication can go a
long way in managing expectations for
each meeting, as well as for the project.
pivot
Students should also asss what works
and adjust accordingly for the different
types and styles of advisors. Also e the
article in the December/January 2003 is-
sue of Decision Line, “Interaction between
a Doctoral Student and Advisor: Making
It Work!”
Conclusion
In this first installment that revisits Varun
Grover’s “10 Mistakes,” we prented the
student’s view on many of the challenges
encountered by contemporary doctoral
students. Our respondents underscored
the importance of students creating
synergy, pro-actively managing their
programs, and managing their advisors.
However, they emphasized that many
of their suggestions are easier said than
done. To succeed in doctoral studies,
students must learn to rely on themlves
(i.e., not fall into lulls) and gain insight
into how to successfully build relation-
ships with their advisors. Although each
respondent’s program of studies was
unique, there was surprising consistency
in their advice—that doctoral students
are ultimately responsible for ensuring
their success. In Part 2, we will visit the
remaining five mistakes.
References
Grover, V. (2001). 10 mistakes doctoral
students make in managing their pro-
gram. Decision Line, May, 11-13.
Grover, V., & Malhotra, M. K. (2003).
Interaction between a doctoral student
and advisor: Making it work! Decision
Line, Dec/Jan, 16-18. ■
Decision Line, March 201019
