dissertation co chair

Want to Get your Dissertation Accepted?

Discover how we've helped doctoral students complete their dissertations and advance their academic careers!

Join 200+ Graduated Students

Get Your Dissertation Accepted On Your Next Submission

Get customized coaching for:.

• Crafting your proposal,
• Collecting and analyzing your data, or
• Preparing your defense.

Trapped in dissertation revisions?

Choosing a dissertation chair, published by steve tippins on september 5, 2022 september 5, 2022.

Last Updated on: 7th September 2022, 05:44 am

Choosing your dissertation chair is one of the most important decisions that you’ll make in graduate school. Your dissertation chair will in many ways shape your experience as you undergo the most rigorous intellectual challenge you’ve had up to this point, and guide you as you navigate the murky waters of a major original research project. When the stakes are this high, you’ll want to make sure you’re working with the right person. 

But what should you be looking for in a dissertation chair? It’s a question that nags at many Ph.D. students when they’re on the precipice of this decision. Have no fear, we’re here to help. These are frequently asked questions that graduate students have about choosing their dissertation chair:

• What type of faculty member makes a good dissertation chair?
• How do I ask a faculty member to chair my dissertation?

What Makes a Good Dissertation Chair?

When it’s time to think about a dissertation chair, many graduate students are tempted to ask the most well-known professor on their program’s faculty to serve in the role. On the surface, this seems like a sound decision. After all, a scholar who has made a name for themselves in their discipline clearly knows what they’re doing, right? And it certainly wouldn’t hurt to have a bit of their stardust on your CV, of course. 

Not so fast. While a very successful scholar definitely excels at research, they might not be what you’re looking for, and they might not have the time to dedicate themselves to your project. An ideal chair is a faculty member that you have good existing rapport with, and one who is excited to work with you. An ideal chair is someone who will be a good mentor and advocate for you and your research, and someone who you know will be by your side for the long haul. 

The Big Ask

For something that is a very common practice in academia, many graduate students have anxiety about approaching a faculty member to be their dissertation chair. While it may feel to you like a lot to ask, keep in mind that chairing dissertations is part of a full-time faculty member’s job. They signed up for this, and they expect these kinds of requests. 

Meet with the faculty member you’re hoping to work with and be clear about your intentions. Ask them about their experiences chairing dissertations, what their expectations are, and be prepared to pitch your project idea to them, or at least the general topic or problem you want to work on. They might say yes immediately, or they may know of another scholar in the department whose research is right in your wheelhouse. 

Either way, you’ll leave the meeting having made progress. Do not take it personally if the first faculty member you ask to chair your dissertation says no. Chances are, if they decline, it’s because they know they don’t have the time to work with you right now and they don’t want you to be at a disadvantage with a neglectful chair. Thank them, and move on to the next candidate. You’ve got this! 

Steve Tippins

Steve Tippins, PhD, has thrived in academia for over thirty years. He continues to love teaching in addition to coaching recent PhD graduates as well as students writing their dissertations. Learn more about his dissertation coaching and career coaching services. Book a Free Consultation with Steve Tippins

Related Posts

Dissertation

What makes a good research question.

Creating a good research question is vital to successfully completing your dissertation. Here are some tips that will help you formulate a good research question.  What Makes a Good Research Question? These are the three Read more…

Dissertation Structure

When it comes to writing a dissertation, one of the most fraught questions asked by graduate students is about dissertation structure. A dissertation is the lengthiest writing project that many graduate students ever undertake, and Read more…

Dissertation Chair: An Owner’s Manual

One of the most important faculty members in a doctoral student’s academic life is their dissertation chair. Part mentor, part administrator, the dissertation chair’s role encompasses responsibilities that directly impact your graduate experience. Prior to Read more…

Make This Your Last Round of Dissertation Revision.

Learn How to Get Your Dissertation Accepted .

Discover the 5-Step Process in this Free Webinar .

Almost there!

Please verify your email address by clicking the link in the email message we just sent to your address.

If you don't see the message within the next five minutes, be sure to check your spam folder :).

Dissertation Committee Chairs’ Current Practices to Support Doctoral Students in an Online Doctoral Program

The purpose of this research study was to explore dissertation chair experiences and current practices for meeting with and providing feedback to doctoral students pursuing a scholar-practitioner terminal degree in an online doctoral program. A qualitative methodology using an exploratory design was employed to interview 11 participants using semi-structured interviews. The findings included the importance of providing frequent feedback through various modes of communication, emphasizing a tailored approach to the students’ needs. Timely, thorough feedback was supported, stressing effectiveness and relevancy, which was most commonly achieved through one-on-one communication. Additional considerations focused on trust building and caring behaviors; individualized coaching and guidance; and balancing institutional requirements and student needs.

Introduction and Background The purpose of this research was to explore dissertation chair experiences and current practices for meeting with and providing feedback to doctoral students pursuing a scholar-practitioner terminal degree in an online doctoral program. For the purpose of this study, the term dissertation chair was chosen because it resonates with definitional components that include tasks such as mentoring, advising, and supervising in the context of the dissertation process. Although these terms are often used interchangeably in evidence-based literature, the authors chose the label dissertation chair since it denotes a role that is encompasses being there through and at the end of the dissertation journey. Studies dating back to the 1970s have suggested the element of doctoral education that has the greatest impact on the outcome for the doctoral student is the relationship that develops with the dissertation chair (Heinrich, 1991, 1995; Heiss 1970; Spillett & Moisiewicz, 2004; and Zhao, Golde, & McCormick, 2007). Bair and Haworth (1999) report that completion rates for scholar-practitioner doctorates are in the same range as for Ph.D. completion rates – around 40% - 60% -- a ballpark that is consistent with a more recent report published by the Council of Graduate Schools (2008) that examined this phenomenon primarily with respect to more traditional doctorates such as the Ph.D. and the Ed.D. In another study focused on virtual (online) doctoral programs, Muirhead and Blum (2006) stressed that the high rate of attrition in doctoral programs remains a significant concern in higher education and it has been argued that most of the blame for this can be placed on the failure of universities to provide appropriate support to enable students to meet the many challenges of completing a doctoral degree. While Bair and Haworth (1999) mention support in the financial sense, student involvement in professional activities, and student satisfaction with the program itself, in their meta-synthesis of 118 studies on doctoral student attrition and persistence, they concluded that the biggest factor in completing the doctorate rests on the quality of the relationship between the student and the dissertation chair. This notion of quality support from faculty members who play an advising/mentoring/supervising role is the concept that rests at the heart of the present study. It is argued that appropriate support from people occupying these roles in an institution of higher learning is essential in any type of doctoral program (e.g., research degree, professional degree, scholar-practitioner degree) and regardless of mode or mechanism of learning delivery (e.g. in the physical classroom, in the virtual learning space), but Muirhead and Blum (2006) also assert that virtual learning environments necessitate a finessing of what this support looks like when people are working together at a distance. Thus, the question this study asked is: what are the current practices for meeting with and providing feedback to doctoral candidates pursuing a scholar-practitioner terminal degree in an online doctoral program? The starting point for this study is related directly to a recently published study by Roberts, Tinari, and Bandlow (2019), who suggest the need for research to determine how often effective dissertation chairs are holding meetings with their doctoral students, how rapidly feedback is provided on the work their doctoral students are producing, and how feedback is delivered in a way that demonstrates caring for the student’s success. The term effective mentor was defined in qualitative terms by Roberts et al. (2019), with some anecdotal metrics obtained through participant screening. Roberts et al. (2019) emphasized there are many hats worn by the mentors of doctoral students (e.g. teaching, advising, subject matter expertise, methods expertise), and Sugimoto (2012) suggested mentoring of doctoral students involves activities carried out by many individuals (the dissertation advisor, dissertation committee members, and fellow doctoral students). Furthermore, depending upon the university, support for doctoral students can also be provided by institutional resources, such as a writing center or service, residential sessions with faculty, as well as by non-teaching advising staff who partner with faculty to provide support services to students (Burrus, Fiore & Shaw, 2019). This study, however, focused solely on the activities doctoral students engage in with the dissertation chair who has been assigned to support doctoral student success through some or all of the processes specific to the dissertation journey. The justification for this focus is that regardless of the various skills and reputations brought into the experience of being part of a doctoral committee or non-teaching support staff, it is typically the dissertation chair upon whom the greatest burden is placed with respect to student outcome expectations, and typically it is the dissertation chair who carries the largest advising burden as well as a significant proportion of the decision-making authority at various stages of a student’s dissertation process. The dissertation chair is instrumental in the doctoral student’s learning process as this evolves over time. Situated learning theory was introduced by Lave (1991) and Lave and Wenger (1991), suggesting that learning occurs within a specific context, through particular activities intended to promote learner growth and development, and inside of a culture (e.g., that of an institutional setting such as a doctoral program). As doctoral students situated within a specific learning context continue to engage in experiences designed to advance their knowledge, accompanied by achieving specific milestones related to their dissertation projects, situated learning theory posits that these learners move along a continuum of accumulated successes (Throne & Oddi, 2019). In this manner their confidence to persist develops; however, the skill of the dissertation chair in working with doctoral students must evolve as well to support the student’s transformation as the dissertation process moves from its earliest stages, where the student is more of a novice researcher, to a successful final defense of the dissertation, where the student has evolved into a scholar-practitioner. The authors of this study believe it is important to position ourselves in relation to this study topic in order to make our interests and motivations clear. The authors are adjunct faculty members at a university that offers fully online scholar-practitioner doctorate programs. At the time of this writing the authors currently function in the roles of dissertation chair and committee member. Our work has led to discussions about how to enhance student success in the dissertation journey. Methods Because this study sought the perspectives, impressions, and experiences of dissertation chairs in scholar-practitioner doctoral programs on their current practices in working with doctoral candidates, the researchers chose a qualitative approach to the research. Study participants needed to have a minimum of 1 year of experience as a dissertation chair working in the online environment with students pursuing a scholar-practitioner terminal degree. Once Institutional Review Board approval was obtained, potential participants teaching in online practitioner doctorate programs were identified for participation in the study through social media. Semi-structured interviews were used to obtain data from 11 study participants. The interview questions were designed to provide both the container that held concepts such as meetings and feedback as well as an opportunity through which those being interviewed could conversationally share their experiences and practices in working with their doctoral students. Participant information was de-identified and results were reported in aggregated form; however, in some cases participant sentiments are shared in the study findings either as nondescript quotations or as careful paraphrases so as not to compromise anyone’s identity or institutional affiliations. The interviews were digitally recorded and then reflexively explored by the authors for the emergence of patterns in the data to enable the construction of themes for more extensive analysis by the researchers (Braun, & Clarke, 2006; Braun & Clarke, 2013; Saldaña, 2016). One of the three study authors conducted the interviews while the other two authors analyzed the data, and then all authors participated in various ways with drafting of findings and conclusions. The data were also revisited several times and massaged again retrospectively as part of synthesizing learnings that resulted from the fieldwork (interviewing), deskwork (analysis), and textwork (writing) components of the research process (Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2012). Participant Demographics and Baseline Characterizes While acknowledging there are many locations from which support for student success must emanate (Muirhead & Blum, 2006), this study was designed to consider the doctoral student-mentor relationship from the perspective of 11 faculty members teaching in online scholar-practitioner doctoral programs who are currently serving in dissertation chair roles and who were interviewed for their perspectives on a variety of topics related to the doctoral mentor-mentee relationship. The gender of participants was balanced, with 6 females and 5 males participating in interviews. The participants in this study were university faculty members for an average of 11 years, with the range being 2 to 21 years. In the role of dissertation chair, the years of service ranged from 1.5 to 16 years with the average being 5.5 years. Nine of the 11 participants indicated they were matched to students based on subject matter expertise somewhat consistently, with 7 participants responding that this occurs 50% (1 respondent), 75% (2 respondents) and 100% (4 respondents) of the time. Two participants indicated an expertise match seldom happens and two indicated it happens often or consistently but did not elaborate numerically. The expectations for regular contact between the faculty member and the student varied considerably, from a low of twice in an eight-week session (1 participant), once per week (5 participants) to a high of 4-5 times per week (2 participants), and with one participant indicating their current university does not specify a minimum requirement. One participant indicated the frequency of contact depends on where the student is in the dissertation process and one stated it is dependent upon student need.

All participants noted that a compliance checklist was used for the proposal or dissertation, although one participant stated that this was not an expectation with one of two employers. Even though dissertation chairs had students they supervised through various stages or portions of the dissertation process, at the time of the interviews several participants had students in various stages short of completion, and this made it difficult for them to specify a success rate. In addition, due to variations in institutional processes, some participants took their students to the proposal stage and handed them off to other dissertation chairs to complete the remaining chapters of the dissertation. In these cases, the participants did not always know whether the students were awarded a degree. Table 1 below summarizes key elements related to participant demographics and an explanatory narrative follows.

Results and Discussion As noted in the introduction to this study, research dating to the 1970s (Heiss, 1970), continuing into the 1990s (Heinrich, 1991, 1995) and the early 2000s (Spillett & Moisiewicz, 2004; and Zhao, et al., 2007) has laid considerable blame for high rates of doctoral student attrition at the feet of universities that fail to provide enough of the right kind of support for these students, and there is general agreement that the dissertation chair-dissertation student relationship is the one element that can have the greatest impact on doctoral student completion. Much more recently, Roberts, et al. (2019) suggested that research is needed to determine the effectiveness of mentors (i.e., dissertation chairs) with respect to the meetings they hold with their mentees, the rapidity with which they provide substantive feedback, and the degree to which this feedback demonstrates that the dissertation chair cares about the student’s success. This study attempts to respond to Roberts, et al.’s (2019) call by placing the emphasis on how dissertation chairs contribute to doctoral student success, with a focus on themes that emerged in the data related to weekly contact with doctoral students (its regularity and effectiveness), giving of feedback to doctoral students (its timeliness and relevance), and experiences of dissertation chairs engaging in trust building and caring behaviors with their advisees. Conclusions follow with considerations relative to what respondents reported are the high priority best practices, in their experience, for facilitating student success through the dissertation chair-doctoral student dyad. Dissertation Chair-Dissertation Student Contact: Regularity and Modes Frequency of feedback . All participants in this study agreed that one of the highest priorities in the dissertation chair-doctoral student relationship is regular communication, and two of the respondents said “constant communication” is what is necessary to keep students focused and on track. The participants differed somewhat in how they defined “frequent” or “constant.” Most of the interview participants spoke of the importance of having voice contact with their doctoral students at least once per week, but there were three outliers. One respondent indicated that she typically has voice contact with each of her students five days a week. A second participant indicated having told students he would talk to them any time of day or night, saying, “as long as I am awake I am willing to talk to them.” On the other end of the continuum, a third respondent said at his university, it is expected that faculty make voice or audio/visual contact twice per eight-week session with each of their doctoral students. Dissertation chairs spoke of working with their students in different ways based on student needs and communication preferences. A sentiment expressed by several respondents was that they would meet with their students as often as each individual student has a need. Feedback modes. The way feedback to students is facilitated is at least partially dependent upon tools made available for faculty members through their institution’s website or learning platform. One commonality in responses was that the tools individual universities provide to faculty members for communicating with students or accepting their work electronically can at times be less than ideal. Thus, electronic modes of communication between dissertation chairs and their students facilitated through university online learning platforms were often supplemented by other Web-based or digital tools by the participants in this study. A few participants mentioned the use of online chat rooms associated with their institution’s virtual campus, as well as electronic instant messenger systems accessible through the virtual classroom; however, most of the participants revealed a preference for working with their students using Web-based meeting spaces not associated with their institutional resources, with Zoom being the runaway favorite, followed by Skype and Webex. Three participants reported they use any Web-based meeting space that the student prefers. Outside of the institutional learning platform environment and stand-alone Web-based applications, all participants discussed the use of other electronic/digital tools for providing feedback and enabling conversation. Regular email and voice-to-voice phone contact were mentioned by all participants, and many of them interacted on a regular basis with their students via cellphone. Texting was also used by several of the participants. Feedback embedded in the proposal or dissertation manuscript was provided to students on a regular basis by most participants, with the majority using margin comments to provide students with feedback and some incorporating track changes in manuscript drafts. Thus, the theme of the preference for individualized responses to student needs and practices mentioned in relation to feedback frequency was echoed in comments about feedback modalities as well. The consensus among the study participants was to do whatever works best for the student, as long as useful feedback can be provided. Timeliness, Effectiveness, and Relevance of Feedback Timeliness of feedback . Participants noted that during the dissertation process there are many occasions where time is at a premium and feedback must be given to students quickly and yet thoroughly. Many different approaches were mentioned by participants as tools used to expeditiously provide feedback. The use of some type of rubric was mentioned by several participants, which included official rubrics supplied by the institution, as well as instructor-created rubrics. Another common approach is to employ text highlighting, margin comments inserted in the manuscript, and/or track changes that draw a student’s attention quickly to problem areas in a draft. Several participants also mentioned the use of Web-based meeting sites in which they can screen share a manuscript draft with a student and go through comments line-by-line so there is an opportunity for dialogue about necessary modifications. One thing that was reinforced by many of the participants is that it does not work for them to utilize a one-size-fits-all approach and expect it to work equally well with every student. In the dissertation journey, particularly in many practitioner doctorate contexts, timeframes for making revisions and corrections of a research proposal and later of the full dissertation manuscript are often short. In this process dissertation chairs fulfill a vital role that requires them to be highly available to their students, conscientious with respect to the timely return of reviewed manuscript chapters, and willing to manage committee members who are also participating in this process. As the research project moves forward, the chair also ensures it clears the institutional review hurdle and at appropriate points is shared with other committee members for their input. Typically, the dissertation chair oversees revisions and corrections of the complete dissertation manuscript, leads the dissertation defense, and ensures post-defense modifications are completed to the committee’s satisfaction. The participants in this study indicated that throughout this process one of their highest priorities in working with their doctoral students is simply to be available to them and to work with them frequently. This generalized availability also extends to other aspects of feedback such as content (what is said) and style (how it is said), and is associated with the need for feedback to be effective and relevant. Effectiveness and relevance of feedback . Participants frequently offered the observation that to be effective, feedback related to the dissertation process needs to be tailored to each student’s needs, and therefore the emphasis on one-on-one communication designed for each specific individual is required to promote doctoral student success. Effective feedback is also relevant feedback; however, relevance is not confined solely to the dissertation process. For all participants, this extended to having conversations with students that go beyond the dissertation itself to matters related to how well they are coping emotionally with the dissertation process, and the degree to which it has taken over their lives. One participant remarked that if a dissertation chair is in tune with a student she will sense when there are times that the student does not want to “talk about the research” and just needs to feel a connection to the dissertation chair. The ability of the chair to offer a certain degree of coaching and guidance to the doctoral student at a more personal level also affects whether the communication between the members of the dyad will be effective. Participants in this study pointed to the notion of effectiveness when discussing the importance of trust in the dissertation chair-doctoral student dyad. If there is no trust present in the student’s assessment of the dissertation chair’s competency or level of care, it is perhaps less likely the feedback will be heard in a way that makes it actionable by the student. Thus, the effectiveness of the relationship is central and must have at least some depth to promote student success. It was also clear that an effective dissertation chair-doctoral student relationship is not a hierarchical one. While it is not necessarily a true partnership, it is not the role of the dissertation chair to control and/or limit the dialogue to fit her own preferences for how the dissertation should be crafted or to be “in charge of” the result. Yet, at the same time the dissertation chair must facilitate the development of the doctoral student’s ownership of the dissertation outcome while simultaneously ensuring university requirements are satisfied. Respondents spoke of feedback relevance as being like a companion to feedback effectiveness when they commented on the need for the doctoral student to be able to trust the chair for guidance in relation to the study topic, the research methodology, research design, and/or writing and formatting requirements. Participants noted that in their institutional environments they may sometimes serve as a dissertation chair because they are a subject matter expert in the student’s discipline or topic area, and at other times they may be placed in this role because of a specific methodological expertise. In these circumstances, the dissertation chair must know when to reach out to her colleagues as a kind of broker to get the correct, necessary assistance for their doctoral student from a different faculty member, whether that is regarding topical content or research methodology/design. The bottom line is to get each individual student what he or she needs when it is needed. Two participants said one of the areas they do not tend to provide a lot of feedback is related to writing, because they do not feel this is their job or their area of expertise. Both suggested writing centers and/or editors were more appropriate sources for assistance with writing. On the other hand, two respondents took the opposite view, indicating they felt feedback on writing is something they can and should provide to enhance the overall quality of the doctoral student’s work. Scholarly Expectations Part of the dissertation chair role is to help a doctoral student evolve from being overly dependent on faculty advice to having their own ideas and being able to articulate and defend those ideas. Although the dissertation chair serves in a gatekeeper capacity for their university (ensuring students produce work that meets their university’s requirements) the chair must balance this institutional role with their role in supporting the student’s growth and development from non-researcher, to novice researcher, to independent scholar-practitioner. Resiliency and persistence were mentioned by several participants in this study. Companion concepts were identified as consistency, constancy, and camaraderie. An important component of the dissertation chair role is to act as a partner with the doctoral student. The dissertation chair brings their scholarly experience as well as their student support experience into the role of working with a doctoral student through the dissertation process and journey. Despite the gatekeeper responsibilities, the dissertation chair helps the student transition into a new level of largely student-driven but dissertation chair-guided work. It is vitally important for the dissertation chair to understand that while their guidance and expertise plays an important role, the study belongs to the student. It is their topic, their dream, and their mission to advance. The dissertation chair must facilitate movement of the student into the center of the process, and participants in this study pointed to the necessity for the dissertation chair to make their expectations clear (which also represent the expectations of the university) while at the same time helping the doctoral student to see that it is not the dissertation chair’s study to own . The dissertation belongs to the student and supporting doctoral student agency is a crucial piece of the doctoral student success puzzle, but student agency cannot be achieved in the dissertation chair-doctoral student relationship without establishing high levels of mutual trust and rapport. One participant added that in environments where the dissertation chair-student relationship is primarily or wholly virtual, this relationship building requires extra vigilance. The expectation to become a scholar-practitioner involves learning to represent oneself in a scholarly voice, learning to conduct original research, and learning to tell the story of that research in a way that is consistent with a field of scholarship and practice, as well as with the research methodology chosen for the study. The dissertation chair might be thought of, in these processes, as a transformer, one who enables the two-way flow of energy that moves back and forth as this relationship evolves. Participants in this study spoke of this relationship as more than a professional one. There are many times when the student does not want to interact only in relation to the dissertation study but rather on a more personal level. Conclusion: Best Practices for Doctoral Student Success in the Dissertation Process It takes a village to mint a new doctor. Support from many corners of the individual’s world must be brought to bear over a period of several years to increase the chances that this person will eventually walk down the aisle to don the doctoral hood. Looking in from the outside, this support can range from spouses to children to extended family to coworkers and beyond. Peering at the doctoral journey from inside the university, the support comes from the faculty members who teach academic subject courses, student advisors, library staff, and support services staff (e.g., the writing center), but it has been argued that ultimately the individuals who have the most wide-ranging impact on the likelihood of a doctoral student’s success are the student him- or herself (Bagaka’s, Badillo, Bransteter & Rispinto, 2015) and the dissertation chair (Rigler, Bowlin, Sweat, Watts, Throne, 2017; Roberts, et al, 2019; Sugimoto, 2012). A growing body of literature on the dissertation chair-doctoral student relationship has noted the connection between the efficacy and strength of this relationship and student persistence to completion of the doctoral degree (Black, 2017; Gray & Crosta, 2018; Rigler et al., 2017; Roberts et al., 2019; Throne & Oddi, 2019; Throne, Shaw, Fore, O’Connor Duffy, & Clowes, 2015). Factors framed as being supportive; demonstrating a willingness to commit to providing a high level of mentoring; and fostering an interactive, connected, collaborative rather than a hierarchical relationship are recognized as being key elements of doctoral student success (Baghurst, 2013; Roberts, et al., 2019; Throne & Duffy, 2016; Throne et al., 2015; Throne & Oddi, 2019). These conclusions from relevant literature are consistent with what was reported by the participants in this study, though the specific focus of this research was limited to the role of various types of behavior as it relates to ensuring regular contact and providing feedback to doctoral students to strengthen their resilience and enhance the likelihood of their persistence to the successful completion of the doctoral journey. Trust Building and Caring Behaviors The dissertation chairs interviewed for this study agreed that trust building is one of the most important aspects of the dissertation chair role, and that without taking time to build trust the dissertation chair-doctoral student dyad is less effective. Participants called trust “imperative,” “crucial,” and “number one, at the head of the list most important thing a chair must do.” It is as though this intentionally built relationship must function as a ‘safe container’ within which these two individuals interact, and while it is a dyad that exists primarily to guide a doctoral student through the completion of the dissertation, it is also a location in which an important relationship is built. One participant pointed out, that the relationship can be long-term and noted that she sometimes publishes work with former students. Another participant spoke of how easily the relationship can flounder, or perhaps not even get off the ground successfully, in circumstances where the doctoral student does not appear interested in establishing the relationship and/or it is difficult to build and sustain a positive, trusting relationship between student and dissertation chair. A third noted that the trusting relationship cuts both ways, e.g. the chair must be able to trust the student will follow through on necessary modifications to a manuscript and the student must be able to trust that she or he will be provided with trustworthy and timely feedback. One respondent spoke of the friendship component of the dissertation chair-doctoral student relationship that can develop and yet this individual and others also reflected upon the reality that the relationship must be grounded in the understanding that the chair, while being there to offer support, must also ensure that focus remains on getting the doctoral student successfully to the completion of the doctoral journey. This very often means having to give feedback that is difficult for the student to hear. However, there was a consensus that if students experience the dissertation chair as knowledgeable enough, while they may not like getting negative feedback, they are nevertheless aware that being held to specific expectations is ultimately for their benefit. Participants seemed to be sensitive to the reality that there needs to be a fine balance in terms of how the dissertation chair behaves in relation to the student and that the environment must make mutual trust possible. The dissertation chair-doctoral student dyads that seem to work the best, according to these respondents, are those in which if a student sometimes feels the chair is being “hard” on them they can also recognize that this “hardness” is justified in the interest of facilitating the student’s success. Respondents mentioned the importance of setting expectations clearly in the early days of the dyad’s inception and reinforcing these expectations as necessary. Individualized Coaching and Guidance Study participants repeatedly returned to the notion that the dissertation chair, to be successful, must approach each student as an individual where coaching and guidance are concerned as opposed to having a one-size-fits-all approach. The relationship evolves over time and the doctoral student becomes more confident over time as they grow in knowledge. While all doctoral students must be guided in relation to their specific university’s expectations, each of those students have unique needs, working styles, problems, and goals with respect to their studies. In supervising the dissertation process for each of their students, the dissertation chair must cultivate the capability of being able to discern how to work with each student as the process proceeds and the dissertation chair and doctoral student get to know each other and become more comfortable with one another. At times this means the chair must know when she needs to bring in some extra help; not every chair is a subject matter expert in a specific student’s research topic and not every chair can be a methods expert for all her students. In another vein, responding to the individual needs of each doctoral student also means the dissertation chair must be adept at knowing when and how to apply different mentoring styles, where one end of a continuum might be expressed in terms of being more directive with a student to ensure dissertation quality expectations are achieved, while at the opposite end of the continuum one might employ a mentoring style that is more laid back or flexible . Furthermore, participants noted that throughout the lifecycle of the dissertation journey each student is going to have different needs related to various steps in the process. For example, while one student may need more hand holding in relation to understanding data analysis, another student may run into difficulty where participant recruitment is concerned. Each case is different, and the dissertation chair must be prescient with respect to both intuiting and inquiring to determine how best to support their doctoral students as individuals. In addition, while several participants in this study agreed that the writing capabilities of a student play an important role in the crafting of a quality dissertation, not everyone expressed that they felt especially competent to act as a writing tutor. One context in which writing proficiency was addressed in this study resulted from an interview question about the online education environment becoming more diverse and whether the participants had given thought to supporting students from diverse backgrounds. Several participants interpreted diversity as being about the kind of individual need for support that arises in the context of working with doctoral students who come from different cultures and are not native English speakers/writers. While these respondents noted that their institutions either currently have or are working to create programs designed to support a more culturally diverse student body, as dissertation chairs their emphasis when asked this ‘diversity question’ was primarily about the need to be nimble enough in their work with individual students to support them effectively in relation to writing challenges that arise from language differences. For several of the dissertation chairs who participated in this study, working with students from different cultural backgrounds provided them with opportunities to expand their own horizons. One participant pointed out, that cultural differences sometimes mean people approach problems in different ways or perceive working together differently, and understanding these differences aids the dissertation chair in learning about additional ways to provide feedback to students. In the end, it seems being faced with cultural differences opens a window onto a view from which working with students as individuals, rather than in a rote manner, is a key to helping a doctoral student achieve a completed and successfully defended dissertation. Balancing Institutional Requirements and Student Needs One thread that ran through this study, expressed by participants in relation to several of the interview questions, was how they work to mentor students with individual needs against the backdrop of institutional requirements. As pointed out by one participant, “chairs need to have the latitude to be more organic with each student,” rather than working with each student in the exact same way. Several noted that the leadership of doctoral programs where they are employed as dissertation chairs require them to meet with students “X” number of times a week or per session, and yet some students may need to meet with them more often whereas others generally require less contact, or their needs to meet with their chair shift along with where the student is situated along the various steps of the dissertation process. What is termed “research supervisor agency” in some of the literature suggests that this concept is a partner to the concept of doctoral student agency (Rigler et al., 2017; Throne & Walters, 2019). It was also noted that some institutions have policies, or stated preferences, that dissertation chair-doctoral student contact occur through specific tools/mechanisms and/or that feedback be provided using specific approaches (e.g., embedded feedback on manuscripts using margin comments or track changes). Most of the participants in this study suggested that what is a best practice for supporting and communicating with one student may need to be different for another student. As put by one respondent, institutions need to “give chairs and students the opportunity to decide what works best for them on a case-by-case basis.” Participants in this study spoke in varying ways about the importance of building rapport and relationship with each of their doctoral students. This was asserted as crucial to ensure that the way feedback from the chair is received by the student promotes growth and development as opposed to discouraging progress. For feedback on manuscript components to be regarded as constructive there must first be put into place the understanding that the study being completed belongs to the student, not to the dissertation chair. One respondent pointed out that while he makes his expectations clear about what constitutes a quality product, he balances this with the clear communication that the study is theirs: the student must meet the institution’s stated requirements, but at the same time they need to travel down their own path and defend their own ideas. Another participant pointed out the importance of “teaching through engagement” and that the dissertation chair is there to support their efforts, not “to beat them up.” Feedback on a dissertation a student has been working on for a considerable amount of time may be “hard to swallow” and therefore should be delivered in a way that is encouraging and results from a relationship in which solid rapport has been built. This is consistent with recent research (Throne & Oddi, 2019; Throne & Walters, 2019) that suggests doctoral student success owes a great deal to the building of dissertation chair-doctoral student relationships grounded in regular, ongoing communication and feedback processes that are diverse, so students’ unique needs can be met; empathetic, so students know they will have emotional as well as academic support through the inevitable rough spots along the dissertation journey; collaborative and trusting rather than hierarchical and distant, thereby acknowledging the study belongs to the student, not the chair; and mentoring oriented, so that doctoral student agency is an outgrowth of the dissertation chair’s agency. Recommendations for Future Research There are several avenues for pursuit of robust understanding of best practices in the dissertation chair-doctoral student relationship. The present study findings could be expanded through a quantitative project that invites a larger number of dissertation chairs from the target population to evaluate the best practices identified through this current study. In addition, the authors of this research noted that while there is a growing body of literature that explores the dissertation chair-doctoral student relationship from the viewpoint of the dissertation chair, there is comparatively little literature that examines this dyad from the point of view of the doctoral student. One approach to this effort would be to invite graduates of online scholar-practitioner doctoral programs to offer their reflections and suggestions in their relationship with their dissertation chair as an important piece in the puzzle of understanding how to enhance the effectiveness of the dissertation chair-doctoral student relationship. Finally, doctoral students certainly differ in their specific needs for support overall and at varying moments in the dissertation journey, and dissertation chairs differ in their mentoring styles. Given this, the authors suggest there is a need for in-depth investigation into best mentoring practices for improving the online doctoral student engagement along the various steps in the dissertation journey to improve their persistence to completion of degree.

Bagaka’s, J.G., Badillo, N., Bransteter, I. & Rispinto, S. (2015). Exploring student success in a doctoral program: The power of mentorship and research engagement. International Journal of Doctoral Studies , (10): 323-342. doi: http://ijds.org/Volume10/IJDSv10p323-342Bagaka1713.pdf

Baghurst, T. (2013). Demographic and attitudinal factors influencing doctoral student satisfaction. Canadian Social Science , 9 (6), 47–56. doi:10.3968/j.css.1923669720130906.3040

Bair, C.R. & Haworth, J.G. (1999) Doctoral student attrition and persistence: A meta-synthesis of research . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education San Antonio, Texas. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED437008.pdf

Black, R. (2017) E-Mentoring the online doctoral student from the dissertation prospectus through dissertation completion. The Journal of Learning in Higher Education 13 (1), 1-8.

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners . London, England: SAGE Publications, Ltd

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology , (3): 77-101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Burrus, S. W. M., Fiore, T. D., & Shaw, M. E. (2019). Predictors of online doctoral student success: A quantitative study. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 22 (4), 1-7.

Council of Graduate Schools. (2008). Ph.D. completion and attrition: Analysis of baseline program data from the Ph.D. completion project . Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools. Retrieved from https://cgsnet.org/phd-completion-project

Gray, M. A. & Crosta, L. (2018): New perspectives in online doctoral supervision: A systematic literature review. Studies in Continuing Education , 1-18. doi:10.1080/0158037X.2018.1532405

Heinrich, K.T. (1991). Loving partnerships: Dealing with sexual attraction and power in doctoral advisement relationships. Journal of Higher Education , 62(5), 514-538.

Henrich, K.T. (1995). Doctoral advisement relationships between women: On friendship and betrayal. Journal of Higher Education , 66(4), 447-469. doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1991.11774150

Heiss, A.M. (1970). Challenges to graduate schools . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lave, J. (1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. In L. B. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 63–82). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10096-003

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation . New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815355

Muirhead, B., & Blum, K. D. (2006). Advising online dissertation students. Educational Technology & Society , 9 (1), 1-8. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/je...

Rigler, K., Bowlin, L., Sweat, K., Watts, S., & Throne, R. (2017). Agency, socialization, and support: A critical review of doctoral student attrition. 3rd International Conference on Doctoral Education . Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?q=ED580853&id=ED580853

Roberts, L. R., Tinari, C. M., & Bandlow, R. (2019). An effective doctoral student mentor wears many hats and asks many questions. International Journal of Doctoral Studies , 14 (1), 133–159. doi.org/10.28945/4195

Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Schwartz-Shea, P. & Yanow, D. (2012). Interpretive research design: Concepts and processes . New York, NY: Routledge.

Spillett, M.A., Moisiewicz, K.A. (2004). Cheerleader, coach, counselor, critic: Support and challenge roles of the dissertation advisor. College Student Journal , (38)2, 246-256. Retrieved from https://www.questia.com/library/p1917/college-student-journal

Sugimoto. C. R. (2012). Are you my mentor? Identifying mentors and their roles in LIS doctoral education. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science . (54)1, 2-19. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/23249093

Throne, R., & Duffy, J. (2016). Situated EdD dissertation advising in an online doctoral community of practice . WSCUC Academic Resource Conference, Garden Grove, CA. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.31563.28963

Throne, R., Shaw, M., Fore, C., O’Connor Duffy, J., & Clowes, M. (2015). Doctoral candidate milestone achievement: A philosophy for situated dissertation advising. Eighth International Conference on e-Learning and Innovative Pedagogies, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA.

Throne, R. & Oddi, B.T. (2019). Dissertation research supervisor agency for U.S. online doctoral research supervision. Handbook of research on faculty development for digital teaching and learning . IGI Global. doi: 10.4018/978-1-5225-8476-6.ch010

Throne, R. & Walters, K. (2019). Doctoral research supervisor agency: Fostering engagement in guiding U.S. online practitioner doctorates. 15th International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Zhao, C.M., Golde, C.M. & McCormick, A.C. (2007). More than a signature: How advisor choice and advisor behavior affect doctoral student satisfaction. Journal of Further and Higher Education . 31(3), 263-281. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/030987...

Search this site

Division of graduate studies menu, division of graduate studies, dissertation committee policy, dissertation committees.

The dissertation committee supervises a student’s dissertation work, determines the acceptability of the dissertation, and serves as the final examining committee.

Full Graduate Faculty Policy

The dissertation committee must be on file with the Division of Graduate Studies no later than 6 months prior to the final oral defense.

Appointment Procedures

Each department or program determines its own internal dissertation committee approval procedures. After the dissertation committee is approved by the department, the Graduate Coordinator submits the committee recommendation in GradWeb.

Once the Division of Graduate Studies has reviewed and approved the committee, the student and department will receive an email confirming that the committee has been approved by the Division of Graduate Studies.

Departmental policies for membership of doctoral committees should be guided by Division of Graduate Studies policy, but may be more restrictive than Division of Graduate Studies School policy. Petitions for exceptions to Division of Graduate Studies committee policies may be submitted using the general petition form .

Committee Membership

The dissertation committee consists of a minimum of four members , each with a particular role:

• 2 Core Members

Institutional Representative

• Committees in Biology, Chemistry and Biochemistry, and Physics also have an Advisor separate from the Chair

The chair has principal responsibility for advising the student. They should have adequate time available for this work and should expect to be accessible to the student.

If co-chairs are appointed, both co-chairs share the responsibility for the student's progress

The following requirements apply:

The chair must be a tenure-related member of the graduate faculty who holds a doctoral degree.

For a tenure-related member of the graduate faculty from a department other than the student’s degree-granting department, the student’s department must have authorized that faculty member to serve as chair (or co-chair) using the dissertation committee service nomination form .

Once a faculty member is authorized to chair in another department, they remain authorized to chair in that department indefinitely, or until the department asks to change the faculty member’s status.

Once authorized to serve in that capacity for a department, the faculty member can no longer serve as institutional representative for the department on future committees.

In those departments in which dissertation committees have both a chair and an advisor, the advisor(s) of a committee must be able and willing to assume principal responsibility for advising the student.

They should have adequate time available for this work and should expect to be accessible to the student. If co-advisors are appointed, both co-advisors share the responsibility for the student's progress.

In addition, the following requirements apply:

The faculty member must be a member of the graduate faculty with authorization to serve as advisor.

• Professors of practice may be appointed to the graduate faculty and granted authorization to serve as a dissertation advisor in the student’s degree-granting department.

For a member of the graduate faculty from a department other than the student’s degree-granting department, the student’s department must have authorized that faculty member to serve as advisor using the dissertation committee service nomination form .

Once a faculty member is authorized to serve as advisor in another department, the authorization remains indefinitely, or until the department asks to change the faculty member’s status.

Once authorized to serve as an advisor for a department, the faculty member can no longer serve as institutional representative for the department on future committees, except in the:

• Department of Biology
• Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
• Department of Physics

In these departments, if the advisor is not a member of the degree-granting department, the institutional representative must be from a different department or research institute than the advisor.

Core Members

At least one core member must be a member of the graduate faculty (including non-tenure-related members) from the student’s degree-granting department.

The remaining member may be a:

Member of the graduate faculty from the student’s degree-granting department

• Member of the graduate faculty from another UO department

Non-tenure-track faculty member who is not a member of the graduate faculty

Faculty member from another college or university

• Qualified practicing professional or community member

The institutional representative serves in the role of impartial, “outside” committee member who ensures that all rules and standard practices governing committee procedures are followed.

The institutional representative typically also offers substantive expertise related to the dissertation, although that is not required.

The institutional representative must meet the following requirements:

Must be a tenure-related member of the graduate faculty .

Must be from a University of Oregon department other than the student’s degree-granting department.

In the departments of biology, chemistry and biochemistry, and physics, where there the role of chair and advisor are separate, if the advisor is not a member of the degree-granting department, the institutional representative must be from a different department or research institute than the advisor.

Additional Core Members (optional)

Additional members may be appointed to the dissertation committee, at the discretion of the student’s degree-granting department.

An additional core nember may be a:

Interdisciplinary Doctoral Degree Programs

Each interdisciplinary degree program shall maintain a list of faculty members appointed to the program for purposes of graduate faculty membership and designated by the department as eligible to serve as chairs/advisors and core members or as core members only.

If a faculty member is appointed to serve as chairs/advisors or core members, they may not serve as institutional representatives for committees in that program.

• Public Lectures
• Faculty & Staff Site >>

Forming an Interdisciplinary Dissertation Committee

Doctoral students in interdisciplinary programs face unique challenges in forming dissertation committees. Based on our experience as directors of three such programs (Public Health Genetics, Urban Design and Planning, and Astrobiology), we offer the following suggestions.

Your first challenge

Find the optimal set of members — especially the right chair (or two co-chairs) for your committee. Committee members need to:

• be the best match for your intellectual interests
• have the expertise to help you succeed in designing and completing your dissertation
• be able to help you prepare for your career

In planning for a dissertation, you should consult extensively with faculty members in your program for guidance about:

• potential research questions
• planning/timing methodology
• potential committee members

The role of the committee

The final decision about the appropriate content of your project rests with the dissertation supervisory committee. You should work closely with the committee (especially the chair) to determine your project’s scope and content. The committee will guide your research and should meet regularly with you. Being sure you and your committee agree on what is meant by “regular” meetings is also a good idea. You may find it useful to meet individually with the members and obtain their feedback at several stages of your dissertation process. The interdisciplinary nature of your work may require that feedback at an advanced stage of your dissertation will be provided by the committee in an integrated form. You may want to discuss with your chair how the committee could produce a collective memo integrating their shared feedback.

The composition of dissertation committees

The dissertation supervisory committee must have at least four members, including the chair and the Graduate School representative (GSR). At least three committee members (including the chair and the GSR) must be UW graduate faculty members with an endorsement to chair doctoral committees; a majority of your committee members must be graduate faculty members, identifiable through the  Graduate Faculty Locator .

Committee members should include faculty expertise in your dissertation’s core fields. You might consider having five members, especially if your project involves different disciplines requiring advice and guidance in all areas. Four committee members must attend general and final exams — so having five on your committee provides flexibility if one member cannot attend. However, having more than four committee members may make it more difficult for them to find time to work together.

Selecting a Graduate School representative

You must select the Graduate School representative for your committee by consulting with your chair, other committee members, and/or program directors. The GSR votes and represents the interests of the Graduate School. GSR requirements:

• be a graduate faculty member
• have an endorsement to chair doctoral committees
• no conflict of interest with you or your committee chair

Also, the GSR may not have an official faculty appointment within your committee chair’s department(s) or the department in which your program is housed. This can be challenging for students in interdisciplinary programs. Exceptions to this rule can be made, with appropriate justification, by petition to the dean of the Graduate School.

by Professor Emeritus Melissa Austin, Public Health Genetics; Marina Alberti, professor, Urban Design and Planning; and Woody Sullivan, professor, Astrobiology

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Graduate School Updates>

The latest COVID-19 news and information is available at  Penn State's Coronavirus Information website . 

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Update

On March 11 th  the University announced that beginning March 16 th  instruction for all students will be moving to a remote delivery format. Graduate students enrolled in resident courses should plan on participating remotely, and not coming to campus specifically for face-to-face instruction. Learn more at gradschool.psu.edu/covid19 .

Internet Explorer Detected

The Penn State Graduate School website is best experienced in Firefox or Google Chrome. It is highly recommended that you use an alternative browser.

GCAC-602 Ph.D. Committee Formation, Composition, and Review - Research Doctorate

Ph.d. committee formation, composition, and review - research doctorate.

To describe when and how a Ph.D. student’s Ph.D. committee is formed and maintained through the course of their degree program of study.

Academic Goal

To ensure that all research doctoral students benefit from the expert advice and assistance of multiple members of the Graduate Faculty.

All students enrolled in programs of study leading to the Ph.D.

Background keyboard_arrow_down

Definitions keyboard_arrow_down, policy statement.

• Each Ph.D. student shall have an appointed Ph.D. Committee to guide their research training.
• The guiding principle for members of the Ph.D. Committee is the success of the student.
• While it is expected that the Graduate Program Head will consult with the student, the student’s adviser, and as appropriate the dual-title and/or minor Graduate Program Head, the Graduate Program Head is responsible for nominating members of the Ph.D. Committee to the Graduate School, designating Ph.D. Committee member roles, and ensuring appropriate Ph.D. Committee composition that is in the best interests of the student and the completion of their dissertation. Ph.D. Committees must be approved by the Dean of the Graduate School.
• The Dean of the Graduate School may appoint one or more members to the Ph.D. Committee in addition to those recommended by the Graduate Program Head.
• Minimum Ph.D. Committee Membership: A student’s Ph.D. Committee shall consist at minimum of four members of the Graduate Faculty, each of whom shall be in a position to contribute substantially to the student’s education. At least two of these four members shall be from the student's major graduate program.
• For students pursuing dual-title degrees, either the Ph.D. Committee Chair or a co-Chair must be a Graduate Faculty member of the dual-title program.
• Where day-to-day guidance is shared by two members of the Graduate Faculty, both may be appointed to the Ph.D. Committee as co-Advisers.
• Co-advisers are jointly and severally responsible for the day-to-day guidance of the student’s dissertation research, and academic and professional development.
• A Dissertation Advisor may also serve as the Ph.D. Committee Chair (or co-Chair).
• Outside Field Member: Each Ph.D. Committee shall have appointed at least one Outside Field Member. The Outside Field Member must have a disciplinary expertise different from the student’s primary field of study, and is responsible for broadening the disciplinary perspective available to the student and the Ph.D. Committee. The Outside Field Member may be from student’s graduate program, but may not also serve as a major program member. In cases where the candidate is also pursuing a dual-title program, any dual-title Graduate Faculty member of the Ph.D. Committee may serve as the Outside Field Member.
• Outside Unit Member(s): Each Ph.D. Committee shall have appointed at least one Outside Unit Member. The Outside Unit Member is responsible for bringing to the attention of the student and the Ph.D. Committee [non-academic] issues (including, for example, conflicts of interest) that may impact a student’s progress. Outside Unit Members must have their primary academic appointment in an administrative unit different than the Ph.D. Committee Chair(s) and Dissertation Adviser(s).
• Minor Program Member(s): Ph.D. Committees assigned to students pursuing graduate minors shall include at least one Minor Program Member for each graduate minor. Each graduate minor pursued by a student shall be represented by at least one Minor Program Member who is a member of the Graduate Faculty and a member of that minor graduate program. Minor Program Members are responsible for providing the student and the Ph.D. Committee with information, advice and perspective on student progress in fulfilling the graduate minor requirements in the graduate program they represent.
• Special Members: Ph.D. Committees may include Special Members who are not members of the Graduate Faculty but are otherwise qualified and have particular expertise in the student’s research area. Special Members do not have to be affiliated with Penn State.
• Annual Review of Ph.D. Committee Membership: It is crucial that all committee members remain actively engaged in the guidance of the student through the completion of their program. The Graduate Program Head of the student’s major program shall review annually each student’s Ph.D. Committee to ensure that all Ph.D. Committee members continue to qualify for service in their designated roles. The Graduate Program Head is responsible for promptly making any necessary changes and informing the Graduate School.
• Ph.D. Committee Members who retire or become emeritus may continue to serve for the duration of the student’s program if they were appointed to the Ph.D. Committee in this role prior to retirement, and they have the continuing approval of the student’s Graduate Program Head and the Graduate School. (In the case of students pursuing a dual-title degree, the dual-title Graduate Program Head must also approve.)
• As specified in 5 (above) it is the responsibility of the Graduate Program Head to ensure that all Ph.D. Committee members continue to qualify for service in their designated roles. The Graduate Program Head will review the committee membership whenever any committee member retires to ensure that students receive expert faculty guidance through their dissertation project.
• When Ph.D. Committee Members Leave the University: Ph.D. Committee Members in any role who leave Penn State for reasons other than retiring or becoming emeritus may maintain their committee appointment for up to one year with the approval of the student's Graduate Program Head and the Dean of the Graduate School.
• Other Changes in Ph.D. Committee Membership: If the need for Ph.D. Committee membership change is required, whether at the time of an annual review or otherwise, the student’s major Graduate Program Head will promptly make the necessary changes and notify the director of Graduate Enrollment Services.

INSERT PROCESS HERE

P1 - Ph.D. Committee Formation, Composition, and Review - Research Doctorate

insert_drive_file Research Doctoral Committee Appointment Form

Further Information

Cross-references.

INSERT CROSS-REFERENCES HERE (REPEAT BELOW p AS NECCESSARY)

list CROSS_REFERENCE_NAME

Revision History

• This policy was revised extensively. Note that the name change from “Candidacy Examination” to “Qualifying Examination” was approved as part of this policy change.

Dissertation Committee

The dissertation committee form affirms that a candidate has an approved  proposal or prospectus and that their  dissertation committee  is formed in accordance with program policies.  

DEADLINE: March 15 of the student’s fourth year or be placed on academic probation.

How to submit an approved dissertation committee form

The dissertation committee form is available in the Laney Connect Hub . Log in with your Emory credentials and follow the instructions to locate and submit the form.

Please note: if you have an external member of your committee, you will need to attach either a completed approval or a request for approval with a CV of the proposed member.

The Laney Graduate School team will review the form and confirm that the committee meets LGS policy requirements. You and your program administrator will receive a confirmation email when you submit the form and it is approved.

How to “Change” or add a “New” member of a committee*

The dissertation committee form is available in the Laney Connect Hub , in the "Milestones" section.  Log in with your Emory credentials and follow the instructions to locate and submit the form.

Please note:  If you have an external member of your committee, you will need to attach either a completed approval or a request for approval with a CV of the proposed member.

Note: If your committee changes, you MUST submit documentation as soon as the change occurs . If there is a discrepancy between the members listed on the committee form and other dissertation-related materials IT CAN delay your graduation.

Timing and Sanction

Student must obtain approval no later than March 15 of their fourth year. 

Students who do not meet this deadline will be placed on academic probation, will not be eligible for PDS funds, and may forfeit financial support.  These sanctions will be lifted when the student files a dissertation committee form.

Membership and Request for External Committee Members

The Laney Graduate School policies for dissertation committee membership are in the LGS Handbook .  Below is an outline.  Programs may have additional policies, and dissertation committees must meet both program and Laney Graduate School requirements.

• At least three members of the dissertation committee must be Laney Graduate School faculty.
• Emory faculty who are not Laney Graduate School faculty may serve on the committee, but do not count towards the three LGS faculty requirement.
• Members of the Emory community who are not faculty may serve on the committee with the Dean's permission.  Instructions are below.
• Scholars at other institutions may serve on the committee with the Dean's permission.  Instructions are below. 
• When a dissertation committee member, co-chair/co-advisor, and chair/advisor who is an LGS faculty member either moves from Emory to another academic or research institution or retires, he or she can continue to serve as an LGS faculty member for a limited time.  See the Handbook for details.

External Committee Member Request

• This applies to proposed members in categories 3 and 4 above.
• The request should be made by the Director of Graduate Studies / Program Director, in the form of a memo addressed to the Dean of the Laney Graduate School.
• The request should explain how the proposed member will contribute to the candidate's committee, and describe the expertise the proposed member brings.
• The request should be accompanied by the proposed member's current CV.
• The request should list the LGS graduate faculty members who are currently participating on the dissertation committee.
• The request should be submitted with the LGS dissertation committee form.
• If the request was submitted independently, before the LGS dissertation committee form, then the email giving permission should be uploaded with the LGS dissertation committee form.

Requesting an Extension for Chair/Advisor of the Dissertation Committee

If the faculty member who serves as a the Chair or Co-Chair of your committee left Emory and has served for the full amount of time allowed under our policy in the LGS Handbook, it is possible to request an extension to allow the member to continue to serve for a limited additional period.  This request is made by the Director of Graduate Studies/Program Director on behalf of the former Laney Graduate School faculty member.

The form for requesting an extension is in the Laney Connect Hub . Log in with your Emory credentials and follow the instructions to locate and submit the form.

Effective Date and Previous Policy

This policy was effective starting fall semester 2017.   Students who started their programs before the fall of 2017 must meet the dissertation committee deadline in effect when they first enrolled, and must have an approved dissertation committee no later than August 1 before their fifth year of study.   Students who started their programs before the fall of 2017 will not be placed on probation if they fail to meet the dissertation proposal defense deadline.

For students who started their degree programs prior to fall 2017, please refer to the previous candidacy policy and associated requirements (found most recently in the  LGS Handbook ).

• Remember me Not recommended on shared computers

Forgot your password?

• Education Forums

Advice regarding PhD Committee Co-Chair

By sam2016 April 1, 2016 in Education Forums

Recommended Posts

I am a 2nd year PhD student. I have a great committee. My advisor is extremely helpful as well. However, lately, I've been working closely with one of my other committee members as well. This professor has been as invested in my dissertation as my advisor. So, recently, he told me that if he continues to have the same level of investment of time and effort, he would like to be a co-advisor. Now, my advisor and this professor share a good chemistry as well and they've been on advising committees to other students in the past (not in the capacity of a chair/co-chair though). This professor was confident that my advisor won't have any problem with this idea. However, I am not sure how to discuss this with my advisor. I am very nervous that he may be upset with this development and interpret it as a lapse on his guidance to me (which is certainly not my intention). Any advice on how I should proceed with this?

Link to comment

Share on other sites.

I assume that these two advisors do not share the same strengths. If that is the case, perhaps it would be easiest to explain that you've benefitted so much from your current advisor's strengths in A, B, and C, that you'd like to benefit as much from the potential new advisor's strengths in X, Y, and Z. Even if it is not your ultimate intention, bring it up as entirely the current advisor's decision (though hint that you prefer having the new advisor). It might also be helpful to bring up that you think making strong connections with multiple professors might create stronger recs/better chances at a job when you finish your PhD. If your current advisor reacts negatively, just shut it down and change the direction of the conversation to something completely different and positive (go in with some good news in mind). You can figure out how to deal with that later, but do not aggravate your advisor by pushing the subject. I would recommend practicing how you intend to present the information--maybe practice with a roommate or friend so that you don't seem too nervous about the topic or freeze up during the conversation.

GradSchoolTruther

It just seems as if the second professor wants credit as co-chair of your committee because that factors into course releases and tenure/promotion. Also, just be blunt and say the other professor requested his/her status change to co-chair. At this stage, though, you don't have a dissertation committee, do you? Don't you have to wait until after comprehensive exams?

54 minutes ago, GradSchoolTruther said: It just seems as if the second professor wants credit as co-chair of your committee because that factors into course releases and tenure/promotion. Also, just be blunt and say the other professor requested his/her status change to co-chair. 

I agree with this. It's not as big of a deal as you think it is. Because it sounds like you do want this person involved in your dissertation, you can approach it a few ways:

1. Tell your advisor that you have been working really well with the other professor and that you would like them to be a co-advisor on your dissertation because they will be making your work so much better.

2. Tell your advisor that the other professor is requesting to be a coadvisor/cochair because of the time they have invested and that you agree with this since they have been very helpful in advising you.

Either way, I support being direct and straightforward. This isn't a tricky situation where you have to phrase it carefully because this is a standard professional request in academia. I don't think you have to worry about hurting your first advisor's feelings (unless for some reason, there is something you didn't say here that would suggest your own advisor would be against this). 

Thank you very much for the advice! I think I shall have a straightforward conversation with my advisor.

By the way, in my school, I need to have a dissertation committee before my comprehensive exams. So, I have a full committee now.

Hey thoughtful respondents! I had a great conversation with my advisor and he was very supportive of having the other professor as my co-chair. So, thanks a lot for your great advice. I figured I should update you in case you were wondering!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Already have an account? Sign in here.

• Existing user? Sign In
• Online Users
• All Activity
• My Activity Streams
• Unread Content
• Content I Started
• Results Search
• Post Results
• Leaderboard
• Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use