A Case Study
Written by:
Lisa Carvallo, Kathi Carey-Fletcher, Ever Grier, Michael Robinson and Kately Demougeot
Introduction
The purpose of this qualitative study in 2005 was to determine the factors of group dynamics enabling and inhibiting doctoral student persistence. We were limited by location, time, and availability of informants. The site was pre-selected by our course facilitator and the time established by the course length of five weeks with three weeks for the case study assignment. Our team of five conducted a single site exploratory case study to determine what factors of group dynamics enable student persistence in the Morgan State University Community College Leadership Doctoral Program (MSU CCLDP).
The MSU CCLDP cohort learning model represents a unique case at Morgan State University (MSU). Founded in the fall of 1999 by Dr. Christine Johnson McPhail, the CCLDP is offered as an educational programming concentration within MSU’s existing Urban Educational Leadership Doctoral Program. McPhail developed the program to address the continued serious decline in the pipeline of community college leaders. A visible form of the uniqueness in the cohort leadership learning model, is that students enter the program as a member of a cohort committed to remain with the group through the three-year program of study. In the 2001 Morgan State University Cohort Survey (McPhail, 2001) (Appendix B), doctoral students reported that the cohort experience contributed to the phenomenal retention rate (96%) of the students. (MSU CCLDP 2004).
Researchers indicate a lack of serious attrition and retention research at the graduate level (Malone, Nelson & Nelson, 2001). Dorn and Papalweis (1997) report that 50 percent of all doctoral students fail to complete their programs. Bowen and Rudenstein wrote, “Surprisingly little has been written about the general pattern of [graduate student] completion rates” (p.107). Tinto (1987; 1993) posits that less attrition research has been conducted at the graduate level than at the undergraduate level because “research on graduate attrition has not been guided either by a comprehensive model or theory of graduate persistence or by methodological strategies that have been successfully employed in the study of undergraduate persistence” (p. 231). Gavin Kendall (2002) argues for doctoral training that retunes the relationship between self and practice, and delivery “rapid, [and] relevant and rigorous” (p. 231).
Current students enrolling in doctoral programs do not fit a traditional educational programming mold of twenty- something, single, recently graduated, and full-time. With more students enrolling in doctoral programs who are full-time career professionals juggling their time and attention amongst various life, financial and career issues, we question whether there is a direct correlation between the structure of the doctoral program and doctoral student persistence.
The authors of this paper were students currently enrolled in the MSU CCLDP at the time of the study. The MSU CCLDP is a non-traditional cohort learning model. Group dynamics emerging from the formation of doctoral student and faculty cohorts are used as a tool to maintain persistence in professional schools. Upon review of related literature on group dynamics and doctoral student persistence, factors such as age, race, gender, learning styles, cohesion, collusion, experience and knowledge, brought to the learning environment by the students, combine with faculty, student and administrative structure relationships to impact persistence.
Overall Strategy
Using a qualitative research design, the group employed a single site, exploratory case study methodology. The site, Morgan State University, was determined according to the course instructions. Likewise, the assignment dictated that the researchers use the case study model. The research team was interested in learning about various aspects of the cohort learning model, such as communication between cohort members, communication between the institution and the cohort members, how cohort members formed bonds and alliances with other cohort members and how relationships with other cohort members affected their success in the cohort. As a result, during early discussions amongst the research team members, it was concluded that the researchers’ curiosity centered on group dynamics and how specific factors of group dynamics inhibited or enabled doctoral student’s persistence. The researchers agreed to keep the questions broad enough to allow the subjects to expound on their answers. Two forms of data collection were used, personal telephone interviews and a focus group.
Research Questions
In particular, two research questions were used for both the personal interviews and the focus group. The questions were as follows: (a) How would you describe the factors of group dynamics that enabled your persistence/graduation in the MSU CCLDP cohort? (b) How would you describe the factors of group dynamics that inhibited your persistence/graduation in the MSU CCLDP cohort? It was decided that the personal interviews would take place by telephone, and the focus group would meet at a location that was central to the participants.
Recruitment and Limitations
The researchers attempted to select one member of each, Cohort One through Four; however, participants were chosen according to their availability. As a result, the team settled on five graduates, three from Cohort One, one from Cohort Two and two from Cohort Four, one of which had not yet graduated but was still writing the dissertation. No regard was made for gender, race, age or other personal factor besides having been a member of a MSU CCLDP cohort.
This presented somewhat of a limitation for the research team because to really test whether group dynamics inhibited persistence, it would have been desirable to interview a few subjects who did not persist. Another limitation included a lack of participants from Cohorts Three and Five. Further, due to time restrictions, no pilot study was conducted.
