The Challenge
Nationwide, only about 60% of all doctoral students will complete their graduate programs (Bowen and Rudenstine, 1992, Denecke, 2005). The attrition rate by discipline (highest for the humanities, lowest for the physical sciences) has not changed appreciably during the last 30 years. A study by Nerad and Miller (1996) found differences among students who leave graduate programs. They found that "early leavers", those who leave a program in the first three years, often exit programs because they decide that graduate school is not for them, they are not in the right program or university, or their original expectations were not met. "Late leavers", those who exit a program during or after year four, do so because they were undecided about the goals of their studies, their relationship with their adviser went sour, they lacked adequate financial support, or they were discouraged by their department's climate. A common thread among "early leavers" and "late leavers" is what we call unmet expectations and conflicts that then arise between graduate students and faculty members.
A Proactive Approach
Although there is national recognition of the serious nature of interpersonal conflicts between graduate students and faculty, little has been done to address the problem (Lovitts, 2001; Warters, 2000; Holton, 1998). This program is one attempt to assist graduate students and faculty members to set and meet explicit expectations and resolve conflicts, thus, eventually reducing attrition rates while also improving the graduate experience.
We developed and tested a unique, proactive approach using interest-based negotiation strategies to set explicit expectations within graduate programs and for individuals in an early and on-going manner, as well as to resolve conflicts between graduate students and faculty. Interest-based negotiation strategies are based on open discussion of the underlying interests and desires of the parties involved and on exploring multiple options, as well as crafting creative solutions, which satisfy all parties (Fisher and Ury, 1991). Our program provides a focused and effective method to improve the very critical interactions between graduate students and faculty in order to improve doctoral student retention rates and the quality of graduate education and to effectively resolve conflicts when they arise.
Program goals are 1) to introduce interest-based negotiation strategies to faculty and graduate students for use in setting expectations and resolving conflicts, 2) to raise awareness of issues of potential conflict, particularly in doctoral education, 3) to improve graduate handbooks (where explicit expectations are codified), and 4) to improve retention and completion.
The program does not assume that all issues in graduate education are negotiable or that the power differential between faculty and graduate students must become more equal; faculty are clearly still responsible for disciplinary standards. The program also does not assume that all conflict is to be avoided. On the contrary, conflict over ideas is part of the intellectual core of graduate education and advances knowledge. The program does not have a goal of 100% retention or completion of Ph.D. degrees. There are valid reasons for students not finishing; both by their choice and/or by the decisions of departmental faculty.
Program Description
This program involves graduate students and faculty in four program activities that will range over a period of hours and/or several sessions:
- learning interest-based approaches and skills for setting explicit expectations for conflict resolution
- participating in facilitated discussions, using video vignettes as conversation triggers, about the specific areas of possible conflict and differing expectations within disciplines, or in graduate education generally
- using interest-based approaches and skills to establish collectively agreed-upon departmental understandings of mutual expectations and responsibilities
- improving effective communication skills (separate workshop)
Workshop Format:
- Participants engage in facilitated discussions that use video vignettes as catalysts. Each vignette depicts a snippet from a potential conflict situation within graduate education. Participants are lead through the basic concepts of interest-based strategies for setting expecations and resolving conflicts. (Sample overhead - PDF Format) Additional small and large group discussions using video vignettes further emphasize the interest-based strategies and permit practice and active learning of the skills. Each video vignette also contributes to the socialization of student participants by making explicit the potential points of conflict that might arise.
- As options for resolving conflicts are discussed for each vignette, the facilitator links the interest-based strategy to the successful setting of mutually understood expectations as a process to prevent conflicts.
The Video Vignettes
The teaching of interest-based approaches in this program will be facilitated through the use of video vignettes which depict key topics of interest to graduate students and faculty. Discussion of the vignettes allows participants to explore the substance of the issues as reflected in the vignette, as well as the use of interest-based approaches in crafting creative solutions for the vignette, for similar situations in the graduate programs, and for the avoidance of such conflicts through proactive expectation-setting. Written materials including the text of each vignette and the gender/race/ethnicity/age mix of each as well as discussion questions for each are furnished as part of the program.
Interest-based Conflict Resolution Strategies
Interest-based strategies focus on the underlying interests and concerns of the involved parties, with an emphasis on, used in negotiations, crafting options which satisfy multiple parties and their interests. These strategies counterpose positional bargaining in which the focus is the position of each party rather than the underlying interests and concerns of the parties, positions which each party may strongly defend from attack and to which they become increasingly committed (Fisher and Ury, 1991). With negotiation bargaining from positions, agreement may reflect a mechanical spelling out of the differences between final positions rather than a solution carefully crafted to meet the legitimate interests of each (a compromise, in fact, may be struck that pleases no one). And not infrequently, positional negotiation strains and sometimes shatters the relationship between the parties.
Interest-based negotiation and conflict resolution relies on five main strategies:
- the negotiation is focused on the problem and not on the people involved
- The focus is on the needs, desires, interests and fears underlying the positions
- a variety of options are generated that advance shared interests and creatively reconcile differing interests before making a final decision
- criteria reflecting a fair standard are used in reaching agreement. By discussing criteria, instead of firm positions, all parties can defer to a fair solution (which may include more than one option among those explored)
- successful negotiation that leads to a process whereby the parties respect flexibility and are willing to reenter the process again as the context changes
Program Options
Early formative evaluation of the program as tested at MSU has led us to propose the use of multiple options for participation: new student orientation, new faculty orientation, cross-disciplinary training for students or faculty, or mixed or special interest groups, and department/unit level training.
The first option would focus on graduate students or faculty as separate groups of participants. All new graduate students need a clear understanding of the processes and demands of graduate education, and of the importance of their responsibility for the understanding of rolesstandards within the discipline. The acquisition of interest-based negotiation skills during orientation programs can aid students in this process of academic and social integration into their departments. Similarly, new faculty can use orientation programs to understand university policies and to understand the importance of clear communication and explicit expectations.
The exploration of these interest-based approaches by all interested faculty and students in cross-campus training sessions, either in mixed or separate student and faculty groups, is also a useful option and could be organized by the university within its faculty development programs, by the Graduate School for student groups and mixed groups, and by those campus units charged with raising university awareness of specific issues that can be addressed using these approaches (The Office of Research Integrity, Ombudsman Office, the Women's Resource Center, etc).
Whether training involves individuals as individuals or as members of larger groups, the campus-wide raising of consciousness of these approaches will result in interests, not positions, increasingly becoming the basis of discussion within those offices on campus responsible for adjudication of disputes. Making the implicit interests and desires explicit also makes the creation of multiple options and solutions more likely when a conflict does arise.
Although faculty and students in cross-disciplinary meetings can share and exchange experiences, it is really within their own departments that they can actively use these approaches to foster change and to set out mutually agreed-upon expectations of roles and responsibilities. Departments are home to multiple examples of implicit understandings and organizational folklore that affect the lives of graduate students and faculty, both as individuals and as a group. The use of interest based approaches could be used by faculty to discuss their understanding of key departmental policies and goals and to ensure that these are commonly understood. In addition, faculty can build a framework-- a net of common expectations-- that they can then use for discussions with students in setting individual expectations and goals. A second approach, which we believe holds the greatest promise, is a joint training and expectation-setting experience involving both graduate students and faculty in a single department, unit or sub-specialty.
Why Participate?
The prime incentives for involvement in this program are to improve the climate for graduate education in the department and to avoid miscommunication and conflicts which can ultimately become burdens that take faculty and student time, attention and other resources away from more productive endeavors. In addition, Green's (1991) research that links early and explicit communication to productivity; both faculty productivity and that of their students is also a compelling argument. Good working relationships between faculty and students are based, in part, on the sharing of explicit program expectations result in higher future productivity of students, which in turn reflects positively on the perception of the quality of individual faculty, of departments and of the institution. Lovitts (2001) reported a strong connection between highly productive faculty and the high persistence rates of their doctoral students. Faculty who were less productive had a lower success rate among their graduate students. Lovitts data also indicate that highly productive faculty tend to have excellent interpersonal relationships with their students.
How Can You Participate?
For more information and/or to become a participating department/unit/program, visit 2008 Train-the-Trainer Conference "Setting Expectations and Resolving Conflicts in Graduate Education" or contact:
Karen Klomparens, Dean
The Graduate School
118 Linton Hall
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan, 48824
Phone: 517-355-0301
Email: kklompar@msu.edu
~ or ~
John Beck
Associate Professor
School of Labor and Industrial Relations
403 South Kedzie
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan, 48824
Phone: 517-432-3982
Email: beckj@msu.edu