Experiences Co-authoring with a Dissertation Chair
Lyn Walden, EdD, PhD
After I promised Dr. Robinson that I would write an article on the subject of coercion to publish with a chair or committee member, I assumed I would have no difficulty finding research on the subject. I was wrong; I could find no peer-reviewed articles on this subject. So, the following information is based on the experiences of my former clients. As such, I do not presume these experiences are indicative of all doctoral candidates or new doctors. Quite probably some will disagree with these findings. With this said, I do not presume that all doctoral candidates and new doctors share these opinions. The opinions expressed are based on the experiences of some of my former clients from 30 years of coaching doctoral candidates.
From the information, I obtained from conversations with several of my former clients, if at the conclusion of final defense or later, a chair asks a new doctor if he or she would like to co-author a journal article, the offer is rarely rejected and is taken as a high compliment. When a chair offers during the concluding months of the dissertation journey and does not involve the candidate’s dissertation, doctoral candidates consider this a compliment and rarely refuse. However, when a chair uses bribery, deceit, or coercion to force a doctoral candidate to co-author using the student’s written work, the results are not as pleasant.
One former client, Susie was a doctoral learner from a small Midwest university when she contacted me. Susie said for the past 7 years, her chair would require 15 to 20 pages on a certain topic and then would tell Susie this was not the angle she should pursue. The chair would then publish those pages as an article with the chair’s name as first author or as the only author. On a couple of occasions, the chair had Susie collect data on a certain subject and then she would reject the information for the dissertation but publish the rejected pages as an article.
When Susie contacted me, she was desperate. If she did not complete her dissertation within the next few months, she would time out. I recommended she contact the dean, the ombudsman, or her doctoral advisor. The small university had no ombudsman. Susie’s chair was the dean, and her chair’s husband was the doctoral advisor. I could not help Susie. However, I stayed in contact with her and learned that just weeks before her time out date, her chair helped her finish her dissertation and earn her degree. By this time, however, Susie said she was drained, both emotionally and financially.
During the 2010 Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion and clean up, another former client, Joe, was working on his dissertation on Six Sigma, management, and oil rigs. We had worked together for several months before the explosion, and during that time, Joe’s chair had shown little interest and had provided almost no help. In the days following the explosion when it dominated the news, however, Joe’s chair became quite interested in his proposal. He pushed Joe to write and research increasingly on the management of oil rigs and the dangers of mismanagement. After Joe had written about 50 pages for his literature review, the chair suggested Joe pull about 20 of the pages and they publish them together, with the chair’s name first. Joe refused; almost immediately, their relationship became untenable, even acrimonious.
Joe had a figure in his paper that he had modeled on one from a journal article. Joe did not believe he needed the author’s written permission because he had modified the figure. I had questioned the use of the figure, but Joe assured me his chair said he did not need to contact the original author. The chair told Joe that he had sufficiently modified the figure. Within days of Joe refusing his chair’s offer of co-authoring, he accused Joe of plagiarism. As a result, Joe had to appear at a hearing wherein his punishment included two ethics courses and several research assignments as well as letters of penance. In all, the unauthorized use of that figure cost Joe several thousand dollars in tuition and almost a year of his time.
Why Joe did not ask for a change in chairs is beyond me, but he did not. He kept that chair against my advice. The two men had an acrimonious relationship to the end. After the full committee had approved Joe’s dissertation, the chair refused to send it to the dean’s reviewers. When Joe asked him what he needed to do to complete his degree, the chair asked for one thousand dollars. Joe capitulated and sent that man a personal check. Almost immediately, Joe earned his DBA. Joe refused to report this man.
Another former client managed her situation a little differently. When her chair had her research and write on the history of the federal laws on punishment in school, Dora questioned why when her topic was on school counseling. Her chair insisted on a history of the federal laws that were important to include on the experiences of today’s school counselors. So, Dora researched and wrote about 25 pages on this topic. Her chair said nothing until the proposal was ready for committee review. He then told her to remove those 25 pages. He said the history of federal laws on school punishment did not belong in her dissertation after all. Dora thought no more of it and her dissertation journey progressed.
One night before she finished, Dora’s chair was presenting at a residency in her city. He invited Dora to dinner during which he shared with Dora that he was most distressed. He could not attend a week-long conference in Maui. He told Dora that if he wanted to attend, he had to cover his expenses, including airfare. He said this was the norm for conferences unless a person had published within the previous 12 months. He told Dora that he was desperate to publish. Dora was most sympathetic and then quickly forgot all about their dinner or the conversation.
Just before Dora’s final oral defense, the chair asked her to find those 25 pages on the federal laws on school punishment. He told her that he wanted to publish them with her. Of course, because he was experienced in such matters, his name should go first. Dora told him that she would be honored to publish with him, but she did not have the time to consider the matter while working on her degree. After she had all the signatures on her dissertation, she simply kept procrastinating. She just let the matter slide. Whether her chair used those pages without her approval is unknown. She said had her chair been honest and direct from the beginning, she would have been honored to write with him.
However, these experiences and opinions are not shared by all my former clients. One former client, a DBA from a large online university stated, “Traditionally, the practice of mentors co-authoring with their mentees is common and acceptable. Also, traditionally, as a sign of respect, students always let their mentor’s name appear first. I wouldn’t have an issue if my mentor wanted to write a paper with me. And I would insist that his name appear first. You can call me a traditionalist or old-fashioned, but I do not agree with the liberty online students claim without working hard enough for any.” (I am not certain what he meant by the last sentence.)
Some of my former clients have had wonderful experiences co-authoring with their chairs. Some have gone on to write and publish several articles with their former chairs, now colleagues. However, none of these people described any coercion, bribery, or deceit. Those who had positive experiences said their chairs were most respectful and used no force. What am I to extrapolate from these examples? If a chair is respectful and honest, doctoral candidates usually consider it an honor to co-author an article or two. However, whenever a chair tries to manipulate or force a doctoral candidate to co-author, the experience is most unpleasant. (All names were changed for this article and permission was granted to use these examples.)
A published author, Dr. Walden holds a bachelor, a master's, a specialist, and two terminal degrees in education and a bachelor and a master's degree in psychology plus additional certification in history, humanities, writing, and life coaching. She is a retired public school teacher and adjunct professor. She is a member of numerous professional organizations and honor societies. She is also the proud grandmother of two college-age granddaughters. Dr. Walden lives in Atlanta, Georgia with her menagerie of three elderly Maine Coon cats, a Chihuahua Pug, and a Brussels Griffon.
From the information, I obtained from conversations with several of my former clients, if at the conclusion of final defense or later, a chair asks a new doctor if he or she would like to co-author a journal article, the offer is rarely rejected and is taken as a high compliment. When a chair offers during the concluding months of the dissertation journey and does not involve the candidate’s dissertation, doctoral candidates consider this a compliment and rarely refuse. However, when a chair uses bribery, deceit, or coercion to force a doctoral candidate to co-author using the student’s written work, the results are not as pleasant.
One former client, Susie was a doctoral learner from a small Midwest university when she contacted me. Susie said for the past 7 years, her chair would require 15 to 20 pages on a certain topic and then would tell Susie this was not the angle she should pursue. The chair would then publish those pages as an article with the chair’s name as first author or as the only author. On a couple of occasions, the chair had Susie collect data on a certain subject and then she would reject the information for the dissertation but publish the rejected pages as an article.
When Susie contacted me, she was desperate. If she did not complete her dissertation within the next few months, she would time out. I recommended she contact the dean, the ombudsman, or her doctoral advisor. The small university had no ombudsman. Susie’s chair was the dean, and her chair’s husband was the doctoral advisor. I could not help Susie. However, I stayed in contact with her and learned that just weeks before her time out date, her chair helped her finish her dissertation and earn her degree. By this time, however, Susie said she was drained, both emotionally and financially.
During the 2010 Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion and clean up, another former client, Joe, was working on his dissertation on Six Sigma, management, and oil rigs. We had worked together for several months before the explosion, and during that time, Joe’s chair had shown little interest and had provided almost no help. In the days following the explosion when it dominated the news, however, Joe’s chair became quite interested in his proposal. He pushed Joe to write and research increasingly on the management of oil rigs and the dangers of mismanagement. After Joe had written about 50 pages for his literature review, the chair suggested Joe pull about 20 of the pages and they publish them together, with the chair’s name first. Joe refused; almost immediately, their relationship became untenable, even acrimonious.
Joe had a figure in his paper that he had modeled on one from a journal article. Joe did not believe he needed the author’s written permission because he had modified the figure. I had questioned the use of the figure, but Joe assured me his chair said he did not need to contact the original author. The chair told Joe that he had sufficiently modified the figure. Within days of Joe refusing his chair’s offer of co-authoring, he accused Joe of plagiarism. As a result, Joe had to appear at a hearing wherein his punishment included two ethics courses and several research assignments as well as letters of penance. In all, the unauthorized use of that figure cost Joe several thousand dollars in tuition and almost a year of his time.
Why Joe did not ask for a change in chairs is beyond me, but he did not. He kept that chair against my advice. The two men had an acrimonious relationship to the end. After the full committee had approved Joe’s dissertation, the chair refused to send it to the dean’s reviewers. When Joe asked him what he needed to do to complete his degree, the chair asked for one thousand dollars. Joe capitulated and sent that man a personal check. Almost immediately, Joe earned his DBA. Joe refused to report this man.
Another former client managed her situation a little differently. When her chair had her research and write on the history of the federal laws on punishment in school, Dora questioned why when her topic was on school counseling. Her chair insisted on a history of the federal laws that were important to include on the experiences of today’s school counselors. So, Dora researched and wrote about 25 pages on this topic. Her chair said nothing until the proposal was ready for committee review. He then told her to remove those 25 pages. He said the history of federal laws on school punishment did not belong in her dissertation after all. Dora thought no more of it and her dissertation journey progressed.
One night before she finished, Dora’s chair was presenting at a residency in her city. He invited Dora to dinner during which he shared with Dora that he was most distressed. He could not attend a week-long conference in Maui. He told Dora that if he wanted to attend, he had to cover his expenses, including airfare. He said this was the norm for conferences unless a person had published within the previous 12 months. He told Dora that he was desperate to publish. Dora was most sympathetic and then quickly forgot all about their dinner or the conversation.
Just before Dora’s final oral defense, the chair asked her to find those 25 pages on the federal laws on school punishment. He told her that he wanted to publish them with her. Of course, because he was experienced in such matters, his name should go first. Dora told him that she would be honored to publish with him, but she did not have the time to consider the matter while working on her degree. After she had all the signatures on her dissertation, she simply kept procrastinating. She just let the matter slide. Whether her chair used those pages without her approval is unknown. She said had her chair been honest and direct from the beginning, she would have been honored to write with him.
However, these experiences and opinions are not shared by all my former clients. One former client, a DBA from a large online university stated, “Traditionally, the practice of mentors co-authoring with their mentees is common and acceptable. Also, traditionally, as a sign of respect, students always let their mentor’s name appear first. I wouldn’t have an issue if my mentor wanted to write a paper with me. And I would insist that his name appear first. You can call me a traditionalist or old-fashioned, but I do not agree with the liberty online students claim without working hard enough for any.” (I am not certain what he meant by the last sentence.)
Some of my former clients have had wonderful experiences co-authoring with their chairs. Some have gone on to write and publish several articles with their former chairs, now colleagues. However, none of these people described any coercion, bribery, or deceit. Those who had positive experiences said their chairs were most respectful and used no force. What am I to extrapolate from these examples? If a chair is respectful and honest, doctoral candidates usually consider it an honor to co-author an article or two. However, whenever a chair tries to manipulate or force a doctoral candidate to co-author, the experience is most unpleasant. (All names were changed for this article and permission was granted to use these examples.)
A published author, Dr. Walden holds a bachelor, a master's, a specialist, and two terminal degrees in education and a bachelor and a master's degree in psychology plus additional certification in history, humanities, writing, and life coaching. She is a retired public school teacher and adjunct professor. She is a member of numerous professional organizations and honor societies. She is also the proud grandmother of two college-age granddaughters. Dr. Walden lives in Atlanta, Georgia with her menagerie of three elderly Maine Coon cats, a Chihuahua Pug, and a Brussels Griffon.