Wed, Jan 22, 2025
[Archive]
Volume 1, Issue 2 (SEPTEMBER ISSUE 2020)
johepal 2020, 1(2): 7-23 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Al Makhamreh M, Kutsyuruba B. (2020). Leadership Self-Efficacy (LSE) in Doctoral Programs: Examining the Supervisors’ Lived Experiences in Canadian Universities. johepal. 1(2), 7-23. doi:10.29252/johepal.1.2.7
URL: http://johepal.com/article-1-49-en.html
URL: http://johepal.com/article-1-49-en.html
Abstract: (4531 Views)
In this article, we describe Leadership Self-Efficacy (LSE) in doctoral programs by examining the lived experiences and perspectives of doctoral supervisors. A phenomenological research design was used to interview 16 supervisors from Canadian universities across all disciplines, social sciences and humanities, the natural sciences and engineering, and health sciences. The findings revealed the interplay of five types of efficacy in this context: research-self-efficacy (RSE) that is related to supervisors; research-self-efficacy (RSE) that is related to students; leadership self-efficacy (LSE) that is related to supervisors’ roles; student self-efficacy (SSE) that is related to students’ role; and, collective efficacy (CE). The main type of efficacy that made the difference in the doctoral studies context and allowed supervisors to help their students achieve their milestones, while maintaining their mental health, was the supervisors’ Leadership Self-Efficacy (LSE). Effective supervisors found techniques to enhance the level of their LSE, and to support their students and enhance their students’ sense of efficacy. However, the findings also suggest that supervisors experienced challenges in their roles and were not sufficiently supported, which may adversely influence their LSE and, in turn, affect doctoral students’ performance and wellbeing. Implications include addressing the LSE in the doctoral supervision context at the individual level, group level, and departmental/institutional level.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Special
Received: 2020/09/3 | Accepted: 2020/10/2 | Published: 2020/10/13
Received: 2020/09/3 | Accepted: 2020/10/2 | Published: 2020/10/13
References
1. Anderson, D. W., Krajewski, H. T., Goffin, R. D., & Jackson, D. N. (2008). A leadership self-efficacy taxonomy and its relation to effective leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(5), 595–608. [DOI]
2. Baird, L. L. (1995). Helping graduate students: A graduate adviser's view. New Directions for Student Services, 1995(72), 25–32. [DOI]
3. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Behavior (pp. 71–81). New York, NY: Academic Press.
4. Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in Changing Societies (pp. 1–45). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
5. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, NY: Freeman.
6. Bandura, A., & Jourden, F. J. (1991). Self-regulatory mechanisms governing the impact of social comparison on complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(6), 941–951. [DOI]
7. Bandura, A., & Wood, R. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and performance standards on self-regulation of complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(5), 805–814. [DOI]
8. Bishop, R. M., & Bieschke, K. J. (1998). Applying social cognitive theory to interest in research among counseling psychology doctoral students: A path analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45(2), 182–188. [DOI]
9. Bloom, J. L., Propst Cuevas, A. E., Hall, J. W., & Evans, C. V. (2007). Graduate students' perceptions of outstanding graduate advisor characteristics. NACADA Journal, 27(2), 28–35. [DOI]
10. Boeije, H. (2002). A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Quality and Quantity, 36(4), 391–409. [DOI]
11. Carroll, M. (2008). Supervision and transformational learning. Psychotherapy in Australia, 14(3), 38–45.
12. Chemers, M. M., Watson, C. B., & May, S. T. (2000). Dispositional affect and leadership effectiveness: A comparison of self-esteem, optimism, and efficacy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 267–277. [DOI]
13. Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1082–1103. [DOI]
14. Delamont, S., Atkinson, P., & Parry, O. (1997). Supervising the PhD. A Guide to Success. Buckingham, England: The Society for Research into Higher Education.
15. Dey, I. (2003). Qualitative Data Analysis: A User Friendly Guide for Social Scientists. London, England: Routledge.
16. Donald, J. G., Saroyan, A., & Denison, D. B. (1995). Graduate student supervision policies and procedures: A case study of issues and factors affecting graduate study. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 25(3), 71–92. [Article]
17. Elgar, F. J. (2003). PhD degree completion in Canadian universities: Final report. Halifax, NS: The Graduate Students Association of Canada. Retrieved from http://careerchem.com/CAREER-INFO-ACADEMIC/Frank-Elgar.pdf [Article]
18. Emilsson, U. M., & Johnsson, E. (2007). Supervision of supervisors: On developing supervision in postgraduate education. Higher Education Research & Development, 26(2), 163–179. [DOI]
19. Esposito, G., van Bavel, R., Baranowski, T., & Duch-Brown, N. (2016). Applying the model of goal-directed behavior, including descriptive norms, to physical activity intentions: A contribution to improving the theory of planned behavior. Psychological Reports, 119(1), 5–26. [DOI]
20. Forester, M., Kahn, J. H., & Hesson-McInnis, M. S. (2004). Factor structures of three measures of research self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 12(1), 3–16. [DOI]
21. Gelso, C. J. (1993). On the making of a scientist-practitioner: A theory of research training in professional psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 24(4), 468–476. [DOI]
22. Gelso, C. J. (2006). On the making of a scientist-practitioner: A theory of research training in professional psychology. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 5(1), 3–16. [DOI]
23. Golde, C. M. (1998). Beginning graduate school: Explaining first‐year doctoral attrition. New Directions for Higher Education, 1998(101), 55–64. [DOI]
24. Golde, C. M. (2005). The role of the department and discipline in doctoral student attrition: Lessons from four departments. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(6), 669–700. [DOI]
25. Golde, C. M., & Dore, T. M. (2001). At Cross Purposes: What the Experiences of Today’s Doctoral Students Reveal about Doctoral Education. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED450628 [Article]
26. Guerin, C., Kerr, H., & Green, I. (2015). Supervision pedagogies: Narratives from the field. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(1), 107–118. [DOI]
27. Halse, C., & Malfroy, J. (2010). Retheorizing doctoral supervision as professional work. Studies in Higher Education, 35(1), 79–92. [DOI]
28. Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., & Harms, P. D. (2008). Leadership efficacy: Review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(6), 669–692. [DOI]
29. Heath, T. (2002). A quantitative analysis of PhD students' views of supervision. Higher Education Research & Development, 21(1), 41–53. [DOI]
30. Hoyt, C. L. (2005). The role of leadership efficacy and stereotype activation in women's identification with leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(4), 2–14. [DOI]
31. Ives, G., & Rowley, G. (2005). Supervisor selection or allocation and continuity of supervision: Ph.D. students’ progress and outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 30(5), 535–555. [DOI]
32. James, R. H., & Baldwin, G. (1999). Eleven Practices of Effective Postgraduate Supervisors. Melbourne, Australia: Centre for the Study of Higher Education and the School of Graduate Studies, University of Melbourne.
33. Jones, M. (2013). Issues in doctoral studies-forty years of journal discussion: Where have we been and where are we going? International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 8(6), 83–104. DOI: 10.28945/1871 [DOI]
34. Kahn, J. H. (2001). Predicting the scholarly activity of counseling psychology students: A refinement and extension. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48(3), 344–354. [DOI]
35. Kahn, J. H., & Scott, N. A. (1997). Predictors of research productivity and science-related career goals among counseling psychology doctoral students. The Counseling Psychologist, 25(1), 38–67. [DOI]
36. Kane, T. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Tremble Jr, T. R., & Masuda, A. D. (2002). An examination of the leader’s regulation of groups. Small Group Research, 33(1), 65–120. [DOI]
37. Larsen, M. V., & Rasmussen, J. G. (2015). Relational leading. In M. V. Larsen & J. G. Rasmussen (Eds.), Relational Perspectives on Leading (pp. 5–30). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
38. Lester, P. B., Hannah, S. T., Harms, P. D., Vogelgesang, G. R., & Avolio, B. J. (2011). Mentoring impact on leader efficacy development: A field experiment. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(3), 409–429. [DOI]
39. Lee, A. (2008). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 267–281. [DOI]
40. Leonard, D., Metcalfe, J., Becker, R., & Evans, J. (2006). Review of Literature on the Impact of Working Context and Support on the Postgraduate Research Student Learning Experience. New York, NY: The Higher Education Academy.
41. Levecque, K., Anseel, F., De Beuckelaer, A., Van der Heyden, J., & Gisle, L. (2017). Work organization and mental health problems in PhD students. Research Policy, 46(4), 868–879. [DOI]
42. Maslach, C., & Goldberg, J. (1998). Prevention of burnout: New perspectives. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 7(1), 63–74. [DOI]
43. McCormick, M. J., Tanguma, J., & López-Forment, A. S. (2002). Extending self-efficacy theory to leadership: A review and empirical test. Journal of Leadership Education, 1(2), 34–49. [DOI]
44. Murphy, S. E. (1992). The contribution of leadership experience and self-efficacy to group performance under evaluation apprehension (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/bitstream/handle/1773/9167/9230410.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y [Article]
45. Ng, K. Y., Ang, S., & Chan, K. Y. (2008). Personality and leader effectiveness: A moderated mediation model of leadership self-efficacy, job demands, and job autonomy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 733–743. [DOI]
46. Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
47. Orellana, M. L., Darder, A., Pérez, A., & Salinas, J. (2016). Improving doctoral success by matching PhD students with supervisors. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 11, 87–103. [DOI]
48. Paglis, L. L. (2010). Leadership self-efficacy: Research findings and practical applications. Journal of Management Development, 29(9), 771–782. [DOI]
49. Paglis, L. L., & Green, S. G. (2002). Leadership self‐efficacy and managers' motivation for leading change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(2), 215–235. [DOI]
50. Paglis, L. L., Green, S. G., & Bauer, T. N. (2006). Does adviser mentoring add value? A longitudinal study of mentoring and doctoral student outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 47(4), 451–476. [DOI]
51. Pearson, M., & Brew, A. (2002). Research training and supervision development. Studies in Higher Education, 27(2), 135–150. [DOI]
52. Phillips, E. M. & Pugh, D. S. (2000). How to Get a PhD– A Handbook for Students and Their Supervisors. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
53. Prussia, G. E., Anderson, J. S., & Manz, C. C. (1998). Self‐leadership and performance outcomes: The mediating influence of self‐efficacy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(5), 523–538. [DOI]
54. Pyhältö, K., & Keskinen, J. (2012). Exploring the fit between doctoral students’ and supervisors’ perceptions of resources and challenges vis-à-vis the doctoral journey. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 7(23), 395–414. [DOI]
55. Quinn, R. W. (2007). Energizing others in work connections. In J. E. Dutton & B. R. E. Ragins (Eds.), Exploring Positive Relationships at Work: Building a Theoretical and Research Foundation (pp. 73–90). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
56. Reiners, G. M. (2012). Understanding the differences between Husserl’s (descriptive) and Heidegger’s (interpretive) phenomenological research. Journal of Nursing & Care, 1(5), 1–3. [DOI]
57. Schermuly, C. C., & Meyer, B. (2016). Good relationships at work: The effects of leader-member exchange and team-member exchange on psychological empowerment, emotional exhaustion, and depression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(5), 673–691. [DOI]
58. Turner, G. (2015). Learning to supervise: Four journeys. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(1), 86–98. [DOI]
59. Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching Lived Experience: Human Science for an Action Sensitive Pedagogy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
60. Varney, J. J. (2010). The role of dissertation self-efficacy in increasing dissertation completion: Sources, effects and viability of a new self-efficacy construct. College Student Journal, 44(4), 932–947.
61. Wisker, G. (2007). The Postgraduate Research Handbook: Succeed with your MA, MPhil, EdD and PhD. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
62. Wright, A., Murray, J. P., & Geale, P. (2007). A phenomenographic study of what it means to supervise doctoral students. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6(4), 458–474. [DOI]
63. Youssef-Morgan, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2013). Positive leadership: Meaning and application across cultures. Organizational Dynamics, 42(3), 198–208. [DOI]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
