what is a dissertation adviser

The process of selecting a dissertation adviser can be accomplished in a number of ways. The importance, however, of this process should not be understated. This relationship between adviser and advisee often can be the difference between completing or not completing the dissertation. This research study looked at the selection process of a dissertation adviser from both a theoretical as well as practical perspective in a fast-track three-year doctoral leadership program at a medium size university in the United States.The methodological approach utilized a single focus group along with follow-up discussion with doctoral students. Recommendations are offered as to ways of addressing the problem or disconnect in the adviser selection process.

The subject of selection of an adviser in a Ph.D. program has been examined as part of a variety of studies looking at doctoral education, with some of those studies concentrating on the role of the adviser (Barnes & Austin, 2009; Gardner, 2013; Jaeger, Sandman, & Kim, 2011; Joyce, 2016; Kim, 2007; Noy & Ray, 2012; Schlosser & Kahn, 2007­­) and other studies focusing on faculty members serving as mentors to doctoral students (Gearity &Mertz, 2012; Holley & Caldwell, 2012; Linden, Ohlin, & Brodin, 2013) and still other researchers looking to determine whether the title of adviser or mentor even matters when faculty support doctoral students (Brabazon, 2016; Titus & Ballou, 2011).

The focus of this paper is on examining what methods are used in the selection process and what might be the preferred method of choice for aspiring dissertation candidates. Hence, the research questions that this research seeks to answer are: Given that doctoral students in a fast-track, executive program in educational leadership are asked to select an adviser at the beginning of their second year of formal study, is this selection process flawed since most of these doctoral students appear to rely more on familiarity with members the doctoral faculty rather than more salient qualities of members the doctoral faculty? Also, can a framework be developed, supported by the literature, which can assist institutional development of a framework to assist in the successful pairing of doctoral students with supportive doctoral faculty? The importance of helping institutions refine this process is important, yet too often unrecognized when “fewer than half of faculty members report having policies or guides on advising doctoral students with only a quarter reporting having received any training in how to be an adviser” (Titus and Ballou, 2013, p. 1274).

Although on the surface the process of pairing doctoral students with faculty may seem both simple and somewhat harmless, it can be a very difficult and challenging experience for a doctoral student. As noted by Sangganjanavanich and Magnuson (2009), “just as doctoral students often learn how to write a dissertation by writing a dissertation, they may learn about the long-term implications of adviser selection during or after the selection process” (p. 195). Both doctoral faculty and doctoral students are asked to develop a unique relationship based on what could be very different styles of managing research, providing feedback and communication, and developing trust and understanding.

Other considerations might be faculty research agendas, background of experience, and assigned adviser roles. The increase in international doctoral students and the needs those students have adds additional variables, further complicating the process (Kim, 2016; Knox, Sokol, Schlosser, Inman, Nilsson, & Wang, 2013). This topic becomes increasingly important as new fast-track, three year executive programs continue to grow in higher education and as the traditional doctoral graduate student who teaches classes and is vested with the doctoral faculty has been replaced by the part-time doctoral student who holds a full-time position in the workforce. Part-time doctoral students have time and access-to-faculty restrictions that traditional doctoral programs of the past did not have, at least not to the extent of the fast-track doctoral programs of today (Murakami-Ramalho, Militello, & Piert, 2013).

One of the authors of this study directs an executive-type fast-track doctoral program in management and leadership and has done so for over ten years. As part of this study the researchers will include some of the problems and concerns he and candidates in the program have experienced related to the selection process of advisers. Too often the adviser selection process becomes a quick and arbitrary way of assigning advisers while meeting contractual teaching assignments. Based on interviews with many of the candidates and a gap in the related literature, it is the intent of this study to illuminate this issue for those interested in the adviser selection process. Recommendations will be made based on the data that might offer ways to improve the adviser selection process.

The importance of the dissertation adviser relationship is clearly recognized in the literature and can be summarized by Barbazon’s (2016) statement, “the most important decision a doctoral candidate makes is the selection of supervisor, because they can enable, assist, warn, frame and improve the topic” (p. 16). When discussing the development of doctoral students in Educational Administration programs, Murakami-Ramalho, Militello, and Piert (2013) go beyond the students effort during doctoral work as a determining factor of student success, concluding that “competence, confidence and capacity to understand and utilize research depended on the educational administration students’ focus on building technical skills as well as program and faculty support structures” (p.270).

Holley and Caldwell (2012) further advance the importance of the institution’s responsibility in the success of doctoral student support adding, “the design and implementation of a successful doctoral mentoring program is dependent on several factors including … the administrative willingness to coordinate the initiative” (p.253). Stark (2013) held with the notion there is not a right or wrong way to select a dissertation adviser. At her institution, an initial interim adviser was in place until a permanent adviser would be named. This approach would seem to address the time element for selection, but really lacked the more practical needs of fast-track doctoral programs.

To illustrate, many fast-track executive-type doctoral programs have a pre-designed three-year window for completion with most frontloading research methods during year one followed by selection of the adviser and the start of the dissertation in the beginning of year two (Hineman & Semich, 2013, Murakami-Ramalho, Militello, & Piert, 2013). Given the emphasis on content as a part of methods in year one, an initial interim adviser would not be feasible. Holman (2015) argued that funding as a part of research should be a consideration. However, funding is more associated with doctoral research that is more directed to traditional programs that are more longitudinal in nature.

One thing is certain, students must be a part of this selection process of their adviser (Phillips & Pugh, 2000, Murakami-Ramalho, Militello, & Piert, 2013). Further, it is important that students have a working knowledge of the faculty who are available to oversee the dissertation and that those who are advising dissertations have both the time and expertise to work with a doctoral candidate. Herzig (2002) stated that the doctoral student relationships with their advisers are critical to student success and from the negative side, can be detrimental in terms of attrition. Stark (2013) focused more on the adviser-advisee relationship in terms of common interest with emphasis on serving as a professional future reference. Hence, this relationship is based on mutual interests relative to topic and method of research. Bieber and Worley (2006, 2010) looked more toward an apprenticeship model where the doctoral student served more in an apprentice role with a teaching mentor.

Collins, Holum, and Brown (1991) proposed the idea of a between student and adviser/mentor having four main aspects; , , , and . Content is what must be known to be able to do the work, methods are the ways students develop their craft, sequencing is the order of the coursework, and sociology relate to the social aspects of the learning environment. Cognitive apprenticeship is an approach that emphasizes the mentoring process in a master/apprentice relationship. Ghefali (2003) expanded the Methods section of the cognitive apprenticeship model to include six specific areas; , , , , , and n. Taking into consideration this expansion of the idea of cognitive apprenticeship might serve well as a means of connecting an experienced faculty member with an apprentice doctoral student (Hineman & Semich, 2013).

Scaffolding the various stages of the dissertation process and coaching students to adhere to rigorous research methods and modeling technical aspects of academic writing are components of an expanded perception of the cognitive apprentice model applied to doctoral education, as well as emphasizing the need for articulation and reflection during the dissertation process. This expansion of the cognitive apprenticeship model also helps to support the notion that additional mentors can also play a role in the form of committee members’ contribution to the dissertation process. In short, the dissertation is as much a learning process as it is a product which supports the notion that finding an effective faculty mentor/teacher may be important in selecting an adviser. As Barbazon (2016) states, “in many ways, doctoral education is configured through a series of intimate, intense series of tutorials that runs over three years” (p. 17).

Establishing a strong relationship between adviser and advisee is paramount in making the dissertation process work in any doctoral program. Zhao, Golde, and McKormick (2007) examined ways in which this strong relationship might occur. The dynamics of this relationship inevitably seemed to point toward the student selection process. In this case, doctoral students assume the responsibility for selecting an adviser who they feel most comfortable. Sounds logical, however, it may be that the choice is rooted in popularity among doctoral faculty or the actions of some faculty to actively recruit prospective doctoral students since many schools provide a stipend or course reduction for those faculty who supervise a doctoral dissertation. Valian (1999) suggested that if there is not a systematic process in place for adviser selection, this may lead to a number of issues. Bias among faculty, frustration among doctoral candidates, and scheduling irregularities in terms of course load are just a few that may surface.

It is also important to place the importance of the relationship between adviser and advisee is a unique, complex social system that is subject to constant change. As such, this research has identified actor-network theory devised by Michel Callon in 1982 as a means to further understand the complexity of the relationship. Actor-network theory is also a possible descriptive way of telling how “relations assemble or don’t” (Law, 2007, p. 2). In simple terms, the Actor-network theory looks at relations between individuals (actors) and things (dissertation) in a complex network.

An adviser or committee members who experienced frustration or issues within their own personal dissertation team network may manifest similar actions in other advisee-adviser relationships. This adviser-advisee relationship can also be subject to change through the number of actors who may serve as committee members and are evaluating student work, the impact of policy and standards as a part of the program, the possible travel limitations for meeting and library time, lack of knowledge of various technological tools and software that may be beneficial, and the competitive interactions between cohort members who are completing at various stages of their dissertation. In addition, in the fast-track, executive-type doctoral programs, most, if not all students, are working full-time jobs and many have family responsibilities. Thus, work and personal issues can interfere with how relationships can be subject to change in the program.

In summation, cognitive apprenticeship as a theory of advisee mentoring and Actor-network theory as a way of examining how relationships assemble or don’t assemble with advisers and advisees in the dissertation process are some of the theoretical underpinnings to a better understanding of the selection of a dissertation adviser. Much of the limited research supports student selection although some programs support administrative selection. Focus on approaches for adviser selection also varies and, in some cases, seem somewhat ambiguous.

This paper examines the selection process through two channels: the review of the rather limited amount of related literature, and through the lens of doctoral students directly involved in the dissertation adviser process. The various methods of adviser selection from the literature review show a convoluted array of choices that are employed by doctoral students. In short, the research supports the fact that the relationship between adviser and advisee is important and should be the choice of the student. However, there is little agreement primarily because most of the past research does not draw a distinction between a traditional doctoral program and a fast-track, executive type program.

Early discussions with a member of the research team who directs a fast-track doctoral leadership program made it apparent to the research team that most of the issues that surfaced during the second and third years of that program were somehow related to the adviser/student relationship. Therefore, this research study followed a qualitative approach using a preliminary focus group discussion focusing on adviser selection for the first year of the program and follow-up interview discussions with individual cohort members after the second year of the program. The intent was to ascertain how students selected an adviser and their reflections regarding the selection process. Denzin and Lincoln (2013) identify present day and future qualitative methodology use as more connected to the evidence-based social movement in the United States. In this case, doctoral students were queried as what qualities they were seeking in an adviser and later reflecting on whether their choice of advisers met their expectations. This was a form of narrative voice since it represented the thoughts and feelings of these doctoral participants. The interview protocol consisted of the following questions:

There were 63 doctoral student participants from three cohorts who participated in this research study. The group was comprised of a diverse group of students that included corporate trainers, teachers, principals, health professionals, and military personnel seeking the leadership terminal degree. Different ages, gender, race/ethnicity were also represented in these doctoral cohorts which has been typical in this program and other similar executive-type doctoral programs. Data were gathered during the monthly Saturday dissertation seminars, which serve as monthly support sessions for the dissertation process and for debriefing students in the program.

All second year students were given faculty profile sheets for the dissertation chair selection process in order to consider the following: courses taught by faculty member, number of dissertation advisements, research interests of faculty, faculty preference of methodology, special interests, and educational background (includes major, minor, and dissertation title). Three weeks after distribution of the forms, second year doctoral students and faculty have an opportunity to meet during an evening buffet dinner to discuss dissertation topics, research agendas, and other relevant information. Students then have the opportunity to meet with faculty or to correspond via e-mail or phone as a follow-up. A week later these doctoral students submit their choices for adviser and provide a prioritized list of three names which gives some degree of administrative latitude in the assignment area. If several students selected the same faculty member, there was some flexibility to assign faculty as committee members. Individual meetings with each doctoral candidate follow and adviser selection is discussed. The director of the program attempted to meet the request of each doctoral candidate and query each of them as to why they chose that faculty member as his or her adviser. In some cases students may be asked to take their second or third choice in this process to meet the faculty load requirements mentioned earlier.

During the second year and third year, there were monthly individual student conferences focused on student progress relative to the dissertation and the adviser/committee relationship. Students had the opportunity to reflect and share information from an individual perspective. It is from these meetings that complaints may surface about adviser communication.

The results of the student selection process with the 63 students were compiled as the final cohort completed all of the requirements for graduation. These recorded notes on all the preliminary group sessions were reviewed as well as the adviser selection sheets for three cohorts. Follow-up interviews were conducted with students during the next two years of formal study. This section will summarize the data from this process and report in a chronological listing categorized in three phases. The first session was the initial group (large focus group); the next involved two student conferences, and finally in the last year there were additional student conferences.

The initial phase of interviews started with each cohort at the end of the first year of coursework. This first year coursework was comprised mainly of research courses, a technology course, and a curriculum course. By frontloading the research courses, students are better prepared to understand and apply research methods. In the large group seminar, procedures were outlined for all candidates. Students were provided with information about what qualities (faculty research agendas, positive working relationships, mentoring styles, areas of expertise, time factors, and others) are important considerations. The question as to what were student interests, concerns, and expectations for an adviser followed. The responses fell into three distinct categories as shown below.

This initial phase obviously revealed a stronger emphasis on familiarity among faculty. To further clarify this point, the faculty chosen were those that taught mainly the research methods courses during the first year. Relationships developed among the faculty as did preferences toward methodological choices for the dissertation. The area from these cohorts was the research background and publications of the faculty. Since this Instructional Management/Leadership Ph.D. program serves educators, administrators, health professionals, military, corporate trainers, etc., an administrator would select a faculty member with an administrative background, or a health professional would select a faculty member with a background in the health profession. The last category was a candidate talking to other prior cohort members relative to selecting an adviser. This represented a lesser number, but was also different from the other two categories since it relied primarily on the perception of other people in the selection process. There were a limited number of students in each cohort who chose their adviser after interacting at the evening buffet dinner with doctoral teaching faculty and students, as depicted in the category of Other . Mainly, the discussion at the dinner with doctoral faculty focused on the dissertation process and the work with the adviser. This individual meeting provided an opportunity for each cohort member to express his/her progress in the program. It was stated by the director of the program that in his experience, coursework is seldom the problem of students having trouble in the program. It is usually an issue with the capstone project, the dissertation, or the dissertation process. It is worth noting the connection the connection here to a finding by Knox, Burkard, Janecek, Pruitt, Fuller, and Hill (2011):

We cannot assert causality in either direction (effect of relationship on dissertation; effect of dissertation on relationship) but also cannot ignore the pattern: positive dissertation experiences were characterized by good relationships between adviser and student; problematic dissertations were often characterized by poor relationships. (p. 65)

By the conclusion of the second year of formal study, cohort members had two full semesters to work with their dissertation adviser. Hence, the researchers looked at the follow-up with these same cohorts but conducted, as previously noted, individual meetings with cohort members. The objective was to ascertain if the students were making progress in the dissertation process with their advisers. In this IML Ph.D. program, during the Fall of the 2 nd year, each semester correlates with the chapters of the dissertation which serves as a timeline. For instance, the Fall semester would correlate with Chapter 1 (Introduction) of the dissertation. Chapter 2 (Literature Review) would correlate with Spring, 2 nd year, then Summer of the 3 rd year would correlate with Chapter 3 (Methodology). Chapter 4 (Results) would be in the Fall of the 3 rd year while Chapter 5 (Findings and Conclusions) would be in the Spring of the 3 rd year in the program. It should be noted that this represents a completion schedule that is not representative of all candidates in the program.

In the discussions with Cohort 8A/8B, the group who graduated in May of 2015, there was a common thread among the group. Even though over 40% had earlier comments in year two and year three about their work and relationships with their advisers, any concerns or issues were resolved when these students completed the dissertation enabling them to graduate. Almost 100% of the students recognized their adviser in the Acknowledgement page of the dissertation. So, any ill will or criticism that may have existed earlier in the relationship, dissipated when the students graduated. All the graduates felt that this was a learning experience and that they understood more about themselves and the process in general from this experience. In short, the importance of completion and subsequent graduation would overshadow any negative feelings between the student and adviser. This is shown in Table 2 below:

Table 2: Cohort 8A/8B

In Cohort 9, the group had completed their second year with one year into the dissertation process. Students in this cohort were at various stages of their dissertation. Using the same meeting procedures as with Cohorts 8A and 8B, a researcher met with members of Cohort 9. The responses from this cohort were as follows in Table 3:

Table 3: Cohort 9

Once again, students voiced similar comments on the role of their advisers. Although less negative comments were made by this cohort, the nature of these comments would indicate much different sentiments from the beginning of year 2 until the end of the same year, at least by 30% of the cohort. As noted earlier, issues such as meeting time, expected quick responses on submitted papers, and perceived relationship problems between adviser and candidate were not considered by students in cohorts 8A/8B and cohort 9.

Finally, Cohort 10 selected advisers during the summer of 2015 for the IML Ph.D. program. As noted there are a total of 18 students in this cohort. The same process of providing biographical information on faculty followed by a meet and greet buffet dinner was standard introductory procedure. Given the time frame of less than two months, these students responded in a typical manner by choosing faculty they were familiar with from their coursework or faculty who most impressed them at the dinner buffet. After meeting with each candidate to give faculty adviser/committee assignments, this group, as others, was pleased to hear that they were able to secure the adviser of choice. They, like others, were delighted to begin the process of starting the dissertation.

Discussion, Findings, and Conclusions

From a review of the three cohorts, it was clear that all three groups similar to earlier cohorts in this program, based their choice of adviser primarily on familiarity and first meeting impressions from the buffet dinner event. Familiarity could be explained in terms of selecting a faculty member based on past coursework with that faculty member. In many cases, it was first year doctoral faculty or, in some cases, doctoral faculty who had previously had a student in an undergraduate or graduate course. In should be noted that a percentage of our students pursue the doctoral degree after completing the Instructional Management/Leadership master’s degree at our university. A few students based decisions on the background of the faculty member and that person’s research area while some talked with previous cohort members. Despite preliminary discussions with the cohort in term of the process and shared past commentary from other students in the program, these students were still not focused on what might be considered the most important attributes and qualities of an adviser in the dissertation relationship. In traditional programs, students many times have the opportunity to work more closely with faculty or, at least, have the opportunity to have completed coursework with the majority of doctoral faculty who would serve as advisers.

While the doctoral faculty have a wide range of backgrounds in leadership including military, government, education, and health care, there are limitations on the director that relate directly to the faculty contract. By our contract, each faculty member should be assigned at least one doctoral student and subsequently, would serve on two committees. There is flexibility relative to faculty having more than one student. In the past the mix of students noted earlier in the description of makeup and background of the program participants provided a level of variety for student choice. To illustrate, a public school principal would probably lean toward working with a faculty member who was a former superintendent of schools. We have others who been a part of the corporate, military, higher education, or health professions. However, in some cases, if there was imbalance or over representation in one area (professional background), this might also hamper the ability of students to choose an adviser in their specific field.

The major finding of this brief study was that there was a disconnect between the entry selection criteria, which was somewhat superficial, and the reality of what many of the students really needed in an adviser. Although personal characteristics may be initially important, the complexity of the dissertation adviser role cannot be minimized. During the writing of the dissertation, some students may need more prodding than others. Some may need more encouragement. This relationship should be shaped into a mentoring role as in cognitive apprenticeship where learning occurs through guided experience. Since all faculty advisers completed a dissertation, this can be both a discovery process and a teaching process as in the Actor-Network theory which adviser and advisee are networked to the degree that both adviser and advisee learn from one another. Advisers not only learn new material but also gain new ideas and insights into their own future research agenda. Other criteria described in the literature such as common research interests, time factors, dissertation experience, etc. all have relevance that certainly go beyond familiarity, preliminary first time meetings, and the experience of others. This study’s researchers suggest that the title of adviser-mentor be applied to faculty supporting the work of doctoral students in the program, so as to emphasize the role of faculty in the success of doctoral students.

Also, based on the responses from candidates and the related research, this study’s researchers propose the following specific recommendations as a way of addressing the adviser selection process. These recommendations are aligned with Ghefali’s (2003) expansion of Collins, Holum, and Brown’s (1991) Methods section of the cognitive apprenticeship model:

These recommendations are ways of defining a more substantive and research-supported approach of selecting an adviser. The alignment of this study’s recommendations to Ghefali’s (2003) expanded Methods section of the cognitive apprenticeship model provides adviser-mentors with a rationale for implementing those recommendations and perhaps a framework that can be generalized to similar programs.

The goal is to develop a strong, nurturing relationship between the adviser-mentor and the student. It goes beyond the simple - pick who you know or pick who impresses you approach that is too often chosen by students. It enables doctoral students to engage more frequently and in a more professional, academic relationship with a possible adviser-mentor. Better informing students early on in the process is obviously a preferred first step. These doctoral students will be able to make more informed decisions relative to choice. Faculty, on the other hand, will also have a better opportunity to connect with these doctoral students, especially those faculty who traditional taught courses in the second and third years of the program.

As Joyce (2016) creatively suggests to those wrestling with the improvement of doctoral programs and dissertation advising, “create a space where both parties can exist together as actors who jointly create knowledge for their profession” (p. 412). If we can follow that simple suggestion, along with the recommendations of this brief study, then the choice of door number one, two, or three may be much easier with greater residual benefit, especially for doctoral students participating in today’s fast-track doctoral programs.

Adams, Howard G. and Ram, Ashwin (1992). How to choose an adviser . April, 13, 2015. Retrieved online at http://www.cc.gatech.edu/faculty/ashwin/wisdom/how-to-chose-an-adviser.html

Barnes, B. & Austin, A. (2009). The role of doctoral advisers: A look at advising from the adviser’s perspective. Innovative Higher Education, 33 , 297-315.

Bieber, J.P. and Worley, L.K. (2006, 2010). Conceptualizing the academic life: Graduate students’ perspectives . The Journal of Higher Education , 77 (6) 1009-1035.

Brabazon, T. (2016). Winter is coming: Doctoral supervision in the neoliberal university. International Journal of Social Sciences and Educational Studies, 3 (1).

Callon, M. (1982) Action Network Theory . http://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm- binaries/5222_Ritzer__Entries_beginning_with_A__[1].pdf

Collins, A., Holum, A., and Brown, J.S. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible . May 15, 2015. Article retrieved online.

Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.) (2013). The landscape of qualitative research . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publishing.

Gardner, S. (2013). The challenges of first-generation doctoral students. New Directions for Higher Education , 162 , 43-54.  

Gearity, B. & Mertz, N. (2012). From “bitch” to “mentor”: A doctoral student’s story of self-change and mentoring. The Qualitative Report , 17 , 1-27.

Ghefaili, A. (2003). Cognitive apprenticeship, technology, and the contextualization of learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing, Design & Online Learning , 4 .

Halse, C. & Malfroy, J. (2010). Retheorizing doctoral supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 35 (1), 79-92.

Herzig, A. H.(2002). Where have all the students gone? Participation of doctoral students in authentic activity as a necessary condition for persistence toward the Ph.D. Educational Studies in Mathematics , 50: 177-212.

Hineman, J. and Semich, G. (2013). Cognitive apprenticeship and the support of students in non-traiditional cohort-based doctoral education programs. Proceedings for the Society for Information Technology in Education Conference , March 25-29, 2013, New Orleans, LA.

Holley, K. & Caldwell, M. (2012). The challenges of designing and implementing a doctoral student mentoring program. Innovative Higher Education, 37 , 243-253.

Holman, Zachary C. (2002). Selecting the right Ph.D. adviser: A guide . Article retrieved online August 5, 2015. http://faculty.engineering.asu.edu/holman/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Choosing-an-adviser-v2-ZH.pdf

Jaeger, A., Sandman, L. & Kim, J. (2011). Advising graduate students doing community-engaged dissertation research: The adviser-advisee relationship. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 15 (4), 5-25.

Joyce, P. (2016). “The thing itself”: Using literary criticism techniques in teaching qualitative research through dissertation advising. Qualitative Social Work, 15 (3), 407-413.

Killeya, Mathew (2008). The Ph.D. journey: How to choose a good supervisor. New Scientist . Issue 2644, February 2008.

Kim, Y. (2007). Difficulties in quality doctoral academic advising. Journal of Research in International Education, 6 (2), 171-193.

Knox, S., Burkard, A., Janecek, J., Pruitt, N., Fuller, S. & Hill, C. (2011). Positive and problematic dissertation experiences: The faculty perspective. Counseling in Psychology Quarterly, 24 (1), 55-69.

Knox, S., Sokol, J., Schlosser, L., Inman, A., Nilsson, J. & Wang, Y. (2013). International advisees’ perspectives in the advising relationship in counseling psychology doctoral programs. International Perspectives in Psychology; Research, Practice, Consultation, 2 (1), 45-61

Law, J. (2007). Actor neywork theory and material semiotics . Article retrieved online April 27, 2015. Retrieved from http://www.heterogeneities.net/publications/Law2007ANTandMaterialSemiotics.pdf

Linden, J., Ohlin, M. & Brodin, E. (2013). Mentorship, supervision and learning experience in Ph.D. education. Studies in Higher Education, 38 (5), 639-662.

Martinsuo, M. and Turkulainen, V. (2011). Personal commitment, support and progress in doctoral studies, Studies in Higher Education , 36 (1), 103-120.

Murakami-Ramhalo, E., Militello, M. & Piert, J. (2013). A view form within: How doctoral students in educational administration develop research knowledge and identity. Studies in Higher Education, 38 (2), 256-271.

Noy, S. & Ray, R. (2012). Graduate students’ perceptions of their advisers: is there systematic disadavantage to mentorship? The Journal of Higher Education, 83 (6), 876-914.

Patterson, D. (2010). Your students are your legacy. Communication of the ACM, 52 (3), 30-33.

Phillips, E. and Pugh, D. (2000). How to get a Ph.D. : A handbook for students and their supervisors (3 rd ed.), Buckingham, UK; Open University Press.

Sangganjanavanich, V. & Magnuson, S. (2009). Counselor Education & Supervision, 48 , 194-203.

Schlosser, L. & Kahn, J. (2007). Dyadic perspectives on adviser-advisee relationships in counseling psychology doctoral programs. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(2), 211-217.

Stark, Miriam (2013). Choosing a dissertation or thesis/adviser mentor . Article retrieved online August 3, 2015. http://www.anthropology.hawaii.edu/graduate/agsa/choosing-adviser-mentor.pdf

Titus, S. & Ballou, J. (2011). Faculty members’ perceptions of advising versus mentoring: Does the name matter? Science and Engineering Ethics, 19, 1267-1281.

Valian, V. (1999). Why so slow? The advancement of women . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Zhao, C., Golde, C., & McKormick, A. (2007) More than a signature How adviser choice and adviser behavior affect doctoral student satisfaction . Journal of Further and Higher Education , 31 (3), 263-281.

Save Citation »    (Works with EndNote, ProCite, & Reference Manager)

Hineman, J. M., & Semich, G. (2017). "Choosing a Dissertation Adviser: Challenges and Strategies for Doctoral Students." Inquiries Journal , 9 (03). Retrieved from http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=1588

Hineman, John M., and George Semich. "Choosing a Dissertation Adviser: Challenges and Strategies for Doctoral Students." Inquiries Journal 9.03 (2017). < http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=1588 >

Hineman, John M., and George Semich. 2017. Choosing a Dissertation Adviser: Challenges and Strategies for Doctoral Students. Inquiries Journal 9 (03), http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=1588

HINEMAN, J. M., & SEMICH, G. 2017. Choosing a Dissertation Adviser: Challenges and Strategies for Doctoral Students. Inquiries Journal [Online], 9. Available: http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=1588

John M. Hineman graduated in 2011 with a PhD in Education from Robert Morris University .

George Semich , Ed.D., is the Director of the IML PhD Program at Robert Morris University .

From the Inquiries Journal Blog

Related reading, monthly newsletter signup.

The newsletter highlights recent selections from the journal and useful tips from our blog.

Suggested Reading from Inquiries Journal

Inquiries Journal provides undergraduate and graduate students around the world a platform for the wide dissemination of academic work over a range of core disciplines.

Representing the work of students from hundreds of institutions around the globe, Inquiries Journal 's large database of academic articles is completely free. Learn more | Blog | Submit

Latest in Education

What are you looking for, from our blog.

Inquiries Journal

© 2024 Inquiries Journal/Student Pulse LLC . All rights reserved. ISSN: 2153-5760.

Disclaimer: content on this website is for informational purposes only. It is not intended to provide medical or other professional advice. Moreover, the views expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of Inquiries Journal or Student Pulse, its owners, staff, contributors, or affiliates.

Home | Current Issue | Blog | Archives | About The Journal | Submissions Terms of Use :: Privacy Policy :: Contact

Need an Account?

Forgot password? Reset your password »

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation

What Is a Dissertation? | Guide, Examples, & Template

A dissertation is a long-form piece of academic writing based on original research conducted by you. It is usually submitted as the final step in order to finish a PhD program.

Your dissertation is probably the longest piece of writing you’ve ever completed. It requires solid research, writing, and analysis skills, and it can be intimidating to know where to begin.

Your department likely has guidelines related to how your dissertation should be structured. When in doubt, consult with your supervisor.

You can also download our full dissertation template in the format of your choice below. The template includes a ready-made table of contents with notes on what to include in each chapter, easily adaptable to your department’s requirements.

Download Word template Download Google Docs template

• In the US, a dissertation generally refers to the collection of research you conducted to obtain a PhD.
• In other countries (such as the UK), a dissertation often refers to the research you conduct to obtain your bachelor’s or master’s degree.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

Dissertation committee and prospectus process, how to write and structure a dissertation, acknowledgements or preface, list of figures and tables, list of abbreviations, introduction, literature review, methodology, reference list, proofreading and editing, defending your dissertation, free checklist and lecture slides.

When you’ve finished your coursework, as well as any comprehensive exams or other requirements, you advance to “ABD” (All But Dissertation) status. This means you’ve completed everything except your dissertation.

Prior to starting to write, you must form your committee and write your prospectus or proposal . Your committee comprises your adviser and a few other faculty members. They can be from your own department, or, if your work is more interdisciplinary, from other departments. Your committee will guide you through the dissertation process, and ultimately decide whether you pass your dissertation defense and receive your PhD.

Your prospectus is a formal document presented to your committee, usually orally in a defense, outlining your research aims and objectives and showing why your topic is relevant . After passing your prospectus defense, you’re ready to start your research and writing.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

The structure of your dissertation depends on a variety of factors, such as your discipline, topic, and approach. Dissertations in the humanities are often structured more like a long essay , building an overall argument to support a central thesis , with chapters organized around different themes or case studies.

However, hard science and social science dissertations typically include a review of existing works, a methodology section, an analysis of your original research, and a presentation of your results , presented in different chapters.

Dissertation examples

We’ve compiled a list of dissertation examples to help you get started.

• Example dissertation #1: Heat, Wildfire and Energy Demand: An Examination of Residential Buildings and Community Equity (a dissertation by C. A. Antonopoulos about the impact of extreme heat and wildfire on residential buildings and occupant exposure risks).
• Example dissertation #2: Exploring Income Volatility and Financial Health Among Middle-Income Households (a dissertation by M. Addo about income volatility and declining economic security among middle-income households).
• Example dissertation #3: The Use of Mindfulness Meditation to Increase the Efficacy of Mirror Visual Feedback for Reducing Phantom Limb Pain in Amputees (a dissertation by N. S. Mills about the effect of mindfulness-based interventions on the relationship between mirror visual feedback and the pain level in amputees with phantom limb pain).

The very first page of your document contains your dissertation title, your name, department, institution, degree program, and submission date. Sometimes it also includes your student number, your supervisor’s name, and the university’s logo.

Read more about title pages

The acknowledgements section is usually optional and gives space for you to thank everyone who helped you in writing your dissertation. This might include your supervisors, participants in your research, and friends or family who supported you. In some cases, your acknowledgements are part of a preface.

Read more about acknowledgements Read more about prefaces

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

The abstract is a short summary of your dissertation, usually about 150 to 300 words long. Though this may seem very short, it’s one of the most important parts of your dissertation, because it introduces your work to your audience.

Your abstract should:

• State your main topic and the aims of your research
• Describe your methods
• Summarize your main results
• State your conclusions

Read more about abstracts

The table of contents lists all of your chapters, along with corresponding subheadings and page numbers. This gives your reader an overview of your structure and helps them easily navigate your document.

Remember to include all main parts of your dissertation in your table of contents, even the appendices. It’s easy to generate a table automatically in Word if you used heading styles. Generally speaking, you only include level 2 and level 3 headings, not every subheading you included in your finished work.

Read more about tables of contents

While not usually mandatory, it’s nice to include a list of figures and tables to help guide your reader if you have used a lot of these in your dissertation. It’s easy to generate one of these in Word using the Insert Caption feature.

Read more about lists of figures and tables

Similarly, if you have used a lot of abbreviations (especially industry-specific ones) in your dissertation, you can include them in an alphabetized list of abbreviations so that the reader can easily look up their meanings.

Read more about lists of abbreviations

In addition to the list of abbreviations, if you find yourself using a lot of highly specialized terms that you worry will not be familiar to your reader, consider including a glossary. Here, alphabetize the terms and include a brief description or definition.

Read more about glossaries

The introduction serves to set up your dissertation’s topic, purpose, and relevance. It tells the reader what to expect in the rest of your dissertation. The introduction should:

• Establish your research topic , giving the background information needed to contextualize your work
• Narrow down the focus and define the scope of your research
• Discuss the state of existing research on the topic, showing your work’s relevance to a broader problem or debate
• Clearly state your research questions and objectives
• Outline the flow of the rest of your work

Everything in the introduction should be clear, engaging, and relevant. By the end, the reader should understand the what, why, and how of your research.

Read more about introductions

A formative part of your research is your literature review . This helps you gain a thorough understanding of the academic work that already exists on your topic.

Literature reviews encompass:

• Finding relevant sources (e.g., books and journal articles)
• Assessing the credibility of your sources
• Critically analyzing and evaluating each source
• Drawing connections between them (e.g., themes, patterns, conflicts, or gaps) to strengthen your overall point

A literature review is not merely a summary of existing sources. Your literature review should have a coherent structure and argument that leads to a clear justification for your own research. It may aim to:

• Address a gap in the literature or build on existing knowledge
• Take a new theoretical or methodological approach to your topic
• Propose a solution to an unresolved problem or advance one side of a theoretical debate

Read more about literature reviews

Theoretical framework

Your literature review can often form the basis for your theoretical framework. Here, you define and analyze the key theories, concepts, and models that frame your research.

Read more about theoretical frameworks

Your methodology chapter describes how you conducted your research, allowing your reader to critically assess its credibility. Your methodology section should accurately report what you did, as well as convince your reader that this was the best way to answer your research question.

A methodology section should generally include:

• The overall research approach ( quantitative vs. qualitative ) and research methods (e.g., a longitudinal study )
• Your data collection methods (e.g., interviews or a controlled experiment )
• Details of where, when, and with whom the research took place
• Any tools and materials you used (e.g., computer programs, lab equipment)
• Your data analysis methods (e.g., statistical analysis , discourse analysis )
• An evaluation or justification of your methods

Read more about methodology sections

Your results section should highlight what your methodology discovered. You can structure this section around sub-questions, hypotheses , or themes, but avoid including any subjective or speculative interpretation here.

Your results section should:

• Concisely state each relevant result together with relevant descriptive statistics (e.g., mean , standard deviation ) and inferential statistics (e.g., test statistics , p values )
• Briefly state how the result relates to the question or whether the hypothesis was supported
• Report all results that are relevant to your research questions , including any that did not meet your expectations.

Additional data (including raw numbers, full questionnaires, or interview transcripts) can be included as an appendix. You can include tables and figures, but only if they help the reader better understand your results. Read more about results sections

Your discussion section is your opportunity to explore the meaning and implications of your results in relation to your research question. Here, interpret your results in detail, discussing whether they met your expectations and how well they fit with the framework that you built in earlier chapters. Refer back to relevant source material to show how your results fit within existing research in your field.

Some guiding questions include:

• What do your results mean?
• Why do your results matter?
• What limitations do the results have?

If any of the results were unexpected, offer explanations for why this might be. It’s a good idea to consider alternative interpretations of your data.

Read more about discussion sections

Your dissertation’s conclusion should concisely answer your main research question, leaving your reader with a clear understanding of your central argument and emphasizing what your research has contributed to the field.

In some disciplines, the conclusion is just a short section preceding the discussion section, but in other contexts, it is the final chapter of your work. Here, you wrap up your dissertation with a final reflection on what you found, with recommendations for future research and concluding remarks.

It’s important to leave the reader with a clear impression of why your research matters. What have you added to what was already known? Why is your research necessary for the future of your field?

Read more about conclusions

It is crucial to include a reference list or list of works cited with the full details of all the sources that you used, in order to avoid plagiarism. Be sure to choose one citation style and follow it consistently throughout your dissertation. Each style has strict and specific formatting requirements.

Common styles include MLA , Chicago , and APA , but which style you use is often set by your department or your field.

Create APA citations Create MLA citations

Your dissertation should contain only essential information that directly contributes to answering your research question. Documents such as interview transcripts or survey questions can be added as appendices, rather than adding them to the main body.

Read more about appendices

Making sure that all of your sections are in the right place is only the first step to a well-written dissertation. Don’t forget to leave plenty of time for editing and proofreading, as grammar mistakes and sloppy spelling errors can really negatively impact your work.

Dissertations can take up to five years to write, so you will definitely want to make sure that everything is perfect before submitting. You may want to consider using a professional dissertation editing service , AI proofreader or grammar checker to make sure your final project is perfect prior to submitting.

After your written dissertation is approved, your committee will schedule a defense. Similarly to defending your prospectus, dissertation defenses are oral presentations of your work. You’ll present your dissertation, and your committee will ask you questions. Many departments allow family members, friends, and other people who are interested to join as well.

After your defense, your committee will meet, and then inform you whether you have passed. Keep in mind that defenses are usually just a formality; most committees will have resolved any serious issues with your work with you far prior to your defense, giving you ample time to fix any problems.

As you write your dissertation, you can use this simple checklist to make sure you’ve included all the essentials.

Checklist: Dissertation

My title page includes all information required by my university.

I have included acknowledgements thanking those who helped me.

My abstract provides a concise summary of the dissertation, giving the reader a clear idea of my key results or arguments.

I have created a table of contents to help the reader navigate my dissertation. It includes all chapter titles, but excludes the title page, acknowledgements, and abstract.

My introduction leads into my topic in an engaging way and shows the relevance of my research.

My introduction clearly defines the focus of my research, stating my research questions and research objectives .

My introduction includes an overview of the dissertation’s structure (reading guide).

I have conducted a literature review in which I (1) critically engage with sources, evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of existing research, (2) discuss patterns, themes, and debates in the literature, and (3) address a gap or show how my research contributes to existing research.

I have clearly outlined the theoretical framework of my research, explaining the theories and models that support my approach.

I have thoroughly described my methodology , explaining how I collected data and analyzed data.

I have concisely and objectively reported all relevant results .

I have (1) evaluated and interpreted the meaning of the results and (2) acknowledged any important limitations of the results in my discussion .

I have clearly stated the answer to my main research question in the conclusion .

I have clearly explained the implications of my conclusion, emphasizing what new insight my research has contributed.

I have provided relevant recommendations for further research or practice.

If relevant, I have included appendices with supplemental information.

I have included an in-text citation every time I use words, ideas, or information from a source.

I have listed every source in a reference list at the end of my dissertation.

I have consistently followed the rules of my chosen citation style .

I have followed all formatting guidelines provided by my university.

Congratulations!

The end is in sight—your dissertation is nearly ready to submit! Make sure it's perfectly polished with the help of a Scribbr editor.

If you’re an educator, feel free to download and adapt these slides to teach your students about structuring a dissertation.

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

Is this article helpful?

Other students also liked.

• How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates
• Dissertation Table of Contents in Word | Instructions & Examples
• How to Choose a Dissertation Topic | 8 Steps to Follow

More interesting articles

• Checklist: Writing a dissertation
• Dissertation & Thesis Outline | Example & Free Templates
• Dissertation Binding and Printing | Options, Tips, & Comparison
• Example of a dissertation abstract
• Figure and Table Lists | Word Instructions, Template & Examples
• How to Write a Discussion Section | Tips & Examples
• How to Write a Dissertation or Thesis Proposal
• How to Write a Results Section | Tips & Examples
• How to Write a Thesis or Dissertation Conclusion
• How to Write a Thesis or Dissertation Introduction
• How to Write an Abstract | Steps & Examples
• How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips
• List of Abbreviations | Example, Template & Best Practices
• Operationalization | A Guide with Examples, Pros & Cons
• Prize-Winning Thesis and Dissertation Examples
• Purpose and structure of an advisory report
• Relevance of Your Dissertation Topic | Criteria & Tips
• Research Paper Appendix | Example & Templates
• Shorten your abstract or summary
• Theoretical Framework Example for a Thesis or Dissertation
• Thesis & Dissertation Acknowledgements | Tips & Examples
• Thesis & Dissertation Database Examples
• Thesis & Dissertation Title Page | Free Templates & Examples
• What is a Dissertation Preface? | Definition & Examples
• What is a Glossary? | Definition, Templates, & Examples
• What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips
• What Is a Theoretical Framework? | Guide to Organizing
• What Is a Thesis? | Ultimate Guide & Examples

Get unlimited documents corrected

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Graduate School

• Make a Gift

Student and Advisor Responsibilities

Responsibility

A thesis is required for all programs leading to a Plan A master’s degree, and a dissertation is required for the doctor of philosophy degree. This manual was written by the Graduate School to help you and your committee members to prepare theses and dissertations. Its purpose is to define uniform format standards. The word “thesis” refers to both the thesis and the dissertation unless otherwise noted.

Advisor’s Responsibility

Your advisor serves as a mentor both while you are doing the thesis work and while the results of that work are prepared for the thesis. Although you have primary responsibility for the content, quality, and format of the thesis, the advisor and the Graduate Advisory Committee must be consulted frequently. They approve the final document before it is submitted to the Graduate School. Advisors are particularly asked to insure that the abstract summarizes clearly and concisely the major points of the thesis.

Student’s Responsibility

Your are responsible for making all arrangements for the preparation and submission of the thesis as well as any additional copies required by the department. you should also consider the following:

1. Consult a style manual approved by your department for correct format for quotations, footnotes, and bibliographical items. 2. Refer to the Graduate School Thesis and Dissertation Formatting Guide for guidelines regarding correct format for thesis presentation (including illustrative materials). 3. Edit draft for correct sentence structure, grammar, paragraphing, punctuation, and spelling. 4. Prepare tables in the form in which they are to be printed. 5. Furnish numbering and legends for all tables and illustrative materials. 6. Proofread final copy and check to see that corrections are made accurately. 7. Present a copy to the Graduate Advisory Committee for their review. 8. Submit the final committee approved version electronically.

Roles and Responsibilities of a Research Advisor

• First Online: 15 September 2021

Cite this chapter

• Robert S. Fleming 3 &
• Michelle Kowalsky 4  

Part of the book series: Springer Texts in Education ((SPTE))

1074 Accesses

Rather than taking a journey alone, many travelers will decide to have a companion accompany them on their trip. This is often the case when one is embarking on a long trip or traveling to a destination to which they had not traveled before.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Bibliography

Joyner, R. L., Rouse, W. A., & Glatthorn, A. A. (2013). Writing the Winning Thesis or Dissertation: A Step-by-Step Guide . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Google Scholar  

Nygaard, L. (2017). Writing your master’s thesis: From A to Zen . Sage.

Parija, S. C., & Kate, V. (2018). Thesis writing for Master's and Ph.D. program . Singapore: Springer.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Rohrer College of Business, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ, USA

Robert S. Fleming

Campbell Library, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ, USA

Michelle Kowalsky

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert S. Fleming .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Fleming, R.S., Kowalsky, M. (2021). Roles and Responsibilities of a Research Advisor. In: Survival Skills for Thesis and Dissertation Candidates. Springer Texts in Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80939-3_11

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80939-3_11

Published : 15 September 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-80938-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-80939-3

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

How to Choose a Thesis Advisor

Choosing a thesis advisor is the most important decision of your life--perhaps more important than choosing a spouse--because your choice affects everything you will do in your career. Indeed, choosing an advisor is similar to getting married: it is making a long-term commitment. Unlike marriage, however, a good advising relationship should end successfully within a few years. Also, unlike husband and wife, the advisor and student do not start as equals. At first, the relationship is essentially an apprenticeship. But although you start as an apprentice, ideally, you should end as a colleague.

As you consider which professor might serve as an advisor, you should first formulate your goals in undertaking thesis research. A thesis demonstrates your ability to make an original, significant contribution to the corpus of human knowledge. Through your thesis project, you develop skills useful in any career: critical reading of the scholarly or scientific literature, formulation and solution of a problem, clear written and oral communication of the results. Furthermore, you learn the practices of a particular scholarly community: theoretical frameworks and experimental paradigms, publication processes, and standards of professional behavior. You learn how to present a paper at a seminar or a conference, and how to give and receive criticism.

You should seek a thesis advisor who can help you meet your goals, and whose working style is compatible with yours. Here are some specific steps that you can take to find an advisor.

Take a course with a potential advisor, possibly individual study. In an individual study course, you can learn about the professor's working style, with a limited, one semester commitment between you and the professor. The individual study course might involve directed reading, with the goal of producing a survey article that could serve as the basis for a thesis. Or the individual study course might involve a small project in the professor's laboratory.

Ask for copies of grant proposals that describe research projects of possible interest to you. A grant proposal states research problems, explains the importance of the problems in the context of other research, and describes recent progress, including the professor's contributions. Usually, a proposal includes references to journal articles and books that you can look up. You do not need the budget part of the proposal, which contains confidential information about salaries.

Consider working with two advisors. If you are interested in an interdisciplinary project, then you could engage two official advisors, one in each discipline. Even if you choose only one official advisor, you may occasionally seek advice from a second professor, who can provide an alternate perspective. Some departments institutionalize this practice by requiring that the chair of a doctoral committee be different from the thesis advisor. Discuss these arrangements with both professors openly, to minimize possible misunderstandings about each professor's role.

Interview a potential advisor. Before the interview, read some articles written by the professor so that you can ask intelligent questions about the professor's research interests. Prepare several questions such as the following.

What are the professor's standards and expectations for the quality of the thesis, such as the overall length? Will the professor help formulate the research topic?

How quickly will the professor review drafts of manuscripts? Will the professor help you improve writing and speaking skills? Will the professor encourage publication of your work?

Will the professor provide equipment and materials? Will the professor obtain financial support such as funds to travel to conferences or research assistantships? Will the professor help you find appropriate employment? Where have former students gone?

What will your responsibilities be? Will you write proposals or make presentations to research sponsors?

How frequently will you meet with the professor? The most common problem in the humanities and social sciences is insufficiently frequent contact with the advisor. I meet with each of my own thesis students individually for one hour each week, in addition to a weekly group meeting.

What are the obligations to the project funding source? How frequently are reports required? Are deliverables promised? Could publications be delayed by a patent filing? Are there potential conflicts of interest?

How will decisions on co-authorship of papers be made? In engineering and natural sciences, co-authorship is common, but practices vary by discipline. Sometimes, the advisor's name always goes last. Sometimes, the order of names is alphabetical. Sometimes, the first author is the person whose contribution was greatest.

Interview former students. Students who have graduated are more likely to answer your questions candidly than current students. Ask a potential advisor for names and e-mail addresses of former students, whom you can contact.

Was a former student's project unnecessarily prolonged? Did anyone not finish? Why not? Many projects suffer unanticipated delays. Occasionally, for various reasons--not always the advisor's fault--students do not finish theses and dissertations.

How were conflicts resolved? When you work closely with someone else, disagreements are inevitable. The key question is whether conflicts were handled respectfully, with satisfactory resolutions.

If you have a major conflict with your advisor, first attempt to find solutions within you department, consulting another trusted professor, other members of your committee, or the department head. Should you be unable to find a solution by working with people in your department, be assured that we in the Graduate College are available to help mediate conflicts. Fortunately, major conflicts are rare. It is most likely that you will enjoy a successful, intellectually satisfying thesis project.

• Utility Menu

GA4 Tracking Code

fa51e2b1dc8cca8f7467da564e77b5ea

• Make a Gift
• Join Our Email List
• Advising Senior Theses

Every thesis writer and thesis project is unique, and arguably the single most important thing that you can do as a thesis adviser is to get to know your student well and to be supportive and attentive as they work towards their spring deadline. The amount of structure that different concentrations offer their students can also have a significant impact on how you think about your role as an adviser. In some cases you may feel like an extension of the department’s undergraduate office, encouraging your student to follow its well-articulated pathway towards completion and nudging your student to heed (albeit perhaps with some discretion) its recommended proposal or draft deadlines. In other cases you may be the one responsible for translating the concentration’s somewhat vague guidelines into an actionable roadmap of recommended thresholds and dates. It’s well worth establishing a healthy line of communication with the concentration’s undergraduate office (and with anyone else involved in advising your student’s academic work) from the start of your advising relationship.

Regardless of the precise structure and obligations surrounding your position as an adviser, there are a number of things which you can do to help just about any student have a meaningful, and successful, experience with the senior thesis. Here are five key contributions which you can make:

Manage expectations

In an ideal world, every student would enter the thesis process fully prepared for every aspect of scholarly work. They all would know how to ask an analytical question suitable for a 60- or 100-page paper, how to find relevant data, how to draw lucid figures, how to format every footnote or methods section, … . Likewise, we might wish that every thesis topic lent itself equally well to the particular constraints of Harvard’s resources and academic calendar. If only that essential cache of Russian manuscripts existed in a published English translation in Widener! If only this experimental protocol took two weeks rather than four months! In reality, however, every thesis involves some compromise—perhaps significant compromise. One of your most important jobs as a thesis adviser is to roleplay your student’s future audience, and to help your student understand that the most successful theses ask questions that are not only meaningful, but that can be answered at least somewhat plausibly by the set of skills, resources, and time that is available to a Harvard undergraduate. Insofar as a student is determined to tackle a dissertation-sized question, the adviser can at least remind the student that it will be important to frame the results as a “partial” answer or a “contribution towards” an answer in the introduction.

Encourage self-knowledge

As with the previous point about managing expectations, it is important that an adviser be able to remind their student that the senior thesis is not, and will not be, the moment when students magically become “better” people than they already are. Students who have been night owls during their first three years of college are unlikely to transform miraculously into the type of scholars who rise at 6am and write 1000 words before breakfast—no matter how much they yearn to emulate some academic role model. Students who have participated actively in a sport or other extracurricular are unlikely to be able to simply recoup those hours for thesis work—cutting back three hours/week at The Crimson is at least as likely to translate into three more hours spent bantering in the dining hall as it is into three hours spent poring over the administrative structure of the Byzantine Empire. The point is that students can benefit from being reminded that they already know how to do the kind of work expected of them on the thesis, and that it may be counterproductive—if not downright unhealthy—to hold themselves to new or arbitrary standards.

Motivate to start writing early

With relatively few exceptions, most of the writing projects assigned in college are sufficiently modest that students can wait to start writing until they have figured out the full arc of what they want to say and how they want to say it. It’s possible, in other words, to plan and hold the entirety of a five-page essay in one’s head. This is simply not true of a senior thesis. Theses require the author to take a leap of faith—to start writing before the research is done and long before they know exactly what they want to say. Students may be reluctant to do this, fearing that they might “waste” precious time drafting a section of a chapter that ultimately doesn’t fit in the final thesis. You can do your student a world of good by reminding them that there is no such thing as wasted writing. In a project as large as a thesis, writing is not merely about reporting one’s conclusions—it is the process through which students come to figure out what their conclusions might be, and which lines of research they will need to pursue to get there.

Model strategies

While academic research and writing can and should be a creative endeavor, it is also undeniably true that even professional scholars draw upon a relatively constrained set of well-known strategies when framing their work. How many different ways, after all, are there to say that the conventional wisdom on a topic has ignored a certain genre of evidence? Or that two competing schools of thought actually agree more than they disagree? Or that fiddling with one variable has the power to reframe an entire discussion? Students may struggle to see how to plug their research into the existing scholarly conversation around their topic. Showing them models or templates that demystify the ways in which scholars frame their interventions can be enormously powerful.

Keep contact and avoid the "shame spiral"

As noted above, the senior thesis is a long process, and while it’s rarely a good idea for students to change their work habits in an effort to complete it, it is important that they be working early and often. Occasionally students do become overwhelmed by the scope of the project, and begin to feel defeated by the incremental nature of progress they are making. Even a good week of work may yield only a couple of pages of passable writing. Ideally a student feeling overwhelmed would come to their adviser for some help putting things into perspective. But for a student used to having a fair amount of success, the struggles involved in a senior thesis may be disorienting, and they may worry that they are “disappointing” you. For some, this will manifest as a retreat from your deadlines and oversight—even as they outwardly project confidence. They may begin bargaining with themselves in ways that only serve to sink them deeper into a sense of panic or shame. (“I’m long past the deadline for my first ten pages—but if I give my adviser a really brilliant fifteen-page section, he won’t mind! Surely I can turn these four pages into fifteen if I stay up all night!”) One of the best things that you can do as an adviser is keep contact with your student and make sure to remind them that your dynamic is not one of “approval” or “disapproval.” It is important that they maintain a healthy and realistic approach to the incremental process of completing the thesis over several months.

For more information...

The Art of Thesis Writing: A handout for students

Harvard's Academic Resource Center on Senior Theses

Senior Thesis Tutors at the Harvard College Writing Center

• Designing Your Course
• In the Classroom
• Getting Feedback
• Equitable & Inclusive Teaching
• Writing Letters of Recommendation
• Teaching and Your Career
• Teaching Remotely
• Tools and Platforms
• The Science of Learning
• Bok Publications
• Other Resources Around Campus

• Thesis & Dissertation Editing
• Books and Journal Articles
• Coaching and Consultation
• Research Assistance
• Quantitative
• Qualitative
• Document Review Service
• Meet The Team
• Client Testimonials
• Join Our Team
• Get In Touch
• Make Payment

What does a Dissertation Advisor, Dissertation Chair, or Thesis Advisor do?

25th August 2022

Tagged under: Uncategorized  

Thank you for you and your team's support in my final stages of finishing and polishing my doctoral dissertation. The timeliness, professionalism, and thoroughness of your team's work is extremely appreciated. Many thanks once again.

Read More Client Testimonials

Thesis Editor

+44 20 3992 8489 info@thesis-editor.co.uk Hamilton House, Mabledon Place, London, WC1H 9BB

© 2024 Thesis Editor Ltd , all rights reserved.

Academic Integrity Policy   Policies, Terms & Conditions   Referral Rewards   Privacy Policy   Site map

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

Should list my advisor as an author on a paper I wrote alone? [duplicate]

As a part of my PhD project, I wrote a paper. When my supervisor read it, she said “it is perfect and complete, go ahead and publish it yourself because I cannot contribute more to it”. She really meant it and tried to do me a favor.

However, I still think it can be more beneficial for my future to have her name on my paper. Should I insist to have her as a coauthor or it might be useful in the future to have all the credits of a good paper?

• publications

• 40 If you put your supervisor on the paper as an author, that would be academic dishonesty since she did not contribute sufficiently to it to earn authorship. Having your supervisor as a coauthor does not increase the value of the paper (and for you personally, it would probably decrease the value). –  Tobias Kildetoft Commented Mar 26, 2017 at 12:25
• 4 What you are proposing is known as gift authorship. –  David Ketcheson Commented Mar 26, 2017 at 16:05
• @DavidKetcheson: True, but I advise against using that term. It makes it sound like a positive act of giving, which is not how I see it. –  einpoklum Commented Mar 26, 2017 at 17:21
• 3 it can be more beneficial for my future to have her name on my paper – What makes you think so? –  Wrzlprmft ♦ Commented Mar 26, 2017 at 18:28
• @DavidKetcheson I'm not convinced this is a dupe. The other question is quite clearly phrased around a lab environment and it's not clear that this applies, here. –  David Richerby Commented Mar 27, 2017 at 9:12

4 Answers 4

You should be a sole author for two reasons. First, your supervisor did not contribute to the paper. Some journals actually make you write out what each author accomplished, so you would be at a loss there anyway. Second, a sole-authored publication will demonstrate that you can work independently, which looks great to faculty search committees! When you are on the market, they want to hire people who will become independent researchers. You are demonstrating that by sole-authorship! If you want to publish with your supervisor because she is well-known in the field, my suggestion is that you talk with her about an additional paper project that both of you can work on.

On a side note, your supervisor might have described your paper as "perfect and complete," though this is only one reviewer's opinion. Though the paper may be at a stage for journal submission, please be prepared that the 2-5 blind reviewers may have different opinions about what is "perfect and complete." You still may get A LOT of revision requests from them. I'm sure you did a great job, I just don't want you to get discouraged if the reviewers end up being more critical.

Best of luck!!!!

• 6 One problem a friend of mine had: his advisor had encouraged him to write almost exlusively single-author papers, so that when it came time for him to apply to postdocs, people in the field did not know who his advisor was because they had written hardly any papers together! So, it is important to balance the value of a single-author paper with the value of letting people know who your advisor is (as well as only listing authors in a paper who actually contributed to the paper.) –  NeutronStar Commented Mar 26, 2017 at 18:11
• 2 @Joshua The way the hiring committees will know who his advisor was is by the fact that his advisor will be writing him a letter of recommendation. –  Tobias Kildetoft Commented Mar 26, 2017 at 18:23
• @TobiasKildetoft, but they won't know until then. It's difficult to establish at a general level during your grad school years who's student you are if that fact isn't being advertised on your papers (at least in some fields). –  NeutronStar Commented Mar 26, 2017 at 18:38
• 2 If simply having others know that someone is/was your advisor is important, my suggestion is to list your advisor on your CV where you list your degree and institution. For example, underneath "2010 | PhD, Discipline, University of Somewhere" you can write on the line below: "Dissertation/Thesis Title. Advisor, Dr. V. Smith." –  Nicole Ruggiano Commented Mar 26, 2017 at 20:05
• 3 To the point of only having single-authored papers, this is also discouraged, because it is unclear if you can conduct and write research in a collaborative setting, which is how most research is done today. –  Nicole Ruggiano Commented Mar 26, 2017 at 20:08

TL;DR: Don't list her as an author, because: 1. She isn't one. 2. It's ok for you to be the sole author.

First it must be said that the question of what benefits you is the minor consideration in listing the authors of a paper. A scientific paper needs to be attributed to the people who performed the research and/or writeup, and that's that. While there are many cases in which it's not clear whether a person should or shouldn't count as an author because the weight of the contribution is debatable, this is not one of them. So even if it were to help you somehow to list your advisor as an author - it would be inappropriate. Unethical even.

Irrespective of that fact, it's perfectly common and acceptable, and often appreciated, for PhD candidates to write papers of their own. So you're not even risking anything.

I advise clarifying with the supervisor whether "go ahead and publish it yourself because I cannot contribute more to it" meant that you should submit it with only your name in the author list, or whether they meant that in their opinion it was ready for submission and that they had no suggestions for improvement.

At the University where I completed my PhD, and at others Universities of which I have direct knowledge, it was the norm (i.e. expected) to include supervisors as co-authors independent of direct contribution to a paper.

In the case where you are the (otherwise) sole author then the author list would read < self >, < supervisor1 >, < supervisor2 >, ... . And in the case where you were the lead author and had contributions from others then the author list would read < self >, < co-contributor1 >, < co-contributor2 >, ..., < supervisor1 >, < supervisor2 >... .

Additional commentary:

I have not been able to find anything which states this explicitly. I have since found this, which to me indicates that supervisors should only be listed as coauthors if they directly contribute, contradicting what was communicated verbally to me:

List the authors on the title page by full names whenever possible. Please be absolutely sure you have spelled your coauthors’ names correctly. Be sure also to use the form of the names that your coauthors prefer. Include only those who take intellectual responsibility for the work being reported, and exclude those who have been involved only peripherally. The author list should not be used in lieu of an acknowledgments section. ( Additional Information for BSc Honours Dissertation and MSc Research Projects )

On reflection, this suggests that early papers will normally have supervisors as coauthors (assuming intellectual or tangible contributions to the papers) as the PhD candidate develops as a researcher, but that later papers would only list supervisors if the supervisor has clearly contributed in the same way as would be considered for any other person to be listed as a coauthor.

(Independent of this, I have also seen academic environments where it is politically expedient to list supervisors as coauthors - to keep them happy, so to speak...)

• Could you provide anything official from said schools on this policy? It goes directly against most academic principles of what authorship means. –  Tobias Kildetoft Commented Mar 27, 2017 at 14:19
• Mick, I take "publish it yourself" and the fact that the poster asked this question to suggest that it does indeed mean "without advisor as coauthor". Just because it was practice at your institution to include as courtesy doesn't mean it is universal. I too had one paper as a PhD student where my advisor said he didn't contribute and shouldn't be included. –  Fred Douglis Commented Mar 27, 2017 at 14:48
• I have added some additional commentary. In my opinion there seems to be often cases where academic principles and internal politics are not aligned. ;-) –  Mick Commented Mar 27, 2017 at 17:19

My advice is to ask your supervisor. If she really does not want to go on the paper, ask other colleagues who might have helped you. If she hints otherwise, include her. Being alone on that paper might raise your reputation in a way, but it might also give the impression that you are grandiose and ungrateful and not a teamplayer. And that you don't recognize a situation where you can indebt other people to you at no cost. If in your group, everybody writes their papers with ten co-authors, chances are that being a sole author on a well-published paper will invite bad feelings from your peers.

• 7 But the OP clearly already asked their supervisor, so does this advice make sense? –  Tobias Kildetoft Commented Mar 26, 2017 at 19:50
• Honestly, I think this answer is mostly nonsense. Authorship is an important thing, and it's important that every person listed as an author made actual contributions to the paper. Advisors often contribute (e.g., through general discussion) more than the student thinks but, in this case, the advisor has already said that she doesn't feel she should be an author. Looking around for other people to list as authors is even worse. And no reasonable person is going to come to judgements or jealousy because of one paper. –  David Richerby Commented Mar 27, 2017 at 9:03
• In any case, it's very unlikely that somebody would write a single-author paper in an environment where most papers have ten authors. In that sort of environment, almost all research begins as a group project, so there are multiple authors from day one. –  David Richerby Commented Mar 27, 2017 at 9:04

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged publications advisor authorship .

• Featured on Meta
• Bringing clarity to status tag usage on meta sites
• We've made changes to our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy - July 2024
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process

Hot Network Questions

• MOSFETs keep shorting way below rated current
• Density matrices and locality
• How to cite a book if only its chapters have DOIs?
• Whats the purpose of slots in wings?
• Were there mistakes in converting Dijkstra's Algol-60 compiler to Pascal?
• Simple JSON parser in lisp
• Does the expansion of space imply anything about the dimensionality of the Universe?
• Has technology regressed in the Alien universe?
• Stargate "instructional" videos
• How to read data from Philips P2000C over its serial port to a modern computer?
• Is a *magnetized* ferrite less ideal as a core?
• How predictable are the voting records of members of the US legislative branch?
• Advice needed: Team needs developers, but company isn't posting jobs
• What majority age is taken into consideration when travelling from country to country?
• Giant War-Marbles of Doom: What's the Biggest possible Spherical Vehicle we could Build?
• Does each unique instance of Nietzsche's superman have the same virtues and values?
• What's wrong with my app authentication scheme?
• Proof that a Function is Uniformly Continuous
• Venus’ LIP period starts today, can we save the Venusians?
• Polar coordinate plot incorrectly plotting with PGF Plots
• Why does the definition of a braided monoidal category not mention the braid equation?
• 90/180 day rule with student resident permit, how strict it is applied
• Does the Ghost achievement require no kills?
• Dial “M” for murder

PhD Program

Accelerate progress.

Adapting to rapid change requires unwavering conviction. And that goes double for creating it. Make a global impact and leave the world a better place than you found it. A PhD can get you there.

The Duke Difference

World-class research.

Cultivate new possibilities in computer engineering, engineering physics and microelectronics.

Mentoring, from Day One

An early introduction to research with a team that’s dedicated to your success.

Interdisciplinary Environment

Cross-disciplinary approaches foster innovation. Experience our unique learning and research ecosystems.

Comprehensive Mentorship & Support

Comprehensive mentoring is a cornerstone of the Duke ECE PhD experience. Once admitted, we help you assemble your Advising Team. Your team will include your research adviser, your departmental adviser, the director of graduate studies, a five-member dissertation committee, and the department chair.

Additional High-Value Resources

• Conference and travel support
• Grant supported traineeship programs
• Graduate certificate programs in tissue engineering, nanoscience and photonics

Certificates & Training Programs

Certificate in photonics.

Offered through the Duke Fitzpatrick Institute of Photonics

Certificate in Nanoscience

Offered through the Duke Graduate School

AI for Understanding and Designing Materials

Traineeship for the Advancement of Surgical Technology

Doctor of Philosophy in Electrical and Computer Engineering

The information below is a summary of the formal degree requirements for the PhD in ECE.

Requirements Overview

• Complete approved courses for PhD degree
• Complete  Responsible Conduct of Research  (RCR) training
• Complete the Qualifying Examination (QE)
• Establish and meet with a Supervisory Committee
• Complete the Preliminary Examination
• Complete two Teaching Assistantship assignments
• Prepare and defend a dissertation [ dissertation guidelines ]
• Complete the  Final Examination

For students  matriculating with a bachelor’s degree , a minimum of 10 courses are required, as follows:

• Six graduate-level courses in ECE (500-level or higher)
• Two approved graduate-level technical electives (500-level or higher, technical in nature, and chosen to provide a coherent program of study)
• Two approved electives (chosen to provide a coherent program of study)

For students  matriculating with a master’s degree from another institution , a minimum of five (5) courses are required, as follows:

• Three graduate-level courses in ECE (500-level or higher)
• One approved graduate-level technical elective (500-level or higher, technical in nature, and chosen to provide a coherent program of study)
• One approved elective (chosen to provide a coherent program of study)

A program of study detailing the planned/completed coursework must be approved at the Qualifying Exam (bring to exam with advisor’s signature) and Preliminary Exam stages of the PhD.

Access the  ECE PhD Program of Study

Important Notes:

• Courses must be worth 3 (or more) graduate semester hours
• Courses must be graded (Credit/No Credit or audited courses may not count toward the Program of Study)
• ECE 899 Independent Study can be used to satisfy only the Approved Elective requirement
• Undergraduate Courses (numbered 499 or lower) require DGS and Graduate School permission for enrollment and may have special restrictions
• Overall Program of Study must indicate adequate breadth, including some courses distinctly outside student’s main curricular area and research topic
• Course selection must be formally approved by a student’s adviser and the DGS through the submission and approval of a Program of Study (Qualifying Exam committee approves the first draft version as part of the exam process)
• Student must maintain a 3.0 GPA in order to remain in good standing and to graduate

Qualifying Examination

The purpose of the Qualifying Exam is to assess the potential to succeed in the PhD program by having students demonstrate:

• Reading and deeply understanding three selected papers in the field
• Understanding the strengths and shortcomings of the three papers
• Understanding why the particular problem space defined by the three papers is important
• Generating sound research ideas based on the strengths and shortcomings of the three papers
• Writing and presenting information supporting the points above

Qualifying Exam Details

• Qualifying Exam Guidelines
• QE Student Procedural Guidelines (step-by-step how-to document)
• QE Details Approval/Submission Form

Supervisory Committee

The supervisory committee is formed in preparation for the preliminary examination and must consist of at least five members (including the student’s advisor), at least three of which must be graduate ECE faculty members.

In addition, as required by The Graduate School, at least one (1) member of the committee must be from either another department or a clearly separate field of study within the Duke ECE Department. Committees are proposed using the  Committee Approval Form .

Note:  While the Graduate School’s Committee Approval Form lists a minimum of four (4) committee members, the ECE Department requires five (5) committee members.

Teaching Assistantship

All PhD students must complete two semesters of a Teaching Assistantship (TA) prior to graduation. We provide training before you enter an undergraduate classroom for the first time.

The student is expected to complete this requirement sometime during his or her third through the eighth semester. Teaching Assistantships will be assigned by the DGS based on the background and interests of the student and the current department needs.

Teaching Assistantships are expected to require 10 hours per week on average and may involve such activities as organizing and leading discussion sections, grading homework and quizzes, assisting in the development of course materials, supervising laboratory sessions and so forth.

TA training information »

Preliminary Examination

The preliminary examination, which must be completed by the end of academic year three, consists of (1) a written dissertation research proposal and 2) an oral presentation and defense of this proposal to an approved five-member faculty committee.

The written dissertation research proposal should consist of a 10-page (maximum) report plus appendices providing additional supporting information as well as an anticipated timeline for completion of all PhD degree requirements.

The oral presentation, approximately 45 minutes with extra time allotted for questions posed by the committee throughout and after the presentation, should reflect the contents of the report.

• Preliminary Exam Description
• Preliminary Exam Student Procedural Guidelines
• Graduate School PhD Committee Approval Form
• Preliminary Exam Details Form
• Preliminary Exam Outcome Form
• Preliminary Exam Rubric

Final Examination

The student must follow the Graduate School’s guidelines for submitting the dissertation and scheduling the Final Examination, including submitting the departmental defense announcement to the ECE Graduate Office and uploading the dissertation at least two weeks prior to the defense.

• Final Exam Student Procedural Guidelines
• Graduate School Guide for Electronic Submission of Theses and Dissertations
• Graduate School PhD Committee Change Form
• Final Exam Details Form
• Departmental Defense Announcement

Note:  Details concerning important dates and deadlines, filing of intention to graduate, committee approval, and additional details may be found in the  Graduate Bulletin .

PhD Contacts

Angela Chanh, M.Ed.

Assistant Director of Graduate Studies

Michael E. Gehm

Director of Graduate Studies, Professor of ECE

Kevyn Light

Senior Program Coordinator

Graduate Program Coordinator

‘Jamaica to the world’

A small town on a small island celebrates kamala harris’ meteoric rise.

By Fredreka Schouten, Zoë Todd, Curt Merrill and Byron Manley, CNN

Published August 17, 2024

BROWN’S TOWN, Jamaica — Three and a half years ago, Sherman Harris gathered together a clutch of family and friends at his home on a hilltop here in rural Jamaica to watch his cousin step into history.

As Kamala Harris took the oath of office as vice president of the United States, the room erupted in screams and tears, he recalled.

“Even talking to you now, I feel some sort of tears from my eyes too, you know,” Sherman Harris, 59, said in an interview with CNN. “It's like tears of joy.”

Next week, they will gather again before his widescreen television to watch Harris make history once more, when she formally accepts the Democratic presidential nomination — becoming the first Black woman, the first Jamaican American and the first Asian American to become a major party’s White House standard-bearer.

Although the milestone will be celebrated by her relatives in this town of some 12,000 people on the island’s northern coast, Harris’ Caribbean roots still are coming into focus for the millions of Americans getting acquainted with her after she was suddenly thrust to the top of the Democratic ticket a month ago when President Joe Biden ended his reelection bid and endorsed his vice president.

Already, her Republican rival, Donald Trump, has sought to question her Black identity as the two vie for support among African American voters in states such as Michigan and Georgia who could determine the outcome of this fall’s race. At a gathering of Black journalists last month, Trump falsely claimed that Harris had only recently opted to identify as Black out of political opportunism.

“I don’t know, is she Indian or is she Black?” Trump asked in widely derided comments.

Harris is both. She’s the daughter of an Indian-born mother, Shyamala Gopalan, a breast cancer researcher who died in 2009, and a Jamaican-born father, Donald Harris, an 85-year-old retired Stanford University economist, who has largely remained in the background of his daughter’s public life.

He hails from a family that stretches back for generations in Brown’s Town, a market town in St. Ann Parish, where vendors clustered along the main drag on a recent Sunday morning to sell glossy green avocados, yams and bundles of fragrant thyme.

It's a place Kamala Harris knows from childhood visits and readily claims.

“Half of my family is from St. Ann Parish in Jamaica,” she told the country’s prime minister, Andrew Holness, during a 2022 visit to the White House. “I know I share that history with millions of Americans.”

And it’s a town that proudly claims her.

“You have to recognize individuals who come from humble abodes and really excel,” said Michael Belnavis, the mayor of St. Ann Parish who is mulling ways to honor Harris should she prevail in November. “Coming from Brown’s Town is as humble as it gets.”

Deep roots and a powerful matriarch

The town was named after Hamilton Brown, a slave owner who came to the island from Ireland and, according to family lore, is believed to have been an ancestor of Kamala Harris’ great-grandmother, Christiana Brown, also a descendant of enslaved Jamaicans.

“Miss Chrishy,” as Christiana Brown was known, helped raise her grandson, Donald Harris, who described her in an essay first published in 2018 in the Jamaica Global Online as “reserved and stern in look, firm with ‘the strap’ but capable of the most endearing and genuine acts of love, affection, and care.”

Harris has said his interest in economics and politics was sparked, in part, by observing Miss Chrishy as she went about her daily routine of operating her dry goods store in Brown’s Town.

Although she died in 1951, Miss Chrishy looms large to this day among her descendants, who still talk of her elegant dresses, proper manners and the high standards she set for her children and grandchildren.

“She was the backbone,” said Latoya Harris-Ghartey, Sherman Harris’ 43-year-old daughter. Harris-Ghartey is executive director of Jamaica’s National Education Trust, a government-aligned organization focused on developing the island’s education infrastructure.

Her great-grandmother “believed in getting your books and having a solid education, those sorts of things,” Harris-Ghartey said. “I think that has passed on throughout the line. Everybody always pushes you to be better, to excel.”

Miss Chrishy had several children with Joseph Harris, who raised cattle and grew pimento berries — allspice in its dried form — on a farm perched high above Brown’s Town. He died in 1939, a year after Donald Harris was born, and is buried on the grounds of St. Mark’s Anglican Church — a sanctuary founded by Hamilton Brown and where Harrises have long worshipped.

Brown’s Town might be a small place, but the family has occupied a prominent position there as landowners and businesspeople.

Today, Sherman Harris — Donald Harris’ first cousin — still lives on and works the Harris land, in an area known as Orange Hill for a citrus grove that once stood there, he said. One of its dominant features is the Harris Quarry, started by Sherman Harris’ late father, Newton. Sherman runs it now, and it still produces crushed limestone and bricks.

It’s one of his ventures. On a tour with CNN journalists, he proudly pointed out the three-story commercial building he owns in the heart of Brown’s Town.

It’s to this landscape that Donald Harris would bring Kamala and her younger sister, Maya, on holidays, according to his 2018 essay — taking them through the town’s bustling marketplace, touring his primary school and other landmarks he found meaningful. He recounted the trio trekking through the cow pastures and overgrown paths on Orange Hill during one memorable visit in 1970, as they retraced his boyhood ramblings over the family property.

“Upon reaching the top of a little hill that opened much of that terrain to our full view, Kamala, ever the adventurous and assertive one, suddenly broke from the pack, leaving behind Maya the more cautious one, and took off like a gazelle in Serengeti, leaping over rocks and shrubs and fallen branches, in utter joy and unleashed curiosity, to explore that same enticing terrain,” he wrote. “I couldn’t help thinking there and then: What a moment of exciting rediscovery being handed over from one generation to another!”

Sherman Harris remembers all the cousins playing together during those jaunts to Jamaica in the 1970s, while the adults feasted and socialized. He and Kamala are the same age, born just days apart in October 1964.

What stands out most from those memories, he said, is how smart the girls were – just like their dad, who rose from a rural boyhood to earn a doctorate from the University of California, Berkeley and become the first Black economics professor granted tenure at Stanford .

“Brilliant girls,” Sherman Harris said of Kamala and Maya. Even as young children, they would quiz him on the island’s current affairs, and “I wasn’t able to answer them,” he recalled. “I had to ask Daddy.”

Sherman Harris views his cousin’s ascension as yet another example of “Jamaica to the world,” a reference to the island’s culture, reggae music and food catching fire across the globe. It’s also a sign to him of the Harris drive.

“We have never ventured in much failure, you know,” he said of the Harris clan, adding that the family members are “always successful in whatever we do.”

Out of the spotlight

Even as his daughter climbs to new heights, Donald Harris has remained largely out of the spotlight.

He and Shyamala Gopalan, who met in the 1960s as graduate students at Berkeley, fell in love fighting for civil rights, Kamala Harris wrote of her parents in her 2019 memoir, “The Truths We Hold: An American Journey.” But by the time she was 5, “they had stopped being kind to one another” and soon separated.

They divorced a few years later, and Gopalan became the parent who had the greatest influence in shaping her daughters’ lives, raising them, Kamala Harris wrote, to be “confident, proud black women” in a country that would see them, first and foremost, as African American. Kamala Harris would go on to attend one of the country’s most storied Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Howard University in Washington, DC, and pledge as an Alpha Kappa Alpha while there, joining the nation’s oldest Black sorority.

In her book, Harris “goes on for page after page about her mom,” said veteran California political reporter Dan Morain, who wrote a 2021 biography, “Kamala’s Way: An American Life,” that charted the Democrat’s rise through Golden State and national politics. “She’s really important in her life, and I believe her mother is still with her on a daily basis,” years after her death, he said.

“But she passes over her father,” Morain said.

Harris wrote that her father “remained a part of our lives” after the divorce, spending time with them on weekends and in the summer.

The senior Harris complained that his relationship with his daughters was subject to “arbitrary limits” after a contentious custody fight. The state of California, he wrote bitterly in the essay, operated on the “false assumption … that fathers cannot handle parenting (especially in the case of this father, ‘a neegroe from da eyelans’ was the Yankee stereotype, who might just end up eating his children for breakfast!)”

“Nevertheless, I persisted, never giving up on my love for my children or reneging on my responsibilities as their father,” he added.

Donald Harris did not respond to several interview requests from CNN and largely has shied away from publicity — even as his daughter stands on the cusp of another history-making milestone in his adopted country.

He did emerge publicly during Harris’ 2020 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination to publicly chastise her for joking that of course she had smoked marijuana , given her Jamaican background.

In a since-deleted statement posted on Jamaica Global Online, Donald Harris said his ancestors were “turning in their grave” to see their “family’s name, reputation and proud Jamaican identity” connected with a “fraudulent stereotype of a pot-smoking joy seeker.”

Damien King, a retired economics professor at the University of the West Indies in Jamaica who now runs a think tank on the island, first met the elder Harris in the mid-1980s and said he was not surprised by the public rebuke. “He is somebody who has always been unafraid to speak his mind,” King said.

And among the economists who know him, Harris is considered a free thinker, willing to challenge his field’s “orthodoxy,” King added.

Former Harris student Steven Fazzari, an economist who teaches at Washington University in St. Louis, described his former professor as someone who thinks “deeply about economic theory.”

“He’s not the kind of economist who’s going to talk to you about what the GDP is going to be and what inflation is going to be in the next quarter,” he said.

Harris, who served at Fazzari’s doctoral thesis adviser at Stanford, encouraged originality and was a friendly and supportive figure to his students, Fazzari added.

Fazzari had not seen Harris for years, until he and several other former students arranged a dinner with him last fall in Washington, where Harris maintains a residence.

“It was wonderful,” he said of the dinner. “Don Harris in his mid-80s is just like the Don Harris I knew at Stanford. He was articulate. He was gracious. He remembered all of us. He remembered all of our dissertation topics.”

‘That’s my cousin running’

Kamala Harris’ ancestry has already been thrust into the center of the presidential campaign, as Trump grapples with how to confront her last-minute candidacy and reaches for a strategy to blunt her momentum.

During a combative interview at the National Association of Black Journalists’ convention late last month, Trump went personal — falsely claiming that Harris had opted to “turn Black.” He later inexplicably called her “Kamabla” in series of posts on his Truth Social site.

Trump’s running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, meanwhile, has questioned her authenticity — calling her a “phony” who “grew up in Canada,” a reference to the years she spent living in Montreal, where her mother had taken a teaching position at McGill University.

The mischaracterization of Harris’ racial identity “plays into these tropes of the tragic mulatto who’s doomed and sneaky and deceptive” and belongs nowhere, said Danielle Casarez Lemi, who studies race and ethnic politics as a Tower Center fellow at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. She’s also the co-author, alongside Nadia Brown, of “Sister Style: The Politics of Appearance for Black Women Political Elites.”

“It’s a way to try to damage her credibility anyway that he can,” she said of Trump. “Whether it’s going to work, who knows?”

Dahlia Walker-Huntington, a Jamaican American lawyer and longtime Harris supporter, called Trump’s comments challenging the vice president’s racial identity “condescending.”

“It is also ignorant to think that we can only have one identity” in a society that is increasingly multiracial and multicultural, said Walker-Huntington, who divides her time between South Florida and Kingston. “The America of 2024 is the America that Kamala Harris represents.”

Walker-Huntington said she has followed Harris’ career for years, going back to her time as a local prosecutor and California attorney general. She first met Harris at a Florida fundraiser in 2018 for Florida Sen. Bill Nelson’s campaign and would go on to become an enthusiastic backer of Harris’ short-lived presidential bid.

Now, along with other Caribbean American supporters, Walker-Huntington is activating networks of friends, relatives and acquaintances in the hopes of getting Harris over the top this time.

“I support her because she’s a strong woman, and she stands up for her convictions,” Walker-Huntington said. “The fact that she’s Jamaican, that’s icing on the cake. It makes me feel like that’s my cousin running for the presidency of the United States.”

CNN has reached out to the Harris campaign.

Those who know her say she celebrates her ties to the island to this day. On the eve of her swearing-in as vice president, Harris told The Washington Post that her father instilled in her and her sister a deep pride in Jamaica and its history. Walker-Huntington and Winston Barnes — an elected official in Miramar, Florida, who also hails from Jamaica — said she was quick to banter with a group of them in a Jamaican accent when they first met her at the Nelson event a few years ago.

The vice president’s cousin, Sherman Harris, said he has not seen her for years, but Donald Harris still visits with the family.

Jamaica has formally recognized Donald Harris, bestowing on him an Order of Merit in 2021 for “outstanding contribution to National Development.” Over the years, he has served as an economic adviser to the Jamaican government and helped craft a 2012 strategy to encourage economic growth on the island.

Back in Brown’s Town, there’s been talk of adding Kamala Harris’ visage to the mural of prominent Jamaicans that encircles the grounds of St. Mark’s, her cousin said. It currently includes figures such as sprinter Usain Bolt and Black nationalist leader Marcus Garvey, who was born in the parish.

But Belnavis, the mayor of St. Ann, said he is thinking bigger — a statue, perhaps, in or near a municipal building if Harris wins the US presidency.

“The murals that you see on the walls eventually will wear away and so on,” he said. “We want something more permanent.”

MathEd eagles participate in PME-47

14 Aug 2024 | Maria Digi Anna M Avila (PhD Math Ed)

Kick-starting the second half of the year, eight students and faculty of the Ateneo de Manila University Department of Mathematics recently joined the 47 th Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME), held at Massey University Albany Campus, Auckland, New Zealand on 17 - 21 July 2024. The conference was attended by approximately 380 delegates from 41 countries across the world and was jointly organized by Massey University, Auckland University of Technology, and the University of Auckland.

The theme for this year’s PME conference was, “Rethinking Mathematics Education Together,” underscoring the nature of mathematics education research as an evolving field of knowledge in both local and international contexts. To formally open the conference, the conference chair Jodie Hunter gave a warm welcome to the participants by introducing the history and culture of Aotearoa (the traditional Maori name for New Zealand) and by showcasing the talent of the Manurewa East Primary School Kapa Haka Group through a dance presentation. This was followed by an insightful plenary lecture by Professor Mellony Graven from Rhodes University. In her talk, she stressed the value of long-term collaboration and engagement among stakeholders (schools, teachers, learners, etc.) in supporting the development of interventions that aim to strengthen the teaching and learning of mathematics in South Africa, from inception through iterative revisions to potential up-scaling.

The second day of the conference started with another thought-provoking plenary lecture by Professor Keith Weber from Rutgers University. In his presentation, he argued that proofs should not be perceived as a rigid and static object with well-defined structure and attributes. Rather, students should be allowed to deviate from the standard two-column format of proving and write proofs in a manner that clearly and flexibly shows their thinking. Following the plenary talk were parallel oral presentations and research reports, which allowed mathematics educators and mathematics education researchers from various universities to share valuable findings from their research studies and engage in fruitful discussions with other participants.

Three delegates from Ateneo de Manila University gave their oral presentations on the second day of the conference. Maria Digi Anna Mance-Avila (PhD MathEd) presented the results of her pilot study about seeking evidence of grounding in an online mathematical discourse. She highlighted the key role of verbal and non-verbal resources in establishing common ground between teachers and students as they engage in mathematical discourse in online environments. This pilot study is part of her dissertation under the guidance of her dissertation adviser, Dr Maria Alva Aberin.

Meanwhile, Angel Mae Ombid (MS MathEd) discussed the results of her study on university students’ various conceptualizations of functions and perspectives on mathematics. She concluded that content perspective could play a role in developing an accurate conceptualization of functions. This study was co-authored by Dr Dennis Lee Jarvis Ybañez and Dr Catherine Vistro-Yu.

Dr Dennis Lee Jarvis Ybañez represented both Ateneo de Manila University and UP Open University. In his presentation, he discussed senior high school students’ perspectives on using teks as a visualization object as they conceptualize a sample space. He concluded that the perspectives that emerged allowed students to meaningfully construct an initial concept of a sample space. This study was co-authored by Dr Catherine Vistro-Yu.

Two more delegates from Ateneo de Manila University had their oral presentation on the third day of the conference. Joseph Ma Steven Cabalo (MS MathEd) discussed how senior high school mathematics teachers perceive and integrate Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) technologies into their teaching practices. He then emphasized the need for targeted support for teachers in order to maximize the potential of GenAI tools in teaching mathematics.

Meanwhile, Dr Jude Buot, a mathematician, shared his analysis of how teacher’s beliefs develop over time as influenced by different factors, including varying professional roles. The analysis revealed that having a reflective disposition towards teaching and learning contributes to shifts in these beliefs as teachers take on varied roles. This study was co-authored by fellow ADMU Mathematics faculty, Dr Lester Hao.

Aside from the parallel oral presentations and research reports, poster presentations were also held on the third day, showcasing diverse research studies in mathematics education by delegates from across the world.

The fourth day of the conference started with a plenary panel discussion about the diverse body of knowledge of mathematics. The panel members consisted of Nuria Planas from Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Tony Trinick from University of Auckland, Stefan Ufer from University of Munich, and Vilma Mesa from University of Michigan. The discussion revolved around the question, “Can we draw on the diverse body of knowledge of mathematics and develop a mathematics curriculum?” The panel members had varying opinions about the topic, with three advocating for the inclusion of both canonical and non-canonical mathematics and one arguing against the inclusion of canonical mathematics. In the end, they all agreed that it is important to respect communities and their origins in developing school mathematics curricula to provide broader access to learners of mathematics.

Rhett Anthony Latonio (PhD MathEd) was the only Atenean presenter on the fourth day of the conference. He discussed the development of a four-indicator mathematical creativity test for fifth grade students. The test is part of a larger study aimed at identifying components that promote mathematical creativity in classroom settings. Rhett is guided by his dissertation adviser, Dr. Catherine Vistro-Yu.

Following the parallel oral presentations and research reports was the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of PME. During the AGM, an election for the next PME president and trustees was conducted. Publication report as a new session format was also proposed to be included in the succeeding PME conferences. After the casting of votes, Oh Nam Kwon from Seoul National University was announced as the new PME president.

The fourth day of the conference ended with a dinner night at the Spencer Hotel in Takapuna. The event started with a cultural dance presentation by the Drums of the Pacific, followed by a delectable dinner buffet. The participants definitely enjoyed the night as they unleashed their moves on the dance floor. They were so on fire that the building had to be evacuated due to the alarms of the smoke detectors setting off. Thankfully, it was a false alarm, and everyone got home safely.

The last two Math Ed Eagles had their oral presentations on the last day of the conference. In his talk, Dr Lester Hao discussed the potential connection between cognitive restructuring and visualization objects as senior high school students described the concept of a sample space in terms of outcome. This study was co-authored by Dr Dennis Lee Jarvis Ybañez.

Concluding the parallel oral presentations was Patrick John Fernandez (PhD MathEd), who presented the design of his three-phase cyclical flipped classroom model and its effects on productive disposition. This model could serve as a framework for implementing flipped mathematics classrooms in the future. Patrick is guided by his dissertation adviser, Dr Angela Fatima Guzon.

True to its theme, “Rethinking Mathematics Education Together,” the 47 th PME Conference provided the participants with the opportunity to build new friendships with researchers from various communities across the world and gain new insights about the changing landscapes of mathematics education and mathematics education research. The Ateneo delegates also concurred that everyone at the PME conference was incredibly warm and welcoming. The warmth of these people more than made up for Auckland's cold weather.

After the conference, the Ateneo delegates had a well-deserved celebration in the city centre of Auckland. The weather was erratic, shifting between sunny weather and rainy weather in just a matter of seconds, but that did not stop the Eagles from exploring the beauty of the city. They tried out various cuisines, visited famous tourist spots, and reconnected with family and friends who are living in Auckland. It was a very memorable trip for everyone.

Although the 47 th PME Conference has already ended, the Math Ed Eagles are hopeful that it will not be the last time that they will join a PME conference. They also hope to participate in more conferences, both locally and internationally, in order to contribute to the growing body of knowledge of mathematics education and mathematics education research in the country.

As the famous Maori proverb says, “Nau te rourou, naku te rourou, ka ora te manuhiri” (meaning, “With your food basket and with my food basket, the people will thrive”), Conference Chair Jodie Hunter reminded everyone that we can all work together to create something bigger than ourselves.

Recent News

Leading as stewards to inspire collective action for a lasting impact: ateneo student leaders attend aylc.

18 Aug 2024

AJHS community urged during Assumption Mass to proclaim God’s love through magnanimous deeds

17 Aug 2024

“Come, Holy Spirit, enkindle in us the fire of Your love so we may go and set the world on fire”

Synchronous classes scheduled for friday, august 23, 2024 (memo no. agsb-od-2425-009), baccalaureate mass and commencement exercises 2024 (memo no. agsb-od-2325-008).

16 Aug 2024

Paolo Medina wins inaugural UAAP Esports tournament for NBA2K

Lead coordinator for open and distance education learning (odel).

15 Aug 2024

University Officers-in-Charge, August 2024 (Memo U2425-028)

What to read this national history month.

14 Aug 2024

You may also like these articles

August 11, 2024

Mentoring preservice mathematics teachers for research

The Didactics of Mathematics Research Group (DiMRG) of the Department of Mathematics recently hosted another installment of the Mathematics Research Seminar Series. The featured talk

August 09, 2024

AJHS welcomes first ever Grade 7 co-ed batch to SY 2024-2025

On 9 August 9 2024, a week after Ateneo de Manila Grade School welcomed girls to Kindergarten and Grade 1 for the first time on

August 06, 2024

Psychology's Dr Hechanova named 2024 Metrobank Foundation Outstanding Filipino Teacher

The Psychology Department congratulates Dr Ma Regina Hechanova-Alampay, Professor and former Chair of the Department of Psychology for being named one of the Metrobank Foundation

August 05, 2024

Outcomes-Based Education (OBE) workshop for Higher Education with Mr Johnson Ong Chee Bin

On 28 to 30 May, Mr Johnson Ong Chee Bin, founder and principal consultant of Education Quality International (EQI), an AUN-QA Expert and an official

July 30, 2024

Leveraging Trademarks Beyond Branding: AIPO at the 2024 Philippines Trademark Conference

On 24 to 26 July 2024, the Ateneo Intellectual Property Office (AIPO) took part in the first-ever Trademark Conference Philippines 2024, held at the SMX

July 29, 2024

Empowering community innovation: Design Thinking workshop for PNU students

On 11 May 2024, the Ideation Support Group of the Ateneo Intellectual Property Office held an online Design Thinking Workshop for National Service Training Program

Modal title

Does Kamala Harris Have a Vision for the Middle East?

No U.S. president can escape making the region a priority.

Produced by ElevenLabs and News Over Audio (NOA) using AI narration.

The administrations of Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden have all shared one common foreign-policy desire: to get out of the quagmire of the Middle East and focus American attention on the potentially epoch-making rivalry with China. Even in fiendishly polarized Washington, foreign-policy hands in both the Republican and Democratic Parties largely agree that the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq was an unmitigated disaster, and that the United States should reduce its involvement in the region’s squabbles.

But like the Hotel California, the Middle East doesn’t let you leave, even after you check out. Obama and Trump both made historic deals purportedly to increase stability in the region and allow the United States to pivot elsewhere. But unexpected events popped up for both as well as for Biden, pulling them back in and leading them to expend much of their energy there.

Kamala Harris can expect no different if she wins the presidency in November. But the approach she’s likely to take to the region isn’t obvious. In general, Harris is difficult to pin down—a politically versatile operator, which has worked to her benefit so far, allowing all wings of the Democratic Party to see in her what they like. Critics of Biden’s staunch support for Israel hope she’ll be more amenable to pressure from the left on this issue, while centrists find her reliably pro-Israel track record in the Senate reassuring.

Harris doesn’t come without experience in the Middle East, but a recap of her encounters isn’t especially illuminating. Her first-ever foreign trip as a senator was to Jordan in April 2017: She visited Zaatari, the world’s largest camp for Syrian refugees, and called on then-President Trump to “articulate a detailed strategy” on Syria’s civil war, in which President Bashar al-Assad had just carried out a gruesome chemical attack on civilians. Shortly afterward, she went to Israel and met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Her legislative record on the Middle East offers only a few bread crumbs. In 2017, a United Nations Security Council resolution condemned Israel’s settlement-building in the West Bank. The Obama administration chose not to veto that resolution. Harris co-sponsored legislation objecting to that decision, on the grounds that the UN resolution was one-sided and would not advance progress toward a two-state solution, better achieved through bilateral talks. A year later, she deplored Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, which she said was “the best existing tool we have to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and avoid a disastrous military conflict in the Middle East.” She later recommended reviving that agreement and extending it to cover Iran’s ballistic missiles. She voted to cut off U.S. aid for Saudi Arabia in its war in Yemen, even while acknowledging Riyadh as an important partner for Washington.

Read: Why Kamala Harris’s politics are so hard to pin down

All of these points, taken together, are more suggestive than definitive. And so those who seek to understand Harris’s future foreign policy tend to look to the much more elaborated worldview of Philip Gordon, the vice president’s closest adviser on Middle East affairs and her national security adviser since 2022. Now 62, Gordon served under President Bill Clinton as well as Obama and has written dozens of articles and books. The late Martin Indyk, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel, noted last year that Harris “depends heavily on Phil’s advice given his deep experience and knowledge of all the players.”

Immediately after Harris emerged as the likely Democratic nominee, some supporters on the left eagerly seized on Gordon’s book Losing the Long Game: The False Promise of Regime Change in the Middle East as a likely indicator of his, and therefore her, opposition to deposing unfriendly regimes by force. At the same time, Iran hawks began attacking Gordon as a past advocate of the Iran deal, which he helped bring about as Obama’s Middle East coordinator from 2013 to 2015. Republicans in Congress have already written to Harris inquiring about Gordon’s ties to Rob Malley, Biden’s former Iran envoy who was put on leave last year because of an investigation into his handling of classified information (Gordon, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Malley were soccer buddies in the late 1990s).

But Gordon is no secret Beltway radical. He is a policy wonk who draws respect from many quarters. A Europeanist who fell in love with France at an early age, he got his Ph.D. at Johns Hopkins, where he wrote his dissertation on Gaullism; he once translated into English a book by former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, probably that country’s most Atlanticist leader in modern history. Gordon’s early interests have reassured some in Europe who initially feared that Harris’s West Coast origins would incline her more toward Asia.

Gordon has served only in Democratic administrations and spent the George W. Bush and Trump years outside government, often sharply critiquing Republican foreign policy. When Israel fought Lebanon’s Hezbollah in 2006, Gordon co-wrote a Financial Times op-ed that called Washington’s support for the war “a disaster.” A year later, he published Winning the Right War , a book-length critique of Bush’s Middle East policy that advocated withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan, engaging Iran with a mix of sanctions and talks, and bringing about an Arab-Israeli peace. The book anticipated the main foreign-policy goals that both Obama and Trump would pursue in the region—but Gordon’s suggested Arab-Israeli peace included a Palestinian element that Trump’s Abraham Accords did not.

Of course, a President Harris would have not one foreign-policy adviser but a full array of them, spanning the military, diplomatic, and intelligence communities. And one more name has emerged in the past week: Ilan Goldenberg, an Israeli American Middle East hand who has advised Harris on the region throughout her vice presidency. Harris has appointed him her liaison to the Jewish community and tasked him with advising her campaign on Israel, the war in Gaza, and the broader Middle East.

Read: The Axis of Resistance has been gathering strength

Goldenberg’s profile is similar to Gordon’s, in that he is not an ideologue so much as a policy professional who served the Obama administration in top Middle East–related positions in the Pentagon and State Department. He has long advocated for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He supported the Obama administration’s Iran policy, but after the nuclear deal was signed, Goldenberg also called for smoothing relations with Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states that had been unnerved by the administration’s focus on Iran. This concern wasn’t shared by many Democrats at the time.

Harris’s lack of a grand vision for the Middle East might prove to be a blessing. After all, America’s last “visionary” foreign-policy president was George W. Bush, whose big ideas about the Middle East produced the Iraq War. When Bush’s father first considered running for president, in 1988, he famously gestured at the need for “the vision thing.” But George H. W. Bush, in contrast to his son, would go down in history as a thoughtful decision maker who listened carefully to sharply conflicting advice from his Cabinet. Less than a year into his term, he confronted some of the most dramatic events in recent history, with the fall of the Berlin Wall and then the Soviet Union. He remains a widely praised foreign-policy president among both Democrats and Republicans because of the results he helped secure—including a united and democratic Europe and a sovereign Kuwait.

So far, little is known about who else Harris would draw into shaping her foreign policy, or even whether Harris is likely to assemble a diverse team or one that resides comfortably in a single political camp. Still, Gordon’s and Goldenberg’s long and serious engagement with Middle East affairs suggest that Harris will resist the temptation to simply wash America’s hands of a seemingly troublesome region. Perhaps they are the start of a foreign-policy team that recognizes dealing with the Middle East as unavoidable, and that integrates it with policies focusing on other regions, rather than viewing it as a rival to them.

About the Author

More Stories

Iranian Insiders Warn That Attacking Israel Is a Trap

A Wake-Up Call for Iran

Essays on Government Policy and Food Safety

Food safety is important to prevent foodborne illnesses that can negatively affect public health and the economy. Preventative measures can be taken by government agencies, food-related workers, and consumers to reduce the occurrence of such illnesses. This paper examines the impact of government policies on food safety from the perspective of consumers, restaurant employees and employers, and food processing workers. The first essay explores how food safety recalls affect consumer behavior. The second essay studies the impact of minimum wage policies on service quality in the restaurant industry. The third essay investigates the effect of minimum wage policies on product food safety in the meat and poultry processing industry. 

Degree Type

• Doctor of Philosophy
• Agricultural Economics

Campus location

• West Lafayette

Advisor/Supervisor/Committee Chair

Additional committee member 2, additional committee member 3, additional committee member 4, usage metrics.

• Agricultural economics
• Health economics
• Food and hospitality services
• Labour economics