Figure 1
PAT Theory Operationalization with Multiple Principals.
Table 1
Summary of Participant Organizational Status by Department.
| FACULTY CHARACTERISTICS | MIDWEST U | LAND GRANT STATE | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Faculty by Rank | Former Graduate Program Directors | 2 | 1 |
| Full Professors | 3 | 3 | |
| Associate Professor | 0 | 1 | |
| Assistant Professor | 2 | 1 | |
| Time Working as Faculty in the Department | 0–5 | 2 | 1 |
| 5–15 | 0 | 3 | |
| 15+ | 5 | 2 | |
| Doctoral Students Advised & Graduated | 0–5 | 1 | 2 |
| 15+ | 5 | 4 | |
| Currently or Previously Involved in the Graduate Committee | Yes | 4 | 2 |
| No | 2 | 4 | |
Table 2
Selected Interview Questions and Their Connection to the PAT framework.
| FRAMEWORK CONNECTION | SAMPLE QUESTIONS |
|---|---|
| Contract activities and conditions | What is the advisor selection process in this department? |
| Agent activities prior to contract execution | How does the program promote and facilitate students and faculty to get to know each other? |
| Principal activities prior to contract execution | How do students and faculty interact prior to matching to an advisor? |
| Principal awareness of the process | Faculty: How does the graduate program director assign students to faculty once they submit their top choices? How do faculty make known their preferences? |
| Agent inclusion of principal in the process | Graduate Program Directors: How do/did you assign students to faculty? How do/did you incorporate faculty preferences? |
| Constraints to contract execution | Who typically funds your work? Are there restrictions on who may be hired as a research assistant through your funding? |
| Instances where the contract is not executed | Do you receive targeted applications to come work in your group? How do you handle these cases? Do your peers accept targeted students into their groups? |
| Outcome satisfaction | What would you change to the selection process? How satisfied are you with this process? |
Table 3
Initial and Theoretical Coding Results.
| INITIAL EMERGENT CODES | OPERATIONALIZATION | THEORETICAL INTERPRETATIONS OF THE INITIAL CODES | SAMPLE QUOTES |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissions Process | Quotes relating to the admissions process and its influence on student-faculty interactions. | Pre-contract activities that impact contract execution | We admit a varied pool of students because we want all faculty to have options to recruit for their labs. |
| Recruiting Students | Quotes relating to recruiting students after they are admitted to the program. | Pre-contract activities that impact contract execution | I only begin to recruit students once they are accepted into the program. |
| Matching Process Mechanics | Quotes relating to the mechanics of the advisor-advisee matching process. | Contract execution details | We sometimes prioritize junior faculty’s needs for students over student preference. |
| Matching Satisfaction | Quotes relating to the faculty’s satisfaction with the matching process | Principal satisfaction with the outcome | I was not thrilled with the match, but it was better than not getting matched at all as I needed someone for the project immediately. |
| Veto Match or Back negotiations | Quotes relating to back negotiations led by faculty to either obtain or push away a specific student. | Principal intervention with the execution of the contract | I was particularly interested in a student, so I took these specific actions to make sure they were matched with me. |
| Circumventing Process | Quotes relating to instances where a student circumvents the process completely and enters the PhD program working directly for a faculty member. | Instances where the contract is not executed | Sometimes we see a student with support from day one by a specific faculty skips the matching process. |
| Resource Impact | Quotes relating to the process impacting an individual faculty’s resources (e.g., workload, funding, etc.) | Limitations to the execution of contract | There have been times when I cannot fill the positions I have because the program does not match me with a student. |
Figure 2
Interpretation of the Faculty Perception of the Matching Process using PAT Framework.